SO YOU now have a Google+ account.
Congratulations on being one of 18 million subscribers as of July 24
who got an invitation to the most exclusive social network party in
ages.
Google which has had its share of flops since the launch of Gmail in 2004 is back on its game with its by-invitation-only strategy for Google+. Unlike the other social network, where anyone with an email address and Internet connection can sign up, Google+ is - for now, at least-restricted to the elite millions who have the power to decide if a hapless non-user should be given a pass to the party. Sigil of privacy
Never mind if, based on July 22 statistics from analysts, website Findpeopleonplus.com, most of the subscribers are engineers, software developers, web developers, programmers or other people who work with computers and the Internet. And never mind if Google itself tops the list of companies with the most number of employees signed up to the social network, at 9,704. According to Google, the social network which was rolled out on June 28 had been growing by two million subscribers per day until recently. Sooner or later, there's bound to be a demographic in which we mere mortals could belong.
Google+'s draw - apart from its exclusivity - is the control a user has over his account. Under the beta version, a user has sole control over what posts appear on one's wall - erm, stream. Should he wish to post incriminating photos of himself on his stream for everyone to see, that is his prerogative. His sister, who may derive pleasure in embarrassing him in front of his friends, will not have the same privilege. Not on his stream, at least.
There is also Circles, which has been touted as the sigil of privacy in a realm where it is thought to be non-existent. By assigning people to circles, users control who can see a particular post which is great, because people who may not be interested in knowing what book you've read recently would not have to know that you've just finished Bridge on the River Kwai.
But the real power of Circles is that it filters posts that come from others. This is important for a social network that doesn't require someone's consent to be included in someone else's network. If your ex has decided to put you in one of his circles in a malicious attempt to get you to read updates on his love life, his efforts will be in vain as long as you don't put him in any of your circles. He gets your public updates, and you get a notification that an update from him is waiting in your "incoming" stream. But you can always decide to ignore the notice. If this doesn't work for you, you can always block him, and neither of you would be getting the other's posts.
But while Google+ protects you from others, it does not protect you from Google itself. Like it or not, the social network is yet another platform from which the Internet giant could cull information about its users.
The thing about Google is that its services are integrated, and a user's information is shared by most of the platforms. Using Google's services is like giving the Internet giant permission to take your fingerprints and trace your activities. With all the data we have been feeding Google through Gmail, Blogger, YouTube, Chrome, Reader, Google Docs, Calendar, Buzz, and now Google+, it is not farfetched for a conspiracy theorist to think of it as the real world's equivalent of Eagle Eye's ARIIA, the omniscient, omnipotent super-computer tasked with gathering intelligence from all over the world.
Information on everyone
For all we know, Google has already gathered enough information on everyone to rule the world. But maybe not.
How does Google use data from users? "We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services," it says in its terms of service.
For Google+, "we will record information about your activity such as posts you comment on and the other users with whom you interact in order to provide you and other users with a better experience on Google services".
It adds that information provided by others - such as people who put you in circles, or tag you in photos-are also collected to be used as aggregate statistics about Google+ activity and shared "with the public, our users, and partners, such as publishers, app developers, or connected sites".
Governments are aware that Google is sitting on a treasure trove of information and have been asking its help. Google complies.
"We receive requests from government agencies around the world to provide information about users of our services and products," it says, adding these "primarily cover requests in criminal matters".
Criminal investigation
"We can't always be sure that a request necessarily relates to a criminal investigation, however, so there are likely a small number of requests that fall outside of this category," it adds.
There have always been provisions in Google's terms of service that have caused discomfort among users; but resisting the Internet giant would be futile. Short of committing cyber hara-kiri, there is no way to avoid the omniscient Big Brother.
In any case, Google users seem to have already factored this in. Gmail users, especially, have had an earlier encounter with privacy issues - and have kept using the service since.
I console myself with the thought that having a virtual fingerprint is just like having a real one. Unless a need arises for that fingerprint to be located, it remains in the dark recesses of the storage rooms. So I convince myself: There is no need to be afraid.
Besides, with 18 million Google+ users and more Gmail subscribers, there are surely people with more colourful lives than mine who would occupy the time of Google, and that of the powers-that-be.
And if it comes down to it, cyber hara-kiri is always an option, and I can rest assured that Google+ won't retain my data. But it always bodes well to remember, before putting up a Google+ post: your parents may not see it, but Big Brother is watching.
The views are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Brunei Times. The Brunei Times
