Info/Law

The UK-based advocacy group Privacy International has released a preliminary draft of a provocative study which includes a ranking of major internet companies on their overall privacy practices.

The biggest bombshell in the study must be the ranking of Google as the worst company — alone in the lowest of six color-coded ranks of companies, in the “black” zone labeled “comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy.” (Why don’t you tell us what you really think without any candy-coating?) It’s another sign, if more were needed, that Google has now taken over Microsoft’s former role in many info/law discussions as the villainous tech company.

Now, this is an extremely subjective ranking. And it is based on limited information in many circumstances. The group concedes both points, notes that these are reasons why the rankings are preliminary, and solicits more information and input. But if the goal was to start discussion, I don’t know if this initiative will succeed or backfire.

On one hand, rankings or grades sharpen these sorts of issues very effectively in public debate. I learned this working on Capitol Hill, where countless groups release annual scorecards of representatives’ records, and where the politicians themselves draw attention to pet topics by releasing rankings of various sorts. The media love them. And once you get people debating whether Friendster really is two notches better than Facebook on privacy (as this study suggests), then you have already drawn their attention to the larger issue you wanted them to consider.

That said, the subjectivity of the standards and the rather harsh language the group uses undermine its credibility. And the release of the report was accompanied by an aggressive “open letter” to Google accusing the company of “smearing” Privacy International in responses to the media that questioned the group’s independence. (I don’t know the particulars of this side dispute, but substance aside neither party comes out of it looking very noble.) It seems that Privacy International completed and published this draft without contacting companies, and only then invited the companies it attacked to enter into dialogue — indeed, summoned them to what appears to be a unilaterally scheduled meeting on these issues in July. (Somehow I don’t think Google will be there.) Finally, the choice to focus on Google so intently may divert the whole project into a tit-for-tat with that single company rather than a broader discussion of online privacy. Predictably, the coverage of the report has concentrated very much on the Google angle (as in these representative examples from mainstream media and tech media alike).  Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land has also posted a detailed critique that probably represents a lot of folks’ reactions.

If this report goes nowhere, it would be an unfortunate lost opportunity. There is a lot of work to be done in encouraging social responsibility and respect for privacy among the internet giants. An ongoing initiative to develop industry standards, with the Berkman Center’s involvement, could bear some fruit. There is little question in my mind that large companies’ privacy practices are deteriorating, and I’m all for holding them accountable for it. But the end result should be an improvement, not an impasse.

Filed under: Anonymity, Berkman, Digital Media, ISP, Intermediaries, Internet & Society, Media, Microsoft, Peer Production, Privacy, Search Engines