Google, public perception and the tipping point

As happens now and then, this post first appeared in Monday's Security newsletter.

As the philosopher said, you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. Potentially a good time to fold? When arguing with people about your cards makes you sound like you're channeling Steve Ballmer.

Our subject today is Google, the "don't be evil" crew that's starting to look... well, if not evil, a little creepy. Privacy International has released an interim report rating the privacy protection offered by 23 Internet companies, and Google's at the very bottom of the list, accused of "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."

CEO Eric Schmidt begs to differ... actually, no. Less begging, more belligerence. According to Privacy International, Google has been smearing the organization around Europe for being in Microsoft's pocket, even though Privacy International apparently isn't too impressed with Microsoft either. (One of the 70 members of Privacy International's advisory board is a Microsoft UK employee -- it's Caspar Bowden, who's probably better known for founding the Foundation for Information Policy Research years before he went to work for Redmond.) The director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, answered that accusation with... well, the words "sour grapes" came up. And he demanded an apology, for which I hope he isn't holding his breath.

I'd like to believe Google, for two reasons. First, I want "don't be evil" to be real. I'd like to think a company with such great products and great talent on board could be a great company as well as a greatly profitable one. I avoid using that other well-known search site because I don't like what they've been up to in China; the prospect of switching away from this suite of services is not heartening.

Second, I use Google a LOT. During the first four paragraphs of this essay I checked in with a Google-based property (search, e-mail or docs) seven times, and the only reason I noticed is that I consciously counted for your benefit. It's nearly a utility, and the amount the service knows about me makes me queasy when I think about it. I wish I didn't have to think about it, but when Schmidt's telling folks that if people don't like it, they can use another service -- well, now you've got me thinking, Eric.

And here's where Google develops the real privacy problem: The more these things come up, the more the claims and counterclaims are headline-juicy, the more users (especially those who might be attracted to business-friendly tools such as Docs or Calendar) start that pesky thinking. It's hard to say at what point the public perception of Google = "don't be evil" is supplanted by Google = "shut up or shuffle off." But as that other search site (the one I avoid) will tell you, you lose your Net-darling status imperceptibly, but once it's gone you're in for some dark times watching the next big thing steal your light. Schmidt may feel confident about Google's privacy stance, but how long can he sell the public on the idea that the company's both not evil and not wrong?