Introduction
Google's ease of use and superior search results have propelled the search engine to its number
one status, ousting the early dominance of competitors such as WebCrawler and Infoseek. Even
later offerings by other large tech companies using comparable algorithms, such as Bing by
Microsoft, have failed to make significant inroads, with Google retaining an impressive 65
percent global market share. As Google gained popularity, it began expanding into a number of
different ventures, including multiple advertising platforms, a digital book publishing space, and
social networking. It has spent billions to acquire hundreds of companies in a variety of
industries, from robotics to smart home devices to intangibles such as voice recognition
technologies. Approximately 3.5 billion searches a day are performed through Google's search
engine.
As is common with most large companies, Google has experienced its share of ethical issues. Its
mantra “Don't Be Evil” was called into question after it allowed the Chinese government to
censor aspects of some of its sites in order to enter the market. Google has also been investigated
and sued by multiple governments based on concerns that its widespread reach and market power
violate antitrust laws.
The hot ethical topic on many Internet users' minds, however, is the company's approach to
Internet privacy and collection of user information. To improve the effectiveness of its services,
including customized search results, targeted ads, and more precise integration of its various
offerings, Google tracks and leverages user information without explicit permission (although
Google's privacy statement informs users about the recordkeeping, and Google does allow users
to opt out of some forms of tracking). Such tracking is common practice for Internet companies,
ut Google's deep access to so many different types of user information, as well as the seemingly
dismissive attitude it has sometimes exhibited toward the public's concern, has led people to
question whether Google violates its users' privacy. In light of the increasing amount of
cyberattacks and the government's determination to crack down on these illegal attacks,
consumers also wo
y their private information, tracked and stored by Google's algorithms,
might be compromised.
This case analyzes Google's efforts to be a good corporate citizen and the privacy issues the
company has faced. The analysis starts by providing background on Google, its technology, and
its initiatives. Google's core principles will be discussed as well as its efforts to be a socially
esponsible company. We then discuss the criticisms levied against Google, including its initial
attempts to
eak into the censored Chinese market, its tracking of users, and more recent
changes to its privacy policies. We examine how Google has sometimes clashed with
government authorities. Finally, we review some of the legal methods that have been proposed to
egulate Internet data collection practices and Google's response to the proposals.
Company’s Culture
Google adopted a decentralized approach to empower its employees. Its corporate headquarters
in Mountain View, California, is known as the Googleplex and consists of a campus containing
such amenities as onsite gymnasiums and swimming pools, an outdoor volleyball court, laundry
services, and even hightech “nap pods” for optimized downtime. When Sergey Brin and La
y
Page founded the company, they recognized employees had to put in long hours to make the
company not only successful but flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment. Thus,
Google employees are provided with benefits to make the complex their second home. The
company strives to make its corporate culture fun and innovative. In fact, two of its core
principles, “You can be creative without a suit” and “You don't need to be at your desk to need an
answer,” demonstrate the company's divergence from a more formal office environment. The
company's 10 core principles are outlined in Table 1 .
Table 1
Google's Ten Core Principles
Focus on the user and all else will follow.
It's best to do one thing really, really well.
Fast is better than slow.
Democracy on the web works.
You don't need to be at your desk to need an
answer.
You can make money without doing evil.
There's always more information out there.
The need for information crosses all borders.
You can be serious without a suit.
Great just isn't good enough.
Source: Google, “Ten things we know to be true,”
http:
www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ (accessed May 22, 2015)
At the same time, Google works to ensure it has top talent at the company. While it reinvents the
office experience, it also takes different tactics in recruiting to ensure it hires the most creative,
talented individuals. For instance, Google recruiters take a bottomup approach when reading
ésumés. Recognizing that top items such as education and work experience do not always
guarantee the applicant is innovative, some Google recruiters start at the bottom of the résumé
where applicants put more creative information. This type of mentality—being more concerned
with hiring creative people than those who excelled in school—meshed well with Google's
famous informal policy of allowing employees to spend up to 20 percent of the workweek
pursuing their own unique projects. Not only did this policy make employees feel empowered, it
led to some of Google's standout products including Gmail and key improvements to AdSense.
However, in 2013 this “20% time” policy was largely discontinued after Google determined it
was splitting its focus among too many projects. It decided to commit itself to putting “more
wood behind fewer a
ows.” Nevertheless, Google's innovative company culture is one of the
major reasons why it has become successful in so many different market niches.
Products
Although Google started out as a search engine, it has since
anched out into a variety of fields,
including consumer electronics and productivity tools. While it would be too long to list all of
Google's products, some of the more popular offerings are described below.
Search Engine
According to La
y Page, a good search engine “understands exactly what you mean and gives
you back exactly what you want.” This philosophy was the founding principle behind the
creation of Google and is a top reason why the Google search engine surpassed its competitors.
Google could not have gained such prominence without an indepth search index of the web's
content. The company creates this index using programs called “Googlebots”—automated web
crawlers that visit webpages, add their content to the index, and then follow the links on those
pages to other parts of the Internet. This process is constantly ongoing, with every indexed page
periodically revisited to ensure the index contains the most updated material. Google's index is
one of the most extensive in the world, at well over 100 million gigabytes worth of information.
A good search engine's index must not only be comprehensive, but also easily accessible.
Therefore, Google uses technology such as PageRank to organize search results according to
their perceived relevancy. When a user types a search term into Google's search box, Google's
index matches the term with what is deemed the most relevant materials and creates a list of
these materials for the user. Each search result is followed by a few sentences describing the
webpage (called a “snippet”). To maintain a competitive edge, Google responds quickly to its
users' queries, with a response time on Google's side of approximately onefourth of a second so
users get information as quickly as possible.
Advertising
Google's main source of revenue is advertising. In 2014 the company earned over $59 billion in
advertising revenue. Google's signature advertising platform is Google AdWords, first introduced
in 2000. Google AdWords differs from traditional advertising in that advertisers do not pay
Google anything upfront, but only pay when customers take action—either by viewing the ad
(payperimpression), clicking on the ad (payperclick), or performing a certain predefined
action such as making an online purchase (payperconversion). This model is attractive to
advertisers because they only pay when their ad is effective, as determined by the metric of their
choice. The twist, however, is that Google does not set ad prices, but rather puts its limited
advertising space up for auction; companies submit “bids” for how much they will pay per
customer action, and higher bids generally get more ad time (other factors are also considered,
such as how popular an ad has been so far). Google makes no money from even a very high bid
if customers do not engage with the ad. Advertisers are therefore incentivized to bid high, which
enefits Google's bottom line. Google promotes the model as a winwin; it makes a profit, and
companies get more bang for their advertising buck.
Google leverages its various product offerings to provide a variety of attractive advertising
options. Companies can choose to have their ads displayed as “sponsored links” alongside search
esults for certain keywords, or as banners on any of the more than two million websites that
display Google ads in return for a cut of the profits (known as the Google Display Network).
YouTube is another option, offering video ads before or during videos as well as traditional
anner space on the site. Mobile is also becoming a critical advertising space, through both
searches on mobile devices and apps that allow advertising. Google is even experimenting with
inging the AdSense model to traditional television advertising, testing its ability to serve
targeted ads and track viewer response over its new cablelike Fiber TV service (cu
ently only
offered in Kansas City, Missouri). Improving the effectiveness of its AdWords service is a key
driver of Google's collection of user information—the more it knows about its users, the more
targeting options it can provide to advertisers and the more precisely it can serve targeted ads to
the desired consumer segments.
Web Browser
Google Chrome is the second most popular web
owser in the world with 25 percent market
share. When Google Chrome was released, it was praised for its unparalleled speed, support, and
security, forcing competitors to scramble to catch up. The Chrome
owser is known for loading
within seconds and maintaining a simplistic design to make it easier for users to navigate.
Chrome is also updated more frequently than most of the other
owsers, allowing Google to
quickly push out new features and security improvements. The Chrome Web Apps Store contains
a wide selection of apps and extensions, providing additional flexibility and functionality for
users.
Email Account
Google's email account service, called Gmail, has over 500 million active users and is the world's
largest email service provider. Gmail was initially revolutionary for the huge amount of space it
offered—1 gigabyte per user when rivals were only offering 100 megabytes or less—and the
integration of Google search, which gave users a robust way to search within their stored emails.
Since then, Gmail has continued to offer popular features such as filters and labels for users to
organize their mail, a variety of addons for special functionality from the former Google Labs,
and deep integration with other Google products such as Google+, Hangouts, YouTube, Maps,
Docs, and Calendar.
Youtube
In 2006 Google acquired video sharing site YouTube for $1.65 billion. YouTube allows users to
upload and share original videos and has become the third most visited of all websites
( Google.com is the most visited site in the world). Everyone from global corporations to the
average consumer uses YouTube to share videos ranging from video blogs to parodies, to
corporate messages to news events. By selling video advertising slots before and duringvideos,
as well as placing banner ads in free space on the site, Google has made millions in advertising
evenue. Additionally, YouTube content creators can share in advertising profits from their
videos through YouTube's Partner Program, allowing popular “YouTubers” to make careers out
of their channels.
Although YouTube opened up new opportunities in marketing and entertainment, it has not been
without its share of controversy. YouTube has been sued by organizations such as Viacom for
copyright infringement after finding copyrighted content on YouTube's site. YouTube's
Community Guidelines specifically direct: “Only upload videos that you made or that you're
authorized to use.” However, not all users heed the warning. To detect and eliminate copyrighted
material, YouTube enables users to “flag” videos for copyright infringement. If, upon review, the
flag is found to be valid, the offending video is removed. YouTube also provides a more
automated system called Content ID for certain situations, which automatically compares newly
uploaded videos to a database of copyrighted material and notifies the copyright holder if a
match is found. Google believes providing tools to enable selfinterested copyright owners to
protect their property is the best way to police YouTube, arguing it is simply not feasible for the
company to screen the more than 300 hours of video uploaded to the site every minute.
Android
In 2005 Google acquired the startup firm Android Inc., which worked on mobile phone software
technology. In 2008 the Android operating system was released by the Open Handset Alliance, a
team of organizations led by Google whose mission is to promote development of open standards
for mobile devices. The Android operating system is an open source platform, meaning the
source code is available for outside users to view and use. However, Google has copyrighted the
Android name and logo, as well as some proprietary features of Google's version of the software
such as the Google App Store. Companies that wish to claim they make “Android” devices must
enter into a licensing agreement with Google. The Android operating system is most often used
http:
google.com
in mobile devices and tablets but can also be found on other devices, including full computers,
game consoles, and digital cameras.
Android has become the most popular mobile operating system in the world, making up nearly
80 percent of the market. Apple's iOS, while undeniably a strong competitor with a loyal
customer base, trails far behind with 18 percent of the smartphone market. One reason for
Android's larger market share is that, unlike Apple and its iPhone and iPad, Google is not the
only company that makes Android phones and tablets; Samsung, HTC, Motorola, TMobile,
Sony, and many other manufacturers develop Android devices. However, there are disadvantages
to this approach as well. For example, Amazon built its mobile offerings, the Fire Phone and
Kindle Fire tablets, off the Android open source code, and now competes directly with Google in
the mobile sphere. Google is also a direct player in the mobile device market with its Nexus line
of phones and tablets, placing it in the uncomfortable position of competing with its business
partners. Still, Android has been a great success for Google, vastly increasing the company's
each into electronics. One top Google executive called the initial Android Inc. acquisition the
company's “best deal ever.”
Google+
In 2011 Google launched its social network Google+, positioning it as an alternative to Facebook
that solved many of Facebook's glaring issues such as lack of privacy controls. Interest was
initially strong. Within a month, Google+ had over 20 million unique visitors,and by 2013
Google claimed the social network had 300 million members that were active at least monthly.
However, there were signs that these numbers were somewhat misleading because most “active”
users spent very little time on the site, far less than average user time on Facebook. An
independent analysis in 2015 concluded Google+ had only 111 million active profiles, and only
6.7 million with more than 50 total posts. By comparison, Facebook had an estimated 1.44
illion monthly active users. Many industry experts have called Google+ a “ghost town.”
Even if Google+ has not ended up posing a significant threat to Facebook, it has been very
successful in helping Google unify its products and better understand its users. Before Google+,
all of Google's online products—Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs, Google Drive, etc.—required
their own separate logins, meaning Google could not tell if the same user was using multiple
services. Google used Google+ to create a single login system. Every Google user now has a
Google+ profile, whether or not they ever access it, and uses the credentials of that profile to log
in to nearly all the Google services they use. Coupled with Google's requirement that Google+
users provide their real names, this system allows Google to track individual user activity across
all its sites, provides a more consistent feel across its services and better customizes them for
individual user needs, and more.
Furthermore, some features of Google+ have become very popular. Google+ Hangouts, which
unifies Google's online messaging, text messaging, audio and video call, conferencing, and other
communications offerings into one service, is highly praised and has a strong base of loyal users.
Similarly, Google+ Photos, an online photo management, backup, sharing, and basic editing
service, is considered by fans to be the best service of its kind. Google has recently announced
Google+ will be reorganized to
eak out these two services as separate products—named
Hangouts and Photos, respectively—while Google+ itself will be renamed as Streams.
Expanding the Product Mix
Google offers a number of other popular products to businesses and consumers. Google Translate
and Google Maps offer automated translation and mapping/directional services. Google
Analytics tracks and freely reports website traffic statistics, giving businesses a market research
tool to understand how customers are interacting with their websites. Google Drive allows users
to store files in the cloud and share them with others. The service offers 15 gigabytes of free
storage per user, and more can be purchased if desired.
Google is also known for its forays into exciting and cuttingedge technologies, especially
through its secretive Google X department, whose mission is to develop “moonshots”—science
fictionlike technologies that have a slim chance of succeeding but could change the world if
they do. Research projects underway at Google X include selfdriving car technology and a
dronebased product delivery system. One of the only Google X initiatives that has resulted in an
actual product so far is Project Glass, which looked into developing a realtime headsup display
for the average consumer. The end result was Google Glass, a wearable computer in the form of
glasses worn on the face that can display information in front of the wearer's eyes, respond to
ve
al and movement commands, and more. Google Glass was publicly released in 2014, and
although it has received only mixed feedback from the consumer market, it is already being
applied to a wide variety of commercial applications, from providing doctors with handsfree
information during surgery to helping autistic children interact with their environment. However,
the device has also created privacy concerns, as the glasses are so unassuming that it is relatively
easy to record others without their permission. There is concern that students could use Google
Glass to cheat by wearing it during tests without anyone noticing. Cheating concerns are not
limited to the classroom; many casinos have banned Google Glass from their floors. Google
ended up pulling the prototype but plans to release a more developed version in the future.
Google’s Initiatives
Like all major corporations, Google is expected to act with integrity and give back to the
communities where it does business. Google has therefore invested in a number of initiatives that
support economic development, environmental awareness, and charitable endeavors.
Google Ventures
In 2009 Google formed Google Ventures as a separate entity to provide funding for startup firms.
The venture capital fund began with $100 million in seed money, and now receives $300 million
from Google each year as well as managing almost $2 billion in assets of its own. It invests this
money in startup companies at the forefront of technological innovation. The money goes not
only to firms that market Internetbased technologies or consumer electronics, but also to green
technology firms, biotechnology and lifesciences companies, and more. One of its bestknown
investments is popular ridesharing company Uber. Google Ventures goal is to invest in
entrepreneurs that can change the world through technology by having “a healthy disregard for
the impossible,” mi
oring what the Google X department is trying to do within Google itself.
Google Green
Google has recognized the business opportunities that come from adopting greener operations
and technologies. Greener technology not only saves Google money in the long run with
decreased energy costs, it also enables the company to create greener products for consumers.
According to Google, running its servers for one month uses less energy than leaving a light on
for three hours, and providing a user with one month of all of Google's online services uses less
energy than driving a car 1 mile. Google also claims its data centers are 50 percent more energy
efficient than the industry average and that 35 percent of its power comes from renewable energy
sources. Google has purchased ca
on offsets to reduce its effective emissions to zero since
2007. For employees, Google offers a shuttle system run on biodiesel, an oncampus car sharing
program, company bicycles to commute between buildings and departments, and the largest
electric vehicle charging station in the country. Other green successes for Google include a large
solar installation on its campus and LEEDcertified buildings.
Google.Org
Google.org is the charitable arm of the organization. According to its website, the organization
“develops technologies to help address global challenges and supports innovative partners
through grants, investments and inkind resources.” Google.org contributes grant money,
develops tools for nonprofits, and provides disaster relief. The tools Google.org offers include
Google for Nonprofits and Google Dengue & Flu Trends. Google for Nonprofits provides
esources such as discounts on Google products and free AdWords advertising to nonprofit
organizations. Google Dengue & Flu Trends is an innovative use of Google's existing data
gathering; it attempts to predict out
eaks of the flu and dengue diseases by tracking where
Google search requests related to the illnesses are coming from. Other organizations use the
predictions to more effectively combat the diseases. Google.org has also partnered with
nonprofits to offer them use of Google's considerable resources. For example, it provided tools to
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to help the nonprofit in its fight against
global child exploitation.
Google and Employee Charitable Initiatives
In addition to its work through Google.org, Google contributes hundreds of millions of dollars
directly to various charities and socially responsible organizations. Just before the company's
initial public offering in 2004, Google's cofounder La
y Page promised Google would
continually contribute 1 percent of its profits, 1 percent of its equity, and a significant amount of
employee time to philanthropic endeavors. In terms of giving employee time, Google encourages
employees to get involved in giving back to their communities. For instance, Google matches up
to $6,000 of each employee's contributions to nonprofits annually. Google also encourages
employees to take time to volunteer in their communities, especially during its annual
GoogleServe event, which sets aside one to two weeks each June for Google staff worldwide to
http:
google.org
http:
google.org
http:
google.org
http:
google.org
get involved in their communities and donate time to good causes. Google also participates in the
Dollars for Doers Initiative, in which companies agree to donate monetary amounts for every
employee hour volunteered. For every five hours a Google employee volunteers at a nonprofit,
Google will donate $50 to that organization.
Privacy
Being a large company, Google has many risks and ethical issues it must constantly address. In
many ways Google helped advance ethical conduct in the web and technology industries. Google
has been named among Ethisphere 's World's Most Ethical Companies for six years running due
to its contributions to the community and the environment. The company also consistently ranks
among Fortune magazine's “100 Best Companies to Work for” because of its fun and innovative
work environment.
At the same time, Google has been accused of questionable activity, from antitrust issues to
copyright infringement. For instance, Google's announcement that it would be digitizing the
collections of several prominent li
aries and making them available online through Google
Books sparked outrage from publishers who still owned the copyrights. Google only made books
out of copyright fully available—for books still within copyright, just small snippets could be
viewed—but the Author's Guild sued Google over it, arguing the a
angement was without the
permission of its members and violated their copyrights. Google eventually won that fight, with a
judge ruling that Google's actions fell under fair use of copyrighted material.
Google has also faced intense antitrust scrutiny from the European community. Competitors in
Europe claim Google uses its dominant market position to promote its own offerings and demote
ival results in search listings. In 2010 the European Union (EU) began investigating Google's
practices. Google proposed concessions and business changes it was willing to make to satisfy
competitors and investigators, but none were accepted, and the EU announced formal charges
against Google in 2015. Although the initial charges are very na
ow—only that Google favors
its comparisonshopping service over competitors—onlookers believe the accusations are likely
to
oaden, similar to the EU's investigation into Microsoft which eventually led to $2.3 billion
in fines and significant changes in how Microsoft conducted business worldwide.
For the sake of
evity, this case will focus on one major ethical issue Google has continually
wrestled with as it seeks to expand its reach: privacy. The advent of the Internet and mobile
technology provides so many opportunities for stakeholders that many do not realize the cost for
this information might be significant portions of their privacy. Many consumers are shocked to
find that web companies such as Google and Facebook track their online activity and use this
information to tailor advertisements or sell to marketers. Other consumers feel that Google's use
of their personal information is a small price to pay in exchange for access to the company's
superior services. For Google—which offers so much free content and gets most of its revenue
from advertising—this information is extremely valuable to its continued business success.
Google's privacy policy details what information it collects and how it uses that information. For
instance, Google shares information with its partners but claims this information is
nonidentifiable to specific users. Google says it does not share any identifiable information with
outside parties unless it has user consent.
Despite Google's attempts to be transparent, there are ethical gray areas regarding the collection
and use of data. Because there is still little legislation regulating how Internet companies gather
and employ user information, it is tempting for firms to push the limits on privacy. Going too far,
however, creates reputational and legal problems. Google has sometimes appeared to take a
cavalier attitude toward privacy. For instance, former CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted as saying,
“If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in
the first place.” In 2007 Google was given a “hostile to privacy” rating by watchdog organization
Privacy International. Although Google is the most popular search engine, one poll found that 52
percent of Google users have concerns about their privacy when using it. This could be a
potential obstacle for Google since consumer trust plays a big role in how they interact with a
company. The following sections discuss some of the major privacy issues Google has
experienced.
Search Queries
One of the major privacy criticisms levied against Google is that the company keeps track of
users' search terms. Consider all of the things you have ever searched for using Google's search
engine. Now consider how comfortable you feel knowing the company has recorded and stored
all those search terms…forever. This tracking cannot be turned off—users can disable their
Google web history to remove any external record of searches and prevent the information from
eing used in certain ways, but Google will continue to record and store search terms for internal
purposes. To be fair, this practice is not limited to Google—many other Internet firms do the
same. However, because Google is the most popular search engine in the world, it is more
heavily scrutinized.
The big question users ask is whether their search terms can be traced back to them personally.
Google claims that although it stores users' search terms, after 18 months the data becomes
“anonymized” and theoretically untraceable. However, critics debate this claim because
supposedly anonymized data from other search engines had later been matched to specific users.
Google claims it treats this information with respect, using it to refine its search engine. Yet
under the Third Party Doctrine and the Patriot Act the U.S. government could subpoena the data
if it is deemed necessary for national security. Needless to say, Google's storage of users' search
terms is a controversial topic. In fact, several smaller search engines such as DuckDuckGo use
the fact that they do not track user activity as a competitive differentiator from Google.
Tracking Users
Tracking users has become a major issue for Google. A storm of criticism was unleashed when
government regulators and consumers learned the company's phones tracked users' locations. It
was revealed that Android phones contained locationlogging features enabling the firm to
collect GPS coordinates of its users as well as the coordinates of nea
y WiFi networks. Similar
tracking features were found on the Apple iPhone. The revelations spu
ed legislators to write
letters to Google asking for clarification on how they track users and use this information.
Privacy advocates claimed these tracking features violated users' right to privacy, particularly
since most users did not know about the feature. Google defended its phone tracking feature,
stating the information it gathered was necessary to build Google's locationbased network and
allow it to effectively compete. It also claimed this data is often necessary for certain mobile
applications and websites to work.
Google also tracks users on the Internet. For Google, offering advertisers the ability to
specifically target their ads to desired users based on their interests is invaluable to remaining
competitive in the advertising market. Google also uses this information to customize its services
to individual users. For example, users will see different results for the same Google search terms
ased on what Google believes they most likely want, based on what it knows about them. Many
privacy advocates do not like this pervasive use of tracking, and there is ongoing concern by
egulators and others over how Google uses the information it collects. Google's privacy policy
does allow users to opt out of many tracking functions, but users must actively do so—the
default is to be tracked. This is especially problematic for the many users that do not realize they
are being tracked and/or do not know how to use Google's settings to opt out. All of the popular
web
owsers, including Google Chrome, now include a “Do Not Track” option, which indicates
to websites that the user does not wish to be tracked. However, the designation has no legal or
egulatory authority and has so far remained mostly symbolic, with many websites simply
ignoring it.
On the other hand, supporters of Google maintain that tracking is necessary to provide the best
services to users. These services are often free because Google is able to generate revenue
through advertising. Tracking also allows Google to customize its services to individual user
needs. Consumers must therefore be proactive in deciding whether they place greater value on
their privacy or Google's free services.
Although some people do not appear to mind having their web activity tracked in exchange for
Google's free services, Google received heavy backlash for bypassing antitracking mechanisms.
In 2012 security analysts revealed that Google was using loopholes in Apple's Safari
owser to
ignore its default privacy settings while simultaneously telling Safari users they were protected.
The
owser's default settings prevented installation of certain types of Internet
“cookies”—streams of data placed on a user's computer when he or she visits certain sites.
However, Google's cookies were still being installed. Google claimed the bypass was a mistake,
meant only to help its Google+ “+1” button (similar to Facebook's “like”) work properly on
thirdparty websites, and removed it immediately after it was made public. Still, the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) launched an investigation to determine whether Google had violated a
previous agreement to refrain from misrepresenting its privacy practices to the public. Google
eventually paid $22.5 million to settle the FTC charges and an additional $17 million to settle
similar charges
ought by 37 states and the District of Columbia. Although Google might have
legitimate reasons to track user activity, bypassing default mechanisms appeared deceptive.
Google has also been accused of failing to respect user privacy in the real world. In 2010 Google
announced it had accidentally scanned data from some users' personal wireless networks in the
U.K. Google uses vans with special detection equipment and cameras to drive around collecting
data and photos for its locationbased services. Unfortunately, because of software Google said
had inadvertently been uploaded onto the company's equipment, its vans also scanned wireless
networks of nea
y residences and collected activity data from any networks that were unsecured
and open, including URLs, emails, text messages, video and audio files, and more. Google
promised the Information Commissioner's Office in the U.K. it would destroy the data it
collected from U.K. users. However, a later investigation in 2012 revealed Google still retained
some of this user data, placing the company in noncompliance with the agreement. Although
Google apologized and called this retention of data another e
or, the violation likely exace
ated
its image of being a firm that disregards privacy.
Soon after the U.K. incident, it was discovered Google had been collecting the same type of
information from unsecured residential wireless networks in other countries as well. In the
United States, Google was fined $25,000 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
deliberately delaying and impeding its investigation. Evidence was uncovered suggesting that
Google's collection of this information may not have been accidental but rather intentionally set
up by Google engineers. Google asked the FCC to keep its findings confidential, but later
preemptively released them itself after the FCC refused. The investigation led to a $7 million
settlement among Google, the FCC, and 38 states and the District of Columbia. At least seven
other countries also found Google guilty of similar activity in their jurisdictions.
Yet another privacyrelated incident for Google involved the Google Play App Store. A
developer who started selling a mobile application through Google's app store was shocked by
the amount of information he was given about his customers, including their names, locations,
and email addresses, even though nowhere in the app buying process were customers asked to
give consent to release that information. The developer argued that this practice violated
Google's privacy policy, which stated that identifiable information would never be given to third
parties without user consent. Some privacy experts agreed with the developer; others did not,
stating that the information shared was minimal and of the type commonly expected to be given
out in making any purchase. Still, Google's approach to privacy continues to be a subject of
controversy and debate.
Privacy Audits
Although Google has faced lawsuits from consumers claiming the company violated their
privacy rights, a lack of Internet legislation enables Google to continue many of its practices.
However, Google found itself in trouble with governmental authorities after allegedly violating
its own privacy policies. In 2010 Google launched the failed social networking platform Google
Buzz. Users with Gmail accounts received an email that gave them the option to join or decline
joining the social network. However, most of those who chose to join were unaware that the
identities of their frequent contacts on Gmail would be made publicly available on the Internet
through Google Buzz. Although users could opt out of having this information released, they
claimed the optout features were difficult to locate. Other accusations claimed that even those
users who opted out of joining Google Buzz were still enrolled in certain features of the social
network, and that those who requested to leave the network were not fully removed.
Although Google worked to fix these problems after many user complaints, the FTC launched an
investigation. It found Google had acted deceptively and violated its own privacy policies.
Google agreed to settle with the FTC by agreeing to never again misrepresent its privacy
practices and allowing approved thirdparty firms to conduct privacy audits every other year
egarding how the company uses information. These audits will take place for 20 years from the
date of the settlement. That same year, Facebook agreed to a similar deal after allegedly violating
its users' rights to privacy, and other companies have since become subject to privacy audits as
well. If Google's audits reveal problems, the FTC may impose fines of $16,000 for each violation
per day.
These audits are a blow to Google's operations. As one of the first Internet companies to have
this kind of audit imposed on it, the company will have to tread carefully regarding how it
collects and uses information. On the other hand, Google might choose to see this as an
opportunity to improve its internal controls and privacy practices to ensure user information is
espected. Doing so could gain more trust from users and prevent future legislative action against
the company. So far, Google's record in honoring the settlement is mixed. Its 2012 privacy audit
found no issues, but that same year the FTC found Google's bypassing of the Safari
owser's
default privacy controls to be a violation of the agreement and fined the company for it. As one
of the world's largest Internet companies, the actions Google takes in this area will significantly
impact the future activities of other companies.
For Many Privacy Policies to One
For the majority of its history, Google has had separate privacy policies for most of its products,
each detailing how Google collects and uses information for that product. By 2012 Google's
apid growth and expansion from just search into an Internet behemoth had resulted in over 70
separate Google privacy policies across its offerings. This was beneficial in one sense, as
consumers who took the time to read the policies could understand in great detail how Google
was operating each product. On the other hand, the overwhelming amount of policies was
confusing, tedious, and timeconsuming to sift through, and the average consumer would have
een hardpressed to decipher them.
In 2012 Google announced it was unifying its myriad privacy policies into just one, which would
govern Google's practices across its entire organization. At first glance, this seemed like an
efficient change. However, it had many subtler implications that sparked widespread concern.
Could consumers still opt out of specific informationsharing in individual products? Did the
new policy adequately explain all the different ways Google gathered and shared information so
consumers could be properly informed? Did the new policy expand Google's
informationgathering power under the guise of making things simpler?
One especially concerning aspect of Google's new policy was that it allowed the company to take
all the information it gathered on its users across all its products and combine them together.
Coupled with the new unified login system based on Google+, the new privacy policy allowed
Google to use information on a much larger and more encompassing scale. Users' Google
searches might affect the ads they see on their Android phones, YouTube
owsing histories
could be combined with Gmail activity to better understand user interests, and more. Was this
“allseeing eye” approach acceptable, especially for such a large company with so many widely
used services?
Understandably, the announcement of a unified privacy policy led to considerable backlash.
Google received letters from Congress members and U.S. attorneys general asking questions and
expressing concern about the new policy. Competitors such as Microsoft took advantage of the
situation to run ads drawing consumer attention to Google's potentially unsettling approach to
user privacy. The EU asked Google to delay implementation of the policy until it could study and
etter understand its implications. In defending itself, Google emphasized that it was not
gathering any more information than before, nor was it making any changes to existing user
ability to opt out of informationsharing or use productspecific privacy settings. It was merely
making its existing practices simpler and clearer for customers to understand, as well as
improving its own ability to serve users by unifying the information it gathered across offerings.
It argued the new policy was in legal compliance and refused to delay the transition. On March 1,
2012, the unified policy took effect.
Google's new privacy policy was poorly received in Europe. The EU Justice Commissioner
questioned the legality of Google's new policy according to EU law. French data regulators
launched an investigation concerning the new policy, believing the policy might not adhere to
EU Internet transparency and privacy laws. Google maintained its new policy met EU
egulations. However, in 2013 six European countries banded together to take legal action
against Google for not complying with the requests of the government. Google has since been
fined by several European countries for
eaking their privacy or data protection laws, including
nearly $1 million by Spain and $204,000 by France. The Netherlands threatened a fine of up to
$15 million if Google does not comply with its desired changes. The company na
owly avoided
yet another fine in the U.K. by agreeing to change its privacy policy for U.K. users, and there are
signs it may make such a change Europewide in an attempt to allay the concerns of the EU and
its member nations. Google has learned that activities which are legal in one country might not
e legal in another.
The public's reaction to Google's unified privacy policy once again
ings to light the more
general debate over the company's gathering and use of user information. Supporters argue that
Google uses this information to create improved services for users. It helps the firm remain
competitive with strong rivals such as Apple and Facebook. Critics are concerned that Google is
constantly ove
eaching and seems to have little actual concern for user privacy, only slowing or
acktracking when it is forced to by consumer backlash or governmental regulators. Critics are
also wo
ied by the ease with which Google appears to change its policies, which could spell
trouble for users and their privacy rights. These concerns are especially serious because so many
users depend on some aspect of Google, whether it be Gmail, Google+, Android phones, or other
services.
Right to Be Forgotten
In 2014 the European Union's highest court ruled that EU citizens have a “right to be forgotten.”
In other words, consumers have the right to prevent certain types of content from showing up in
online search results. Such content includes results that are inadequate, i
elevant, no longer
elevant, or excessive. The court decision allows individuals to petition search engines to remove
such content from search results, and if refused, to take the matter to a local data protection
authority for adjudication.
The court decision sent shockwaves through the Internet search community. Was this censorship,
or the beginning of an acknowledgment that search engines have a duty to atleast somewhat
curate their results? Was this a victory for privacy, or a defeat for freedom of speech? How will
search companies be able to properly decide whether removal requests are legitimate or stretch
eyond the boundaries of the court decision?
In response to the ruling, Google set up a process by which it processes “right to be forgotten”
equests. The claimant fills out an online form, which is reviewed and processed by a team of
Google lawyers, paralegals, and engineers. “Easy” cases, where the co
ect decision is relatively
clear, are made by that team. Difficult cases are forwarded to a senior panel of Google experts
and executives to decide. For instance, a published U.S. record of the name of a 16yearold
German individual convicted in the United States of a sex crime could be controversial because
in Germany the record would not be published due to his minor status. Google also releases
periodic “Transparency Reports” providing information on right to be forgotten requests. So far,
Google has received over 250,000 requests, and has approved 41.3 percent of them.
Google and other Internet search companies continue to express their opposition to the “right to
e forgotten” concept, and many others agree. Some are opposed to it outright, citing freedom of
speech concerns; others believe it may be a good idea but that private companies such as Google
should not be the ones deciding which links to keep and which to take down. Simultaneously, EU
egulators are dissatisfied with how Google has chosen to interpret the court decision. For
example, Google is only removing links from its Europespecific search engines such as
Google.fr or Google.co.uk , meaning anyone can simply move to Google.com to find the hidden
content. Simultaneously, other areas of the world are considering the right to be forgotten idea,
with varying success. In Mexico courts have ruled for some individuals petitioning Google to
emove content, but critics wo
y the right is being used largely by politically powerful
individuals to remove unsightly aspects of their past. California has passed a law requiring
websites to provide a mechanism by which minors can have content they post removed,
elieving children should not be punished for online missteps. Hong Kong's top privacy
egulator has em
aced the concept wholeheartedly, suggesting Google should apply the EU
uling to its operations globally.
http:
google.co.uk
http:
google.com
It is still too early to say what the longterm implications of the “right to be forgotten” will be.
However, it adds another wrinkle in Google's privacy concerns. Now, at least in some parts of the
world, Google must not only wo
y about the information it collects itself, but also about what
information posted by third parties might be showing in its search results.
Google in China
Google has had a tough time in China. When Google decided to enter the world's most populous
country, it faced an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, Google did not want to miss the
opportunity to tap into a market consisting of more than one billion potential consumers. On the
other hand, Google could not enter China without censorship. If it created a Chinese version of
Google and hosted it outside of China, it would be subject to China's “Great Firewall,” which the
government uses to censor foreign sites. Google tried this method first, but its Chinese search
engine was intermittently blocked and was otherwise slow and inconsistent for users, causing
Google to steadily lose market share to domestic Chinese competitors such as Baidu. Google's
other option, to host a search engine from within China, would require agreeing to selfcensor its
search results in accordance with Chinese law. Such an agreement went against the essence of
what Google stood for—providing free and open access to information. Could Google agree to
censor itself and still hold true to its “Don't Be Evil” mantra?
Despite criticism, Google applied the principles of utilitarianism to the situation and concluded
that the benefits of setting up a search engine inside China outweighed the costs. It refused to
offer localized email or blogging, finding the Chinese censorship and reporting requirements for
these services to be too egregious. However, for search Google decided the greater good would
e to provide Chinese citizens with “the greatest amount of information” possible, even if some
of that information was censored. In 2006 Google opened its localized, selfcensored, Chinese
search engine. Whenever a search term led to censored results, Google added a message to the
esults page notifying the user that some entries were missing. It also left up its original,
uncensored Chinese search engine hosted outside of China, so users could try to use it if they
wanted.
Despite these precautions, Google's plan ran into problems almost from the outset. Google
gained significant market share and became a serious competitor to Baidu, but the company's
elationship with the Chinese government was continually tense, with Google accusing the
government of interfering with the search engine beyond expectations. Google also faced intense
acklash in the United States, including its leadership being called to testify at Congressional
hearings about how they could justify selfcensoring in China considering the principles they
claimed to stand for everywhere else in the world. The
eaking point was in 2010 when Google
announced it had been targeted by a sophisticated cyberattack that appeared to originate from
China and, among other things, had attempted to access the Gmail accounts of known Chinese
human rights activists. Google stated that the implications of the cyberattack required it to
eevaluate its approach toward the Chinese market, and it could no longer justify selfcensorship.
It shut down its Chinahosted site and forwarded visitors to its external, uncensored but
oftenblocked Chinese search engine. As a result, Google saw its market share in China plunge
and Baidu retaking its dominant position. The Chinese government was also not happy with
Google's handling of the situation and immediately began blocking and/or censoring large
portions of Google's services.
Although Google's approach to China has seen little substantial change since its withdrawal in
2010, it is not giving up on the largest market in the world. There are recent indications that the
company might try to penetrate the market through another one of its signature
products—Android. Android is actually the most popular mobile operating system in China, but
it has been popularized and sold by thirdparty phone companies and device sellers with little
direct involvement from Google. Google is rumored to be looking into creating a localized
official app store to compete with the various unauthorized stores that have sprung up in
Google's absence (Google's normal Play Store is blocked in China). The company will have to
emember the lessons it learned in its first failed attempt and the sensitive ethical issues involved
with censorship as it makes its next move into the Chinese market.
Government Response to Privacy Issues
Consumer concerns over privacy issues prompted Congress to consider new legislation
egulating what information Internet companies such as Google can collect and how they can use
it. Internet companies, in turn, are attempting to make such legislation unnecessary by
developing their own industry standards, such as the “Do Not Track” feature now found on all
major web
owsers. Such selfregulation is an attempt to ward off federal legislation that could
seriously limit the tracking activities of companies like Google.
Some of the ideas that federal regulators have been discussing include a User's Bill of Rights and
a mandatory Do Not Track mechanism. The Bill of Rights would, among other things, require
companies to adhere to certain privacy practices. Its intent in this area would be to make Internet
privacy policies easier for users to understand. A mandatory Do Not Track mechanism would be
comparable to Do Not Call legislation, which makes it illegal for companies to sell to consumers
over the telephone if those consumers are on the national Do Not Call registry. A similar law
egulating Internet tracking could seriously impact how Internet companies collect information.
Many states are dissatisfied with the lack of federal action on this topic and have passed their
own Internet privacy laws. California law, for example, provides special privacy protection to
minors online and requires websites to disclose whether they are respecting the “Do Not Track”
equests they receive from user
owsers.
Because legislation could be a serious threat to Google, the company spends millions on
lo
ying and employs lo
yists on its staff. Google hopes to stave off regulation it feels restricts
its ability to coordinate targeted advertising or offer customized services to users. However, with
privacy issues and Internet
eaches becoming a growing concern, the chance of increased
egulation in the future is high. Although Google might not be able to prevent legislation
estricting some of the activities of Internet firms, it can work with regulators to push for
legislation with less of a negative effect on its operations. Google's lo
yists will have a
profound impact on laws safeguarding Internet security.
Conclusion
Google's success story is unparalleled among search engine providers. The company started off
as a small search engine and ranking system and has become one of the most profitable Internet
companies in the world. Today the company is the owner and provider of products that go above
and beyond simply a search engine. While there might be a risk of Google overextending itself,
the company has a talent for making highly profitable acquisitions that increase its global reach.
As a way to manage its various businesses, in 2015 Google created a new publicly traded
holding company called Alphabet run by Google founders La
y Page and Sergey Brin. Google
was made a subsidiary of Alphabet with its own CEO. The founders believe that developing a
holding company and “slimming down” Google to focus more on its Internet businesses will be
eneficial for the firm in the long run.
Google has made itself into the epitome of a “best company to work for.” The benefits Google
offers employees are extensive, and Google empowers them to make decisions to improve the
company's operations. The company has taken a strong stand on green initiatives and supports
technologies to address global challenges. Google's 10 core principles provide a blueprint for
how employees should conduct themselves within the company, and its “Don't Be Evil” mantra
has become a popular yardstick to guide Google's actions.
On the other hand, Google has faced challenges in privacy, many of which continue to this day.
Google is forced to draw a fine line between using user information to generate revenue and
violating user privacy. Because Google is able to offer targeted advertising to advertisers through
its collection of information, the company can provide quality Internet services to its users for
free. At the same time, Google has committed questionable actions that seem to infringe on user
ights and has encountered resistance from governmental authorities on many privacyrelated
initiatives.
With the threat of new regulation, Google takes measures such as lo
ying to try and prevent
legislation from being passed that proves unfavorable to the company. Because Google depends
on tracking and similar activities to maintain profitability, it has a large stake in the privacy issue.
However, rather than seeing this solely as a liability, Google might instead choose to improve its
privacy practices and increase transparency in its operations. Google has the responsibility to
ensure stakeholder rights are respected. Although Google has made great strides in social
esponsibility, both the company and society know there is room for improvement. Google's size,
eputation, and history give it a unique opportunity to positively impact how companies interact
on the Internet.