Google: "Why we're buying DoubleClick" (sans "privacy")

Google has posted a lengthy explanation as to why they’re buying Double Click. Feel free to read it, but here’s my thumbnail analysis:

  • Total word count = 2,279
  • Number of times “consumer” appears = 8
  • Number of times “money” or “monetize” appears = 6
  • Number of times “efficient” or “effective” appears = 6
  • Number of times “privacy” or “protect” appears = 0

Can you guess what is the focus of this deal?

Given the significant privacy concerns that surround this merger, you’d think Google would at least acknowledge the issue in their essay. Perhaps Peter Fleischer or the Google Policy Blog will break the silence.

::: UPDATE: The Google Public Policy Blog let me down. Peter?

4 Comments

  1. Yup, there’s a post on the policy blog. Alas, it’s just a link to the post on the main blog. I hoped the policy blog would provide the answers – I guess not (yet).

    Reply
  2. The only thing protecting our data is Google’s desire to maximize revenue from the data. They want to protect the data so only they make the cash of all the information. My question is how secure is that data over at Google?

    Reply
  3. I fully agree, Dave, that one of Google’s key motivation for collecting search history and other personal information is so they can use it to maximize revenues. And, certainly, ensuring that our personal information is secure within Google’s servers is a vital concern. However, I don’t want to let them off the hook that easily. This is a larger issue than simply ensuring data security – this is much more about whether they should be collecting this data in the first place; how personally-identifiable the information must be; how long should they retain it; etc.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five × 2 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>