While some I know have initially been favorable towards Buzz, I find myself looking at it in a different light.  Of course I have to admit that I am not much fun of “social media” or most of the things with the “Web 2.0″ label.  My involvement with them is mostly limited – checking and posting occasionally merely because a great many people I know use them frequently, and in some cases short of calling them is the only way I have to contact them.  With Twitter I never go to the website if I can avoid it.  It’s hideous, and has already had incidents of being compromised.  I use a Twitter client that is nice, uncluttered, and sits in the background until I’m bored enough to skim it.  Facebook, another site with history of compromises, seemingly changes their layout, privacy controls, and way you interact with it on a weekly basis.  I look at it once or twice a week, but damn I wish it’s popularity amongst the people I knew would wain.  All of this basically goes to say that Google Buzz, from the get go, is not likely to be my cup of tea.  It also should be pointed out that I haven’t touched it at all yet.  I’ve never liked webmail (I find it handy to have at some times), so I deal with all my e-mail via a client.  I can’t remember the last time I logged in to my GMail account via the web.  To be fair I probably should try it, but I’m not one to falsely claim that anything I write here is “Fair and Balanced”.  Generally it’s more “Biased and Obscene”.

Somehow what was meant to be a skeptical look at the idea of Google Buzz turned more in to a rant of my loathing of social media.  I like long rambling posts.  I like actually taking the time to read things.  The short form “thought bursts” or more colloquially “tweets” or “status updates” are fine and well but there is no substance and often times I find myself yearning for me.  Perhaps it’s my background in English literature, but I prefer substance to form, rambling to quips, and long diatribes to a simple pronouncement like: “Social Media Sucks”.

Information, data, the bloodstream of the Internet.  This might not seem like such a big deal, a company that tracks your searches so that they can better tailor search data, making it more accurate and efficient.  This doesn’t sound awful.  Sure, they can associate search results with IP addresses – but with multiple users sharing an IP, and dynamic assignment of IP addresses this certainly doesn’t rate very high on the paranoia scale (except perhaps with the tinfoil crowd).  Of course all the monitoring and improving searches isn’t done out of simple altruism.  They collect the data so they can design ads specifically targeted to search results.  Advertisements are the primary revenue source for Google.  It’s the money generated from ads that allows them to offer free services.  It is the free services that allow them to collect large amount of data to help generate more ad revenue.  The great circle of data profiteering.

None of this seems particularly bad or shadowy.  They are a company, they were created to make profit.  Profit is what allows them to keep innovating, creating new and wonderful things for everyone to play with.  I don’t begrudge a company wanting to turn a profit; it’s the very heart of capitalism.  It’s also not that shady that a company keeps its methodology and the technology driving their online presence behind closed doors.  Keeping other people out helps keeps your secrets in.  Those secrets are what allow a company to gain an edge over the competition.  Give all your best stuff away and everyone can be just like you, and that’s certainly no way to profit (all open source arguments aside – open source is a completely different business model.  I don’t classify either as right or wrong, they have different driving principles).  None of that seems suspect.

The problem begins with the Google services outside of search (though, through these services, search also becomes a bigger piece of the pie).  Once you become involved in Google services you have a login.  You have something that ties you to specific data.  The non-threatening theory is that by knowing you, your search habits, your interests, Google can give offer marketers a way to very narrowly target ads to those people most likely to click through.  For a long time advertisements were about reaching as many people as possible, basically getting your message to every single venue hoping that in all the millions of eyeballs you manage to attract the few who are likely to be interested.  Google, however, has been changing this by allowing marketers to focus their efforts on those most likely to be interested without having to waste time on those who are unlikely to have a need, or are absolutely uninterested in their product or service.  The collection of data changed the way advertisers think.  The pinning of data to specific individuals opens up new doors for advertisers and allows their campaigns to have an extremely narrow and personalized focus, targeting the specific part of the market for whom their product is intended to reach.  Designer advertising, and it’s all possible through the collection of massive amounts of data.

The most troubling part of this is the using of e-mails to collect data for targeting advertising.  As you receive or send e-mails (or conversations as Google likes to think of them), Google bots are scanning your messages for keywords and other relevant data that will allow them to pull from their pool of ads those that most match the content of your messages.  Talk about a trip to London in an e-mail, ads will pop up for plane rates to London, possible attractions, restaurants, etc. Google has announced they are making changes to it, in theory, to make those ads even more relevant.  Now, when there are no ads that closely associate to your current e-mail, instead of pulling up some random advertisements, they now will pull up ads that are related to content in other of your current e-mails.  This is an advancement that will help Google to attract more advertising partners.  The worst part for users is the data mining of their e-mails, of their private thoughts.

“To show these ads, our systems don’t need to store any extra information – Gmail just picks a different recent email to match. The process is entirely automated: no humans are involved in selecting ads, and no email or personal information is shared with advertisers.” said Google employee, Steve Crossan. (original link to full blog post)

This brings us back to the issue of trust.  We have Google’s word that it’s an automated system, that there is no one reading your data or selling it, or making it available.  It’s all an automated system to help target advertising, no human eyeballs peer in on the process.  We have Google’s word.  But can we trust that word?  Big business has not exactly always had the public’s best interest at heart.  It’s not unheard of for a company to mislead people, to misdirect them, and even in some cases outright lie to the public.  This isn’t merely paranoia, this is just the way that some businesses have operated behind closed doors.  There is no proof that Google has done anything nefarious with our data.  There is very little reason to suspect that Google has any interest in “being evil”.  To do so could open themselves up to multitudes of lawsuits if anyone found out.  It would be a large risk to take and would threaten a profit generating machine that Google has made work amazingly well.  When the risk is large it’s not worth taking without a sufficiently large payoff.  Quite frankly, as it stands, the risk is too great when compared to potential rewards – it’s not in Google’s financial interest to betray users privacy beyond what they’ve already been doing for years (and letting the public know this is what they are doing with their data).

The real risk, to me, in allowing one source to have so much collected data, targeted information on individuals. The threat that we face is what could potentially be done with all that collected day.  We have two potential scenarios that I feel are the most credible, potential threats.

The first is the one most often played out in the media.  The ominous shadowy hacker bent on taking over your life, ruining your credit rating, and buying an island in the Caribbean somewhere – or whatever it is these shadowy menaces want to do.  All that data sitting in the mysterious “cloud” is a tasty morsel that can attract a lot of people who certainly don’t have anyones best interests at heart other than their own.  Like any other thieves they are profiteers.  We are trusting that Google’s security is tight, that they are doing all they can to protect our safety.  We are trusting that what they are doing is enough.  Recent events, however, have shown that Google is as vulnerable to security breaches as any other business.  And what they possess makes them a great target for those who would use peoples data for more damaging ends.  The flaw that allowed the attack involved a security flaw in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (which they have just now released a patch for) that allowed hackers to read the e-mails of human rights activists who have been outspoken about Chinese policies.  While some level of social engineering was also involved (which is often the case, it has been pointed out numerous times by security expert that the biggest gap in security is often times the end users), this attack showed that it is impossible to defend against every possible exploit as many times the problem exists in the code of others, something that is outside your own control.  Yes, Google has released their own web browser, but with Internet Explorer still being the king of the hill it stands to reason it would also see use even from the people of Mountain View.

The second potential threat is our own government (or any government for that matter which has some regulatory control over Google’s actions).  Face it, privacy rights are not something the American government has gone out of its way to protect these days.  With recent revelations that the FBI, with the telcos assistance, were garnering call information without following proper legal procedures just shows the contempt for privacy issues that exist in some Federal agencies.  While new procedures have been put in to place to help curtail this, the fact that it went on unchecked for so long shows how vulnerable groups can be to government influence (especially under the umbrella of protecting against terrorism, the latest buzzword in the law enforcement arsenal).  Google has in the past shown it is willing to fight against such things, and only releases any data when legally compelled to do so.  However laws can be changed, and rights eroded.  We may not want to believe it, but the possibility does exist that the laws can change enough to allow government agencies full access to Google’s data, and their data mining capabilities.  The thought police start making their lists and using private communications against us.  Sounds like something out of a dystopian novel about the future, but everyday we are seeing our liberties stretched thin “for our own good” and in the name of “national security”.

The point is we need to take a more active role in monitoring our own data, being custodians of our privacy.  Big business isn’t going to do it for us, nor are our governments.  While they might not have some dark agenda, the fact is we take for granted just how much of our lives are out there, just waiting to be plucked.  We need to think about those things we post online, the way we protect our own information, and those whom we trust with our data.  Simply running away from Google and moving to some other competitor to host our e-mail won’t solve anything.  Google gets focused on merely because they are the big fish in the small pond, but other companies are equally vulnerable to the same potential threats.  The first line of defense in our privacy is ourselves.  We are too willing to trust, to hand over information blindly, just so long as things are made easy for us.  Making those things free just makes it even easier to self-justify throwing all of ourselves online with little thought of who controls the information, who has access to it, or how well it is being protected.  We can’t all roll our own e-mail servers, or calendaring solutions – such things are out of the reach of the majority of people.  We have to trust someone, but we don’t have to trust them blindly or completely.  We have to understand the risks involved and weigh those risks against our needs.  Complete paranoia is no better than blind trust.  We have to be willing to educate ourselves to the dangers and pitfalls as well as learning about those people whom we hand our data to.

I’m not about to completely jump the Google ship, but more and more things give me pause.  I think about diversifying those companies who hold on to my data.  Spread it around as to not put all my eggs in one basket so to speak.  I also think more and more about those things that I put online, or even the things I share in an e-mail.  While I have often advocated encrypting e-mail, encryption does you no good when the other parties you converse with fail to use any type of encryption themselves.  Education and understanding are key to minimizing the risks that we face.  We have to come to understand that no matter how innocuous some message might be seen, data is valuable.  Information controls the world.  We can’t ignore how valuable it is not just to ourselves, but to other groups out there whether it be someone trying to gain leverage or financial gain over us, or if it’s merely advertisers hoping to better reach their target audience.

I am sick and tired of groups that try to regulate morality.  It’s right up there with those people who want to tax fattening foods.  If I want to eat unhealthy that’s my own choice, not something the government needs to put their sticky little mitts all over.  The same goes for morality – and of course the top of that subject has always been homosexuality.  Apparently the American Family Association is upping the ante in intolerance and bigotry by calling for a boycott of all Pepsi products.  The reason for this?  Pepsi refuses to “remain neutral in the culture war”.  Culture war?  Really?  I didn’t realize the gays and straights had taken up arms to promote their agendas.  Because we know if there’s a gay in your neighborhood they are going to do everything possible to  subvert your heterosexuality.  Yes, these people are part of the nutbag coalition that is fracturing this country by polarizing political camps and creating the us versus them mentality.  No compromise.  Winner take all.

My favorite moment from their lunacy was this gem:

PepsiCo, while promoting the homosexual agenda, refuses to give one penny to help those trapped in this destructive and unhealthy lifestyle.

Personally i’ve always felt the destructive and unhealthy lifestyle is one where we preach hate and intolerance.  If you feel strongly about homosexuality that is certainly your right.  But to then try and force your will upon other people is just plain wrong.  We can disagree about things, but to believe in the absolute truth and rightness of your position, that there is no middle ground, well look over to the Middle East for a great example of where that will get you.  Centuries of intolerance have led to bloodshed and wholesale slaughter.  I’d like to think the average person of the 21st century is capable of raising themselves above such petty behavior.

So I say to everyone who reads this, when you’re finished, go out and buy a Pepsi.

The irony is due to my utter lack of anything else to post I’m only being a part of that mass media obsession.

Worse still when something relevant actually happens you’re not sure if you should believe it.  Friends getting spontaneously married, or another friends house burning to the ground.  Yes, both of these things have happened to people I know on April 1.  Of course you are on gaurd and figure maybe they are just trying to pull something over on you.  Personally I think the whole tradition is rubish, we should abolish the 1st and just start April on the 2nd instead.

Without further ado, things that have pissed me off already today (mind you I’ve barely been awake 2 hours) in no particular order:

People who follow me through the door when I first get to work. I get to work before we open so that I can set things up and get things ready for when I put out the open flag at 11. Just because I’m walking in doesn’t mean that we are now open and you should be free to come in. When a place opens at 11, it means quite simply, at 11 you can come in and conduct your business. No sooner than that. It might seem trivial to you, but if you come in and keep me from setting up, when it turns 11 and the customers who come when they are supposed to show up I end up not having anything set up, the place gets chaotic and I spend all day just trying to manage some kind of order. So seriously. 11. It’s not hard.

People who think that 8am is a perfectly acceptable time to use loud power tools outdoors. I don’t care that you’re up bright and early and ready to start your day. Save the loud shit for a little later in the morning. This goes doubly so on weekends. Get over yourself, you’re not Bob Vila, whatever you’re making is probably going to suck anyway.

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but all black sneakers are bad enough.. all black sneakers with black socks pulled up to your knees, black shorts, black shirt and pasty white skin is not a fashion statement. However, if you were going for that awkward emo kid look – well no, you had to have been in your 40′s. You’re a waste of good air.

The fucking RIAA trying to raise the prices on internet radio stations thus killing sources of damn good music rather than the three songs played again and again by the craptastic commercial mainstream media. You know what, there’s a ton of awesome local bands out there providing us with free or cheap music, I will sooner go scour the net for them before I will listen to your commercial laiden shitty ass, media friendly music you try to feed us. Do you know why your sales are failing? Because the bands you sign SUCK.

Customers who come in early in the day and then try to pay for a six pack with a hundred dollar bill. First off there’s no way I can make change for that first thing in the day. Secondly, I saw that big wad of other smaller bills stuffed in your wallet. So what does this person do? “Oh, sorry, I don’t have anything else.” then proceed to put the six pack away and walk out the door. Retail really is a great life lesson in why people suck. A mass plague/pandemic actually doesn’t sound all that bad after dealing with people like that.

People getting married on 07/07/07. Seriously, if you think you need luck to get your marriage off on the right foot you should reconsider the whole idea. Just a thought.

That about covers it for now. It’s a long day ahead of me, and we’re going in to a weekend when a lot of people are going to be doing holiday parties so I’m sure it’ll be an adventure. But Denise finally returns home tonight. I don’t work this weekend. And I have a fresh keg of beer in the kegarator. I just have to survive today.