A Group Of Advisory Councillors From Google

What is more, the exclusionary rule provides that the extra evidence obtained because of unreasonable search or seizure will not be used in a court of law, as it will be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In essence, the exclusionary rule excludes any evidence collected out of unlawful searches. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may infringe on one his right to privacy by obtaining information from the individual his computer, as this will amount to unreasonable search and disrespect to the individual his privacy rights. As such, it is unreasonable for the government agencies such as the Department of Justice to obtain information from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or any other online service provide, as this may be presumed by a court of law as unlawful and unreasonable search that amounts to infringement on one’s privacy rights (O 'Brien and Michael, pg. 1889).

The ethical analysis provides evidence in relation to utilitarianism and deontology that the best solution is to keep the requests directed at local governments, not Google and other providers, because the interests, or will, of the privatized company can conflict with those of the users of their service which can be corrupt. As a monopoly, corruption is difficult to offset. Google has been judged based on the events in Hollywoodland (Beachwood Canyon) and failed to agree with the ethical analysis conclusion that this paper diverges toward. The privatized company, Google, has already censored results based on search engine algorithms and should not further modify the democracy of the internet by opening up a window of opportunity to users who claim that results are unjustified or malicious. Google is protected by the first amendment and will be subject to government decisions of legal request removal. This policy is better than keeping the system that is currently used because Google is a for-profit business and the decision makers within Google were never voted upon as majority winners in the way the representative government works today. Google should not be required to censor information based upon the wishes of an individual or group, especially when their justifications are chosen based on private judgments. Individuals must live morally and understand that

Though Google seemed to promote free-thinking and free speech on one hand, they were censoring and filtering with the other. Google lost credibility with the public, thus tarnishing its public image and “loosing 1% of the U.S. market in one month,” as reported in The Business. (2006, Aug) “Image credibility is based on the constituency’s perception of the organization” (Argenti, 2009, p.39). When the public image of a company has been compromised it “can make a huge difference in determining the success or failure of the organization” (Argenti, 2009, p. 40). When the public looses confidence in a company and what they stand for, they no longer wish to use its product. In response, executives at Google attempted to convince the public that they could handle the balancing act between censorship and providing information, and gain back public trust and confidence.

According to the text, Google relies on tracking along with other activities to maintain profitability, it has large stake in the privacy issue (p.471). Google has been working on updating their privacy policy to better comply with what the users want when it comes to their private information. In 2012, Google revamped their privacy policy and combined all its information it gathered from its users from the different Google services. Google drafted a 13-page letter answering all government questions (p.469). Google states that all users have the option of turning off certain features that collect users information. The new policy also states that it would not impact the amount of data it gathers or deletes and that it remains highly committed to user privacy (p.469). If Google can continue to follow this new policy where it commit to its users privacy and not have it clash with its profitability then Google users will be happy. Majority of Google users just want to make sure that when they use the Google search engine, their private information is secured and not leaked to hackers. Google has the power to respect its privacy and maintain its profitability by keeping the two issues separate.

In my opinion, the meaning of privacy of our personal data when we use online services on the Internet is different from what Google and other Internet companies are interpreting the meaning of Privacy to suit their business need to generate advertisement revenue by allowing companies to display advertisement relevant to the web search by their customer on their website.

Privacy in America is developing into a vague set of rules. Each person has a right to privacy, but the question remains: “How much information should be granted to the public”? The answer to this question varies from person to person. The industries, social networking, protection agency, and everyday situations create their own ideology of what must remain private.

Since its creation, the Internet has continuously grown in importance as a means to obtain information. This is due in part because it is not censored like the rest of America’s mainstream media, such as television, newspapers, and the radio. Nevertheless, the issue of censorship has raised many controversial issues, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. In the debate by Intelligence2 (2008): Google Violates its Don’t be Evil Motto, it is argued that Google has violated its self declared motto that it wouldn’t be evil, thus putting people’s interest before their own corporate financial interests. While Google has committed certain questionable acts I do not believe they have violated their motto. Harry Lewis, Randal

Following will be the analysis of the relationship between Google and our individual right to privacy. Google is constantly gathering personal information about people when they use various Google products. The extent Google is involved in our lives, as well as the methods used to gather data on individuals, is not known by most people. This report is going to take a brief look into whether Google’s practices are ethical as well as legal.

Nonetheless, the court sets the following conditions to be eligible for erasures of links between search engines and the source content: A web page has to be “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant, or excessive.” (CURIA, Google v. Spain, 2014) The court also makes data controllers accountable as to guarantee the balance between individual 's rights to privacy versus the public 's right to information.

How many individuals can honestly say that they have ever fully read the privacy policy of any technological tool? Not everyone does but should so that they are aware of what information is being collected and how that information is being stored. Most privacy policies are long and tedious and consumers usually just click the tab that says “I agree” so that they can continue on with their activities. According to Google’s privacy policy, an individual has to give their consent before Google will use information for anything other than what is stated in their privacy policy. It also states that they have the right to share your information with outside companies or organizations, if they feel the information is necessary because of any legal implications or to protect their rights and safety (Google Privacy Policy).

Google saves our time and energy, but people are becoming too dependent upon it. Google Maps, with more than ten million downloads, has become a necessity of life to some individuals. Without Google Maps, most drivers can not find their way around places. Due to the dependence on Google, many fail to recall how to read maps which is a significant skill needed to survive if something happens to technology. In addition, if Google were to shut down for a couple of days, fifty-six percent of businesses will suffer great losses. Businesses will not be able to function because of their dependence on Google’s software, such as Google Analytics. They will also lose communication with each other, having a major impact on America’s economy. Not only will businesses suffer, but people will too. Android and Chromebook users won’t be able to call, text, or browse since those devices are powered by Google. Some individuals will also lose their jobs as online-researchers due to the lack of connection to the resources they need. Many will argue there are other search engines out there that can be used. However, those engines do not provide quality material that are essential

The new GDPR updates and adds to the existing legislation, including in relation to the right to be forgotten. To begin, where Google was limited to the narrow circumstances concerning search engine results, the right under the new legislation ‘will be of significantly wider application, and will apply to all data controllers’ (Jay & Henderson 2016: 7). Moreover, the right has been strengthened in other areas, such as being exercisable on the basis of the withdrawal of consent, unlawfulness of the data processing, or where data is not necessary for the purpose for which it is held; ‘in these circumstances, the [right to be forgotten] is far stronger under the new regime as there is no balancing minimum and the [right] is absolute’ (2016:

Google is a huge multinational corporation that runs one of the most popular web services. Google’s Internet search engine allows users looking for the information online based on some keyword queries. Google also offers a variety of other services in web and telecommunication areas. People can use its offering to create blogs, websites, upload videos, create and share news items and many more. It suggests social networking tools, services for business, mobile services, and even Google branded goods. At the same time, it reportedly has some privacy issues. It collects personal data from all its users to generate targeted advertisements. However, experts suggest that these data are also used to profile people and spy on their personal lives. Therefore, the analysis of Google’s comprehensive services and operations allows stating that the company is one of the best ones. However, it is also one of the most secretive organizations in the world.

Under the European union(EU) the right to be forgotten is a way for citizen to “delink” themselves from there history. For instance, if that citizen had a house foreclosed on or committed a minor crime. The citizen could ask that the information no longer link to their name in a search engine. The information would still be available on the original website.

Information privacy can be stated as a choice of an individual person to share his/her personal information with others and with advancements in technology, its becoming unmanageable to regulate it. Customers have chosen to trust many companies with their information in trade for the services they have to offer. Google also provides various services that store large amount of data about its users. Google’s first product was- the search engine where privacy issues began to surface as it caches a users previous search. Google states in its privacy policy, “We use cookies to improve the quality of our service by storing user preferences and tracking user trends, such as how people search.” These cookies were initially thought to be accessed by the websites only; however, with increased advertising they can be accessed by all those who want it. This does not comply with rights to information privacy by the users.