QA on Google’s new no opt-out strategy with Douglas R. Grabowski, Jr., president and CEO of Ubiquitour, a strategic managed services provider, with offices in Milford, NYC, and Florida.

Q: Google is consolidating its different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one. It says the new policy creates “a simple and intuitive experience across Google.” Can you summarize the new policy and offer your perception on it?

A: Google has unified over 60 of their disparate privacy policies across their own and acquired properties. The new policy was created to seamlessly integrate all data viewed and created in all Google properties, such that Google can offer a greatly integrated experience to you, its users. For example, is you’re viewing an NFL clip on YouTube, and you live in Tampa, Google can use that information to show you advertisements for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football team. Google is also seamlessly integrating user logins and permissions across sites, such that an end-user can get where they need to be without remembering multiple logins and passwords.

Unfortunately, by simplifying, Google has made the entire process more complex. Google is seeking to bow down not only to legislative pressures but to simplifying their privacy policies especially in light of now having a social network (Google+) and in not repeating the mistakes other companies have made, such as Facebook, with their policies. While this process is a great opportunity for consumers of Google content, it has opened up a Pandora’s Box of privacy issues and concerns. I personally want my web/mobile experience to be as seamless as possible, and knowing I can control what I do or what sites or content I view, it helps me in a positive way. However, from a client management perspective, the concept of “one-user anywhere” will have implications for that person at home and at work using the same Google ID. If a user is browsing financial planning sites at home for their retirement, is that applicable for work? We’ll have to address that issue and many others like it at our client sites.

Q: Some have complained that the opt-out strategy and privacy issues don’t affect businesses and government agencies that pay for its commercial Google Apps services. Is that an accurate perception? Are paying customers being treated differently than non-paying customers?

A: I think that you get what you pay for. Sites like Facebook and Twitter and Google have set user expectations very low for what the risk/reward is for using their sites. If you post a silly picture or comment about your boss on Facebook, and someone sees it and tells them, do you have an expectation of privacy? Similarly, in a corporate or government environment, there are HR policies in place about reasonable use of computer equipment, in many cases restricting what can be done on company time and resources. While being perceived as different, all Google accounts, paid and free, are under the same policy. Company administrators of paid Google services (known as the ‘domain administrators’) have always had access to their user accounts and information, and will continue to do so. I think that the perception of a difference is due to volume (as a very small percentage is paid versus free) than being due to role.

Q: Is the ability to analyze user information really a bad thing? If consumers are using a site for free, should they have the ability to opt-out? Can’t a consumer just not use a site or is Google too ubiquitous?

A: I do not believe that it is a bad thing that they are using my history to make my future better. The one issue I have with the new policy is that my mobile “persona” is being merged with my professional and personal ones. I think that users use their mobile phones more for one-off tasks (“Where’s the nearest restaurant?” “Where can I get a new pair of Nike Air Jordan’s nearby?”) then they do at work or home, and that’s something that would be of concern. Secondly, users of Android devices are always “on,” and there seems to be no provision in the policy for mobile users to opt-out. That’s something we need to keep a close eye on.

Yes, consumers should be able to opt-out, and in Google’s case they are saying that you can close your user ID-based accounts should you wish not to participate. There are other search engines to use, like Bing, for example, that users can use to search, but the ubiquity of Google and the utility it provides end-users is far greater than the lengths necessary to avoid it. So many third-party sites use Google Ads and Search, it will be very difficult to avoid.

Q: The big objection to the no opt-out strategy appears to be is Google is just doing it to make more money by sharing information more seamlessly among its properties (like YouTube, Picasa and Gmail). Is this a legitimate complaint considering the public nature of the Internet?

A: Google is simply continuing to monetize their user data to generate revenue. They have been doing it for years, and will continue to do so. Facebook, based on their S1 filing last week, is doing the same thing. The expectation of using a service for free is that you own it. Users of Facebook think that they are the main reason Facebook exists. Actually Facebook exists for the advertisers. Same thing here for Google. As I tell clients very frequently, don’t send an email you wouldn’t want your child to read. Likewise, don’t post anything or search for anything you wouldn’t want anyone else to see. I think that users are fully in control of their public personas on the Internet, and Google is trying to make usage of their applications as frictionless as possible.

Q: Any chance that this will be changed prior to its March 1implementation date? Are the changes here to stay? Can anything be done?

A: I think that some consumer and legislative groups will influence the modification of the policy (for example, the EU is launching an inquiry). I think that most of the changes will remain in place; however some of the more salient sticking points such as mobile usage, opt-out per site, and web history will be modified in the coming days and weeks, especially due to global information concerns.

Want the rest of this article? Please visit original source!