= insidious =

The definition of insidious, according to dictionary.com is:

1. intended to entrap or beguile.
2. stealthily treacherous or decietful.
3. operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way 
but actually with grave effect.

I think this is the most apt word to describe Google.  Why?

First, Google is secretive.  It operates stealthily and under the radar 
with how it actually processes its vastly collected store of data.  
Secondly, while secretiveness is not enough, it also processes the data 
in such a way as to gravely effect those who use the service.  The grave 
effects exist because their power is so strong that they can wipe a 
business off the Internet, or they can gain license to all sorts of 
private, personal information.

Who would have thought that an ISP would be reading your email?  Google 
does, and if you use gmail, you're letting them.  Why are they better 
than most email services (in interface)?  It's because they're making 
lots of money off of advertising to you by reading your own private 
messages.

Maybe you're ok with that.  Maybe you're ok with a giant company owning 
your personal data?  That's their intention: to entrap you into using 
their service.  Even if they were not using their data for evil means, 
the fact is that they store your data for government intrusion, which 
they so far have ultimately handed over rather than accept the 
consequences.

I sure am not ok with that.  To anybody like me, their behavior is 
insidious.  Massive concentrations of power are not acceptable.

Now they are planning on coming out with an ad-supported phone.  What 
will they think of next, analyzing your instant messages, not just 
telephone conversations?  Whatever happened to privacy of communications 
and the expectation of privacy?

How did they do it?

They give services away for free, let early adopters test their own 
systems, then release it upon the masses early.  The crack that their 
services offer is accepted -- but why?  Haven't we all figured out 
that they're just going to use your personal data for computer-automated 
advertising?

Have we not figured that out by now?

= encryption =

In order to communicate with people without intrusion, I think it will 
be necessary to implement end-to-end encryption throughout the 
communications infrastructure people are using.  With end-to-end and 
opportunistic encryption (which is slow on the uptake with corporations, 
e.g. ipsec), then companies like Google will be unable to analyze your 
personal data for their own advertising.  Why do you think they've made 
it so hard to encrypt your emails in gmail?  Because it stands to hurt 
their profits.

Remember, since the release of Adwords, Google is an advertising company 
first, and an Internet company second (however, weren't we all wondering 
how they would monetize the thing?).  Their goal is maximizing 
shareholder value.  Whatever psuedo-environmental guilt that Brin and 
Page claim to have, they are ultimately part of a system of mass 
communications deception and trickery.

Google is simply insidious in everything it does.