"Consumers are growing tired of seeing Google apologize time and time again...only later to engage in the same behavior" says Steve Pociask, President of American Consumer Institute.
What are we talking of?
As many of us might have read on the Web something like "Google fined $7 million", it is a perrenial situations that social media giants cannot avoid. Lawsuits and settlements of such a nature are like an ocuupational hazard to say the least.
So what entails a street view privacy case?
To put it simply, Google has been indicted in 38 American states to settle dues for breach of privacy. This includes "Street View car fleet's collection of passwords, messages and other sensitive data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks as it rolled past homes and businesses from 2008 through mid-2010".
As a settlement amount the $ 7 million will be split between the affected states. However, what's noteworthy is Google's acknowledgment that it has committed a breach. The value of this gesture is beyond the ambit of a mere financial settlement.
Besides issuing a public apology, Google is now spearheading a consumer privacy employee training program and a nation-wide ad campaign to generate awareness in this regard.
Privacy is a critical issue, with a double-edged movement on in the Web world. On the one hand, activists are championing the cause of Internet to be an open source to ensure transparency while individual privacy is a major concern in this schema. The million dollar question is when to draw a line and when to over step it for the larger good!
This is not the first time that Google has been in a privacy breach case. In a past incident it was fined $250,000 impeding a Federal Communications Commission investigation into the Street View privacy case. The lawsuit was however, was discontinued.
The whole issue comes down to taking responsibility in the event of such breaches which most companies don't; the dirt is nicely brushed under the carpet or an out-of-Court understanding is used as weapon.
Google spokespersons officially explain their actions as part of a geolocations project. "The project leaders never wanted this data, and didn't use it or even look at it. We're pleased to have worked with Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and the other state attorneys general to reach this agreement."
The data was used or not is a secondary concern but it certainly indicates a loophole in the larger system of data collection by software companies that puts their customers at risk gravely. Data transfers happen through a heirarchy and which level may create a vulnerability risk is an unknown quantity.
It is a worthy dichotomy that companies have to think about and the consumers have to escape. But how is what needs to be figured out!
Do share with us your thoughts on this issue by leaving a reply in the section below.
Stay tuned with E-junkie for more thought-provoking reads daily.
Post a Comment