1 “Google Versus the Public Interest: One Corporation's Privacy ...

shrewdnessmodernMobile - sans fil

14 déc. 2013 (il y a 3 années et 10 mois)

86 vue(s)


1












“Google Versus the Public Interest: One Corporation’s Privacy Polices and
Individual Freedoms”


Rachel Stowers


Communication 530 Research Paper


Dwight Teeter


April 17, 2012


























2

Purpose of research paper:
The purpose of t
his research paper is to summarize
Google’s new privacy policy and to examine the claims to recent lawsuits against
Google, Inc. Secondly, this paper will look into the validity of the National
Association of Attorneys General February 2012 letter of conc
ern to Google CEO,
Larry Page. Based upon my findings, I will comment about Google, its power over
private and public individuals, and whether Google’s new policy is in the public’s
interest.


Scope
:

This research paper will only cover issues concerning
Google’s new privacy
policy. The paper will not cover the following: 1) government Internet surveillance
2) privacy concerns over social media site, like Facebook or Twitter.














3


Technologies have infiltrated nearly every area of daily life. If

someone has a
task or need, “there’s an app (application) for that.” In December 2011,
The New
York Times

reported that mobile applications are at one million and rising.
1

As
technologies continue developing exponentially, there will be even more means
to
make mundane tasks easier. But what do people compromise for efficiency,
convenience and interconnectivity? One answer is privacy.


Even back in the early 1970s, Harvard Law professor, Arthur R. Miller,
expressed concern over new technologies jeopardiz
ing privacy. He conveyed his
anxiety over databases compiling information on consumers and citizens for
government agencies and corporations. Professor Miller published his 1971 study
entitled, “The Assault on Privacy,” which foreshadowed many issues soc
iety
grapples with today. “The Assault on Privacy” inquired into credit bureau practices
and information storage and retrieval. In his 1971 study, Miller advised, “we must
be concerned about the axiom . . . that man must shape his tools lest they shape
h
im.”
2


Miller’s concerns over credit bureaus seem mild compared to the power
wielded by Google, Inc. as of late. As of March 1, 2012, Google, Inc. condensed sixty
pre
-
existing privacy policies into one policy. Google stated that the corporation’s
new pri
vacy policy did not enable it to collect more information about its users;



1

Fre
ierman, Shelly. (2011, December 11). “One Millio
n Mobile Apps, and Counting at
a Fast Pace.”

The New York Times.
Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/


technology/one
-
million
-
apps
-
and
-
counting.html


2

Teeter, Dwight L. and Bill Loving,
Law
of Mass Communications: Freedom and Control of Print and

Broadcast Media,
13
th

ed.,
New York, Thomson
Reuters/Foundation Press, 2011, p. 393.



4

rather, the Ma
rch 2012 policy allowed the company to do more with the information
it aggregates.
3

The March 2012 privacy policy enabled Google to collate information
it gathers
across all its products.
4

For example, under Google’s 2012 policy, if
someone mentioned in a personal Gmail (email) conversation that he or she was
shopping for a new car, automobile advertisements could pop up while he or she
was browsing YouTube (owned
by Google, Inc.) videos.
5

Many customers say
Google’s new privacy policy encroaches on their privacy rights. Currently there are
three nationwide class action suits pending against Google, Inc. in federal courts
because of its new privacy policy.
6


The t
hree parties filing lawsuits are claiming the new policy is in violation of
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
7

Federal Wiretapping Act,
8

and Stored



3

Privacy & Principles
.” (2012, Marc
h 1). Google. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/


4

Ibid.



5

Privacy

& Principles.


6

Forden, Sara & Bob Von Voris. (2012, March 21
). “Google customers sue over
changes to privacy

policy rules.”
Bloomberg
. Retrieved from

http://www.bloomberg.com/ news/2012
-
03
-

21/google
-
customers
-
sue
-
over
-
changes
-
to
-
privacy
-
policy
-
rules.html


7

Forden, Sara.

Ribeiro, John. (2012, March 22). “Google Faces
Class
-
Action Lawsuits Over New
Privacy Policy.”

PCWorld
. Retrieved from: http://www.pcworld.com/article/252332/google


_faces_classaction
_lawsuits_over_new_pr
ivacy_policy.html

18 USC § 1030
-

FRAUD AND RELAT
ED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH
COMPUTERS



The suit is claiming that Google is accessing the plaintiffs’ computers without authorization
with the “intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar info
rmation.”


8

Ibid.

18 USC CHAPTER 119
-

WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND

INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS


The Federal Wiretap Act prohibits the interception, disclosure or use of information
gathered by any wire, oral or electronic
communication through the use of a device (computer, cell
phone, tablet, etc.). Without a valid court order, like a search warrant or when it is necessary to

5

Electronic Communications Act.
9

In one of the suits filed in California, Robert B.
DeMars and Lorena Barrio
s said they were required to set up Google accounts to be
able to use their Android mobile devices.
10

The plaintiffs of this case argued that
Google’s privacy policy invaded their right to privacy in two ways: 1) merging their
information across their prod
ucts, 2) not providing an effective and efficient way to
opt out of Google’s new policy.
11


In another suit,
Hoey v. Google, Inc.,
the filing party said Google’s 2012 privacy
policy violates consumers’ privacy rights because people could have different
expe
ctations of privacy while sending a personal email than updating the Facebook
status. In another example, one consumer could be comfortable with Google
tracking their Web browsing activity; however, they could be uncomfortable with






provide an individual with a service, it is illegal

to record conversations typically without
one

party’s
approval. This act comprises of telephone, web
-
cam, email and text messages. Google states that
they collect all this type of information in the new privacy policy.


The plaintiffs are clai
ming that they were not given notice or choice on

whethe
r or not
Google could collect this information
and how the corporation can uses this information. In
order to
a Google product

or service (including a S
mar
tphone powered by Android), users
must submit to the
corporati
on’s new privacy policy and provide ce
rtain information.



9

Ibid.

18 USC CHAPTER 121
-

STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL

RECORDS ACCESS


The Stored Electronic Communications Act is a part of the Electronic
Communications
Privacy Act. This

act draws its constitution
ality from the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, which protects the people’s right “to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” However, the Stored Electronic
Communications Act
is not as secure as the Fourth Amendment because the courts and government
are still trying decipher the “reasonable expectation of privacy” online.


Currently in lawsuit
s

pending against Google, three customers are
claiming the company did
not have the

right to “divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is
carried on m
aintained on that service.”

Google, Inc. shares information it collects over all its
products to the many companies it owns

and serves; the plaintiffs claim t
hese practices
inv
ade

their
privacy.


10

Google, Inc. owns Android.

11

Ibid.



6

the corporation trackin
g their call and text history.
12

Not only do critics argue that
the March 2012 privacy policy tramples on people’s rights to privacy, they also
claim Google’s collation of information across its products could engender
unwarranted advertisements and survei
llance, which could increase a users’ risk of
identity theft. Furthermore, Google is not completely transparent about how the
company uses information a person submits when they sign up for a Google account.
For example, when a person opens a Google accou
nt, he or she could have submitted
his or her first and last names, address and telephone number under the
presumption that the corporation will not share this information with the
advertisement companies it owns.
13

Under Google’s March 2012 privacy policy
, the
corporation will be able to use this material over its entire products and services,
which includes advertisement companies it owns.


On February 22, 2012, the National Associations of Attorneys General
(NAAG) sent Google’s co
-
founder and chief exe
cutive officer, Larry Page, a letter
stipulating their concerns over Google’s new privacy policy. NAAG said the March
2012 privacy policy was troubling because it enables the corporation to share
personal information, like Web browsing, email, and content
s of phone conversation
and text messages across all its services and products. The letter signed by thirty
-
six attorneys general stated, “Consumers have diverse interests and concerns, and



12

Hoey v. Google, Inc.,
2:2012cv01448, Pennsylva
nia Eastern District Court. 22 March

2012.

Retrieved from: http://www.nationscourts.com/

m3_April/hoey.pdf
Policies & Principles.


13

Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page. (2012, Feb. 22). The National Association of Attorneys General.


Retrieved from:
http://epic.org/privacy/google/20120222
-
Google
-
Privacy
-
Policy
-
Final.pdf
.


p. 1.



7

may want the information in their Web History to kept secret from

the information
they exchange via Gmail.”
14

NAAG contended that people should have choice and
notice in what information they share and how that information is used. According
to NAAG, Google’s failure to provide an effective and efficient “opt
-
out” opti
on did
not supply its users with a method of choice and selections.
15

Furthermore, NAAG’s
letter to Larry Page asserted that Google’s 2012 privacy policy contradicted the
corporation’s prior statements regarding its respect for users’ privacy, which made
Go
ogle’s products and services attractive to users in the first place.
16


Under prior privacy policies, Google would not use data it collected from one
product to target advertisements on another Google product or service. For
example, if a person logged int
o YouTube, Google would only track his or her
activity while on that particular product under former privacy policies. Secondly,
Google, Inc. would not combine the data it collected on a consumer using one
product like, Web History, with information it c
ollated on the same user’s activity on
another product or service like, Google Maps. In older polices, Google stated that it
would ask for users’ consent before using information they submitted in a different
manner other than its original purpose.
17


In
the past, Google provided users “meaningful and fine
-
grained choices over
the use of their personal information.”
18

Today, parties filing four nationwide class



14

Ibid
. p. 2


15

Ibid
. p. 2

16

Ibid
. p. 2

17

Privacy
& Principles


18

Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page. p. 2.


8

action suits against the media giant claimed Google’s new privacy policy did not
provide an effic
ient and effective procedure to keep information collected
unconnected across all of Google products and services.
19

Although Google claims
this new policy will make Internet usage and browsing “A beautifully simple
experience,”
20

some Google users argue th
e corporation’s new policy is misleading.
21


According to a Pew Internet & American Life Project study released March 9,
2012, a growing number of Americans said they believe that companies invaded
their consumers’ privacy if they tracked their online activ
ities. In this study,
researchers asked Web users how they would feel if an online search engine kept
track of their queries, even if the data gathered would yield more personalized
results in future searches. Seventy
-
three percent of the people surveyed

said they
do not approved of targeted advertising because they felt tracking and analysis of
their online activities was an invasion of their privacy.
22


Google CEO, Larry Page, optimistically supported the corporation’s new data
collecting procedures by s
tating that the March 2012 privacy policy will enable the
company to enhance Internet usage for its consumers. Page stated in Google’s
March 2012 privacy policy information, “the new policy reflects our efforts to create



19

Hoey v. Google, Inc
., p. 2


20

Privacy & Principles


21

DeMars

et al. v. Google, Inc.
, 5:2012cv01382. California Northern District Court. 20 March 2012.


Retrieved from:
http://docs.justia.com/cases
/federal/district
-
courts/

california/candce/


5:2012cv01382/252674/1/0.pdf?1332341131



22
Bowater, Donna. (2012, March 1). “Google privac
y changes prompt ‘Big Brother’
warning:

Changes
to Google’s privacy policy ‘me
an Big Brother is just a click
away,’ l
awyers have

warned.”
The Telegraph
. Retrieved from:

http://www.telegraph.co.utk/technology/google/


9116072/Google
-
privacy
-
changes
-
prompt
-
Big
-
Brother
-
warning .html


9

one beautifully simple, intuitive

user experience across Google . . . In short we can
treat you as a single user across all our products.”
23

Google’s products include some
of the following: Gmail, Google Maps, Picassa, Blogger, Google TV, YouTube, Google +
and Web History. Google Books,
Chrome and Google Wallet continue to have stand
-
alone privacy policies.
24


These products remain free because of the revenue Google garners through
advertising. Google’s generate earnings form the following three sources of
revenue: 1) allowing advertisers

to market their products on Google’s free services;
2) selling and serving advertisements on third party Web
-
sites like AdSense and
AdMob; 3) Google products like apps or Android powered devices. In 2011, ninety
-
seven percent of Google’s revenue came fro
m advertising.
25


Google is able to keep its consumers engaged for longer periods of time by
personalizing search queries and optimizing its products. If a consumer is online for
longer intervals, Google, Inc. can sell and deliver more advertisements, and
thus
make larger profits. Furthermore, through the information it aggregates and shares
across its product and services, Google is able to display more advertisements,
which are specifically targeted at certain users instead of sending out ads to a
random

and massive sample.
26

Google’s March 2012 privacy policy does more for
the company than optimize its users’ online, mobile and app experience. Better
-



23

Privacy & Principles.


24

Ibid.

25

Hoey v. Google, Inc
., p. 5

26

Ibid.



10

targeted advertising gives Google a larger market share of ad revenue, which means
even greater profit m
argins for the online giant.
27


Back in November 2011, Google, Inc. had forty
-
one percent of the national
thirty
-
one billion dollar online advertising market. Even though Google had the
largest market share in online advertising, its growth in search and d
isplay
advertising was declining, while Facebook’s revenue in these areas was growing
more quickly than any other online site. Advertisers began investing more of their
money in Facebook advertisements because studies revealed that people were more
likely

to tap on ads while perusing their friends’ personal pages. According to
Fortune Magazine
, Facebook users are swayed to read and buy based on what their
friends purchased, liked, commented on and read.
28

People are more likely to buy
and view what their
acquaintances, friends and family are buying and watching. On
the other hand, people are less inclined to look at advertisements supplied by a
corporation.


Another advantage Facebook’s system had over Google’s previous
procedures was its users readily
supply personal information when they create,
manage and share their profiles with others online. Before Google’s March 2012
privacy policy, Facebook had a more accurate profile for each of its users; therefore,
the social media site could more effectivel
y target ads to its users, and thus



27

DeMars

et al. v
. Google, Inc
.

28

Helft, Miguel and Hempel, Jessi. (2011, Nov. 29). “Facebook vs. Google: The battle for the future of

the web.”
Fortune Magazine
. Retrieved from:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/


technology/facebook_google_fight.fortune/index.htm



11

advertising companies would get a better return on their investments.
29

In previous
privacy policies, Google could only target ads based on scattered pieces of
anonymous information collected from each Google service, wh
ich was often
ineffective.
30


In order to ensure its advertising market share, Google Inc. decided to take a
similar approach as Facebook’s advertising methods. Under Google’s March 2012
privacy policy, the corporation can aggregate all the information it

collects across its
products and services to create a more precise user profile on each consumer. But
is Google’s new data aggregation method lawful? Critics of the new policy argue
that Google’s most recent approach to its users privacy undermines its
consumers’
rights. Skeptics argue that when people used various Google products in the past
and present, they did not expect or anticipate that their separate and distinct
activity within each of Google’s products for purposes its users believed to be
dis
crete would be compiled into a single profile for each consumer.
31


Google tracks its user’s activity and information by inserting cookies
32

and
pixel tags.
33

The company also collects data based upon what people personal



29

DeMars et al. v. Google, Inc.

30

Ibid.

Hill, Kashmir. (2012, Jan. 27). “Why Google Thinks You’re An Old Dude.”
Forbes.


Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/27/


Why
-
does
-
google
-
get
-
your
-
age
-
and
-
gender
-
wrong/


31


Attorneys Gen
eral Express Concerns Over Google’s

Privacy Policy.” (2012, Feb.
23).
National

Association of Attorneys General: Notable Association News
.
Retrieved from:

http://www.naag.org/atto
rneys
-
general
-
express
-
concerns
-
over
-
googles
-
privacy
-
policy
-

attorneys
-
g
eneral
-
express
-
concerns
-
over
-
googles
-
privacy
-
policy.php


Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page. p. 1


32

Fae, Jane. (2010, Sept. 9). “What are cookies?”
BBC
. Retrieved from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/guides/about
-
cookies.


12

information people provide in their
Google accounts (i.e. name, other emails and
physical address), how and why a person uses their services, what advertisements a
person interacts with, computer and mobile device information, telephone history
(phone number, call/party number, forwarding nu
mbers, time and dates of calls,
text messages and types of calls), ISP addresses, list of contacts, search and web
surfing histories and consumers’ posts and comments on Google+. Google also is
able to collect data based on users’ geo
-
location, which are
GPS signals sent by
mobile devices, including Wi
-
Fi access points and cell towers.
34


Even if a user is not signed into his or her Google account, the corporation
can still collect data through an anonymous profile. On every mobile device of
computer, Goog
le is able to store up to one hundred and eighty days of signed
-
out
search activity used within its products. When a consumer logs back into his or her
Google account, the information Google collected on the anonymous profile on that
particular device can

then be applied to that user’s unique profile.
35








Cookies are no
t programs. Rather, they are made up of only two pieces of information: a site
name and unique user ID. The first time someone visits a site, a cookie is downloaded onto the
person’s Mac or PC. If a person visits the same site again, his or her computer

will check how often
they visit the site. Some cookies are more advanced than others. Some cookies will record how long
a person spends on a Web
-
site and what links they visit. Also, cookies can store data on shopping
activity and account information.

Cookies are not always bad. These coding systems provide more
efficient and effective Web
-
browsing and online shopping.


33

Ibid.


Privacy & Principles.


Pixel tags are a type of technology placed on a website or within the body of an email.
Companies u
se pixels to track user activity on websites and provide information when emails are
opened and accessed. Pixels are often used in combination with cookies.


34

Privacy and Principles

35

DeMars et al. v. Google, Inc.


13


Although Google claimed it does not share personal information with other
companies, skeptics of the new policy argue that the corporation has divided
interests that could compromises its users’ privacy.
36

The corporation said it
educates its users on how to avoid tracking and protect their privacy; however, the
Wall Street Journal

reported February 2012 that Google told Safari users they could
depend on the web browser’s privacy setting to prevent tracking
by their company.
Nevertheless, as reported by the

Wall Street Journal
, the corporation appeared to
contradict their own rhetoric by circumventing Safari’s security provisions
established by Apple, Inc. for their iPhone product.
37


This invasion of iPhone
users’ privacy is just one example out of many that
puts Google’s statements of “transparency” and “choice” into question.
38

Android
consumers have even less notice and choice on how information is collected and
used on their mobile devices. Appliances po
wered by Android are automatically
and permanently signed into their Google accounts, which means Google can collect
information anytime a consumer uses their Android device. Android device users
must have a Google account in order to use that appliance.

Like Google’s March
2012 privacy policy, Android mobile appliance users cannot opt
-
out of the
corporations Internet surveillance and data aggregation. The only “opt
-
out” option



36

Forden
.

37

Angwin, Julia. (2012, Feb
. 17). “Google’s iPho
ne Tracking: Web Giant, Others
Bypassed Apple

Browser Settings for Guarding Privacy.”
The Wall Street
Journal.



38
Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page. p. 2.



14

available at this time for Android users is to replace their device with a no
n
-
Android
appliance.
39


Close to fifty percent of the nation’s Smartphone market is powered by
Android. Mobile devices powered by the Android operating system include the
following brand: Motorola, LG, HTC and Samsung. In three nationwide class action
sui
ts filed against Google, the plaintiffs claimed the corporation deceived its
consumers because many Android phone users bought their Smartphones under
Google’s previous privacy polices. Google’s former policy stated, “We will not
reduce your rights under
this privacy policy without your explicit consent.”
40

Since
Google does not provide an option for its Android consumers to select what
information is collate on them, how its used and how it will be used in the future,
critics of the corporation’s privacy
practices assert that the company is violating its
consumers’ expectations and rights to privacy.


Because of the hundreds of companies Google owns or has acquired over the
years, critics of the Web giant question whether the corporation has divided
intere
sts over protecting their users’ privacy and promoting their advertising
ventures. For example, Google, Inc. owns companies dedicated to improving user
experience on the Internet through services like YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail,
Google Wallet, etc. Howe
ver, the company also owns Internet advertising
companies like AdMob and DoubleClick.
41

Last year alone, Google, Inc. acquired



39

Hoey v. Google, Inc.

p. 24


40

Ibid.

p. 24

41

“Seven Companies Acquired b
y Google in Value” (2011, Oct. 3).
SevenRare.com
.
Retrieved from:

http://sevenrare.com/recent/seven
-
companies
-
acquired
-
by
-
google.html


15

over one hundred companies, and the corporation is not completely transparent
about the amount of companies it has acquired over
the last decade. The table
below shows Google’s most expensive acquisitions to
-
date.
42



Google’s seven most expensive acquisitions

Company

Use

Acquisition Date

Cost

Motorola Mobility

Mobile device
manufacturing

Aug. 15, 2011

$12.5 billion

DoubleClick

I
nternet ad serving
services

April 13, 2007

$3.1 billion

YouTube

Video sharing
website

Oct. 9, 2006

$1.65 billion

AdMob

Mobile advertising
company

Nov. 9, 2009

$750 million

ITA Software

Travel industry
software

July 1, 2010

$676 million

Postini

E
-
mail,
Web
security, archiving,
and cloud
computing

July 9, 2007

$625 million

Admeld

Online advertising

June 9, 2011

$400 million



Although Google’s new privacy policy states the company will not share
personal information with other companies, the corporation

is not clear about how
it uses information it collects on its users among the advertising companies it does
own.


Google’s March 2012 privacy policy advocates argue that if someone does not
wish to follow the new policy’s stipulations, he or she does not
have to use Google’s
products or services. However, NAAG disagrees and asserts that Google’s products
and services have become a staple of everyday life. In its letter to Google, CEO, Larry







42

Ibid.


16

Page, NAAF wrote, “the clear majority of all Internet users use


and frequently rely
on at least one Google product on a regular basis.”
43

In the United States, Google
powers over sixty
-
five percent of all Internet searches. Every week, one billion
searchers use Google’s Internet search engine and more than 350 milli
on people
have a Gmail account. Across the globe, YouTube streams over four billion videos
per day.
44


Since Google’s products and services are deeply ingrained in society’s
everyday tasks, it may be too costly for people, companies and governments to
swit
ch to other operating systems to avoid the March 2012 privacy policy. To avoid
Google from sharing their information, some companies will be forced to move their
entire operating system to another platform. This problem is exacerbated for many
government

agencies that rely on many apps and devices created specifically for
government operations. Google’s new privacy policy could not only jeopardize
citizens’ privacy, but it could place national security at risk as well.
45


NAAG argues that Google’s new pri
vacy policy also could jeopardize people’s
identities too:


Those consumers who remain in the Google ecosystem may be




making more of their personal information vulnerable to attack from



hackers and identity thieves. With this newly consolidated ban
k of





43

Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page. p. 1.


44

Hoey v. Google, Inc
., p. 5.

45

Letter to Google CEO, Larry Page
. p. 1



17


personal data, we foresee potentially more severe problems arising



from any data breach.
46

Privacy rights not only protect our personal information, but our mental and
emotional wellbeing as well. In Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis influe
ntial
journal article, “The Right to Privacy,” written back in the nineteenth century, they
argued that private individuals should be protected against, “unjustifiable infliction
of mental distress” that arises from surreptitious surveillance.”
47

In their

1890
acclaimed article, Warren and Brandeis established their arguments for privacy on
the premise of Judge James’ Cooley’s statement that individuals have the right “To
be let alone.”
48

In her written opinion in
Katz v. United States
, Justice Sonia Sotoma
yor asserted that
American citizens rights to privacy should remain intact even in this digital age.
Sotomayor argued that if consumers divulged their personal information to a third
party online, like Google, these types of corporations should safeguard
their users
information and not use consumers’ information for their own gain and benefit:



. . .
it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual



has no
reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily



disclosed to thir
d parties… This approach is ill
-
suited to the digital



age, in which people

reveal a great deal of information about





46

Ibid.

p. 2.

47

William L. Prosser, “Privacy,”
California Law Review

48:3 (Aug. 1960), p. 389.


48

Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, “The
Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law
Review 4:193 (1890),

as cited in Prosser, p. 383.

Cooley, Torts 29(2d ed.
1888).



18



themselves to third parties in the course

of carrying out mundane



tasks.
49

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion may indicate how the courts

will rule in the three
nationwide lawsuits filed against Google.


Even if a law is passed against Google, the media giant and other companies
often find alternative methods to circumvent the law; therefore, it may be necessary
for more consumers to know

what they are checking a box to agree to a privacy
policy or terms of agreement. However, these documents can be pages long and
take to much time to read and most importantly understand. So how can someone
be truly safe and private online? Today no on
e is truly secure and private, unless
they refrain from the Internet. Even though Internet services and products can
make everyday tasks easier, in many ways they are complicating not only privacy
law, but citizens’ First Amendment rights as well.




49

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967)

Levin, Adam. (2012, Feb. 4). “Google’s New Privac
y Policy: Close But No Cigar.”
ABC News.

Retrieved from: http://a
bcnews.go.com/Business/googles
-
privacy
-
policy
-
simpl
e
-
fair
-

flawed/story?id=15509858#.T3p2yZjKfap