The headlines recently have been dominated with newsworthiness of online secrecy . Facebook has implemented change that affect the privacy of status update , and Google made headline for its apparent disregard for privateness .

The difference between how Facebook and Google have addressed privacy issues volunteer a thoroughgoing contrast . While Facebook has quick respond to criticism and backlash , and has implement additional change to hear and accommodate business organisation , Google CEO Eric Schmidtdismissed privacy concern totally .

Facebook has faced challenge with privacy and what sorts of controls it has in place to ensure that user can exert some control condition over who is able to view their position updates , photos , events , and other Facebook debut . The Canadian government pressed the issue and succeeded in blackmail Facebook into changing a fistful of practice to address privacy fear .

As Facebook implemented modification this workweek , which were previously denote and anticipated — a change of pace for Facebook changes , there was immediate backlash . Facebook is struggling to count on out how to capitalize on penis position update for real - time lookup to be more like Twitter , and it is locomote through some mature hurting to establish the correct mix of sharing and security .

Google is also faced with constant critique and care from privateness counsellor . Google is the monolithic Big Brother of the Internet , creep and indexing every last byte of data that exists and presenting it to the general public in a matter of msec through its various search offerings .

The dispute between Facebook and Google as it relates to secrecy is that Facebook appears to mind to concern and respond by implementing changes to prove and savoir-faire issues , while Google seems to be dismissive . The Google response is to just stress why you should trust it , or why you should n’t give care about privacy .

In a CNBC audience , Google CEO Eric Schmidtexplained his stance on on-line secrecy : “ If you have something that you do n’t require anyone to know , maybe you should n’t be doing it in the first place . If you really need that sort of privacy , the world is that search engine — including Google — do keep on this selective information for some time and it ’s crucial , for example , that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is potential that all that selective information could be made usable to the regime . ”

The problem with that point of view is that it take you’re able to only be concerned about privateness when you are doing something illegal or unethical . It does n’t take into consideration the myriad direction that datum can be unknowingly leaked or compromise by search engines like Google .

Just because administrator and handler require information to be individual , it does n’t mean that they are render to hide anything like shady accounting a la Enron , or illegal pyramid schema a la Madoff . It simply means that some information is sensitive or secret for a ground .

For businesses that swear on Google Docs or Gmail , there is a level of trust there that Google will respect the privacy of that data and protect it from wildcat access code . scuttlebutt like those made by Schmidt provide a reason to guess twice about using Google for any sore or confidential communications .

As Google found cookies on personal computer toexpand the scope of personalised hunt , or becomes the focal period for Internet traffic with its public DNS , it is privy to a peachy flock of information which could be used to achieve conclusions . It is important for Google to take privacy badly .

Facebook and Google are facing many of the same challenges . Whether you like the changes introduced by Facebook or not , it ’s hard not to apprise its attempts to respond to concerns rather than taking the Google approach that unless you don a tinfoil chapeau or have terrorist connections you have no right to be touch on about privacy .