Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Inquirer Editorial: Google's fine is a wrist slap

By agreeing to a toothless invasion-of-privacy settlement with Google, federal and state authorities blew a chance to take a bolder stand against the Internet behemoth's prying into people's lives.

The new Google Maps application is demonstrated in New York on Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012. The world's most popular online mapping system returned late Wednesday with the release of the Google Maps iPhone app. The release comes nearly three months after Apple Inc. replaced Google Maps as the device's built-in navigation system and inserted its own map software into the latest version of its mobile operating system. (AP Photo/Karly Domb Sadof)
The new Google Maps application is demonstrated in New York on Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012. The world's most popular online mapping system returned late Wednesday with the release of the Google Maps iPhone app. The release comes nearly three months after Apple Inc. replaced Google Maps as the device's built-in navigation system and inserted its own map software into the latest version of its mobile operating system. (AP Photo/Karly Domb Sadof)Read moreAP

By agreeing to a toothless invasion-of-privacy settlement with Google, federal and state authorities blew a chance to take a bolder stand against the Internet behemoth's prying into people's lives.

Between 2008 and 2010, Google employees carrying out its Street View mapping project drove by countless homes across America and harvested people's personal data, including passwords, medical records, financial accounts, and e-mails. Google initially denied it had obtained private information. Then it said it didn't get that much information. Then it said whatever information it got was by accident. Then it said a rogue engineer was responsible. Then it said the data had been erased from its systems.

Not one of the denials turned out to be true, according to investigations by the Federal Communications Commission, more than three dozen state attorneys general, and law enforcement authorities in several other countries.

After hearing Google spout such a pack of fairy tales, no one should need a complex algorithm to figure out that the Web information giant should have zero credibility when it claims it respects people's privacy. Yet, after settling with 38 states and the District of Columbia, Google's punishment is a mere $7 million fine and a promise to reform and police itself. If Google tried to deny taking information it clearly took, how can it be trusted not to let that happen again?

As disappointing as the settlement was, at least New Jersey was among the states that tried to stand up for their citizens by enforcing consumer protection laws. Pennsylvania wasn't even part of the litigation to protect people's personal information.

The FCC determined that the rogue engineer whom Google blamed for scooping up people's personal data was actually working with others and had reported what happened to his supervisors. But the commission concluded that the engineer had been poorly supervised and fined Google only $25,000 for obstructing an FCC investigation.

Google has enormous power, wealth, and knowledge. It lets people use its search engine for free. It sets up free blogs and free e-mail accounts. But it mines those services for personal data, which it spins into profits by sharing it with commercial enterprises that use the information to specifically target their advertising.

Ever wonder why certain ads keep popping up on your computer screen? Big Brother Google knows your search patterns and interests. In this case, Google was gathering information for its mapping service and picked up data from people using wireless networks that weren't encrypted. You don't have to be a Luddite to find that a bit too intrusive.

State and federal prosecutors shouldn't have let Google get off so easily. If they don't protect people's privacy, who will? Google and other Internet companies must be monitored to make sure they don't wrongly obtain personal data. And when they do violate privacy laws, the punishment should amount to more than a mosquito bite on an elephant.