I know there is a lot of negativity around big companies like Google doing "free" things like this. There is even mis-trust over a sense of unease at the notion of "there is no such thing as a free lunch."
These feelings are totally valid, and they unfortunately can prevent the rest of the community from acquiring a valuable resource. Free wifi in San Francisco (One of the techiest cities in the world) feels like a "no-brainer." Free wifi represents the values I would like to see more of in the world, namely cooperation, altruism and generally an increase in non-monetary exchanges.
As for the rest of the negatives, the kind of data Google might collect is statistically useless - the sample bias is just too strong. And since I have worked at Google, I know that many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not doing creepy/immoral things like that. You may feel differently, and that's ok, and I suggest attempting to meet and talk to more Googlers.
Finally, there has been much criticism about Google "not giving back" to the community. First, as an employer, Google pays their employees well, and all the taxes associated with that (see articles about SF's budget to a record high due to tech employment, and the boost of social services as a result). Secondly, Google buses, while derided, create a calmer, more peaceful city population, and massively reduce the # of cars on the road. And lastly by pushing forward projects like this (and I'm sure that SF city is preventing things like capture portal ads or whatever) I feel this improves the city.
Reading that article and the follow up[1], it looks like Google made use of a quirk in Safari to give third-party cookies that would otherwise be blocked. No other major browser blocked third party cookies in this way, so the workaround just made Safari act like, e.g., Firefox. The quirk was relatively well-known, used by other advertisers and "like" buttons and such, and the article says that "Facebook even encourages developers to exploit the same Safari quirk Google targeted here.".
Google then:
* Acknowledged the problem and apologized
* Stated that the workaround was meant to be used for their "+1" buttons and such, but not for advertisements
* Stopped giving out these cookies for advertisements on Safari
* Was sued by the FCC for $22 million
* Is now being sued by consumers on nebulous grounds
If you accept the claim that it was an accident to begin with, I don't see that Google did anything wrong.
Google is a serial offender when it comes to privacy violations. Not really different from big banks who are caught committing fraud but always manage to settle with a big wad of cash, without having to admit any guilt whatsoever.
Comparing Google ethics to banks ethics.
sorry you said wat?!
I worked for at a credit bank and I am still shocked at how immoral my coworkers were... I mean there was no limit : racist discrimination with the first name to calculate a risk on a consumer credit ? checked. Intentionally put people under with credit, anticipating the fact and be first to recollect ? checked.
At Google, from day one if you remember one thing they tell you : You never mess with private data ever.
It seems most likely the motivation here is to make sure all of the Googlers in SF are able to be online and thus able to work from more places. Many of Google's benefits are about making sure employees never have to stop working...
Comments
I know there is a lot of negativity around big companies like Google doing "free" things like this. There is even mis-trust over a sense of unease at the notion of "there is no such thing as a free lunch."
These feelings are totally valid, and they unfortunately can prevent the rest of the community from acquiring a valuable resource. Free wifi in San Francisco (One of the techiest cities in the world) feels like a "no-brainer." Free wifi represents the values I would like to see more of in the world, namely cooperation, altruism and generally an increase in non-monetary exchanges.
As for the rest of the negatives, the kind of data Google might collect is statistically useless - the sample bias is just too strong. And since I have worked at Google, I know that many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not doing creepy/immoral things like that. You may feel differently, and that's ok, and I suggest attempting to meet and talk to more Googlers.
Finally, there has been much criticism about Google "not giving back" to the community. First, as an employer, Google pays their employees well, and all the taxes associated with that (see articles about SF's budget to a record high due to tech employment, and the boost of social services as a result). Secondly, Google buses, while derided, create a calmer, more peaceful city population, and massively reduce the # of cars on the road. And lastly by pushing forward projects like this (and I'm sure that SF city is preventing things like capture portal ads or whatever) I feel this improves the city.
many many Googlers feel VERY STRONGLY about not doing creepy/immoral things like that
Many Googlers != All Googlers != Google
How would you explain this? http://mashable.com/2012/02/17/google-caught-tracking-safari...
Reading that article and the follow up[1], it looks like Google made use of a quirk in Safari to give third-party cookies that would otherwise be blocked. No other major browser blocked third party cookies in this way, so the workaround just made Safari act like, e.g., Firefox. The quirk was relatively well-known, used by other advertisers and "like" buttons and such, and the article says that "Facebook even encourages developers to exploit the same Safari quirk Google targeted here.".
Google then: * Acknowledged the problem and apologized * Stated that the workaround was meant to be used for their "+1" buttons and such, but not for advertisements * Stopped giving out these cookies for advertisements on Safari * Was sued by the FCC for $22 million * Is now being sued by consumers on nebulous grounds
If you accept the claim that it was an accident to begin with, I don't see that Google did anything wrong.
[1] http://mashable.com/2013/01/25/google-safari-tracking-lawsui...
Google is a serial offender when it comes to privacy violations. Not really different from big banks who are caught committing fraud but always manage to settle with a big wad of cash, without having to admit any guilt whatsoever.
Comparing Google ethics to banks ethics. sorry you said wat?!
I worked for at a credit bank and I am still shocked at how immoral my coworkers were... I mean there was no limit : racist discrimination with the first name to calculate a risk on a consumer credit ? checked. Intentionally put people under with credit, anticipating the fact and be first to recollect ? checked.
At Google, from day one if you remember one thing they tell you : You never mess with private data ever.
Huh? I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as Facebook, for example.
or this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/09/google-cli...
I've been curious, do you know how googlers are responding to PRISM?
On this topic, I wrote this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6078124
It seems most likely the motivation here is to make sure all of the Googlers in SF are able to be online and thus able to work from more places. Many of Google's benefits are about making sure employees never have to stop working...
That would be using a cannon to kill a mosquito. Subsidizing tethering plans for employees would make far more sense.