zuboff_ch5_pts_IV-VI 

IV The Dogs of Audacity

Essentially, Google behaves as though they are unassailable. Sometimes that strategy works the first time; in other instances the strategy requires persistence. And of course, the strategy works better in this country than it does in many overseas venues.

At the time that Zuboff wrote this book, the Google glass experiment was on full exhibition. In this case, the audacious attempt at massive data collection was rejected by experts, the press, and the public alike. Google pulled the experiment back. It will be interesting to see what "glass" looks like when it is reintroduced in the future.

Zuboff points out that when Google withdrew glass it immediately started adapting and redirecting the project. The redirection moved glass from the public spaces to corporate spaces, introducing the technology into the workplace. Zuboff does not report uptake or usage data for glass in the workplace.

most of this workplace stuff is still in prototype phase
https://screenrant.com/google-glass-smart-glasses-what-happened-explained/

“Google isn't entirely finished with its Glass ambitions. In May 2019, the company released the second version of its Enterprise Edition model. This pair of glasses are advertised as a risk-free means of increasing productivity in the workplace, as the screen inside the right lens allows employees to multitask without the need of turning to a phone, another program, or another computer. These spectacles also come with AR and VR capabilities, USB-C charging, and an improved processor and camera. As a result, while it's no longer commercially available as a retail product, Google Glass still does exist.”

Google is also not done with the public market, especially in dedicated environments like language translation.

glass as translation device
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0bFX9HXeE&t=84s

V. Disposition Competition

Facebook's "like" button has been noted to be perhaps the principal example of another company. The progression of the like button is also a good example of Facebook's strategy with so-called “beta” a/b testing as ways to evade complaints when rolling out features.

Eventually the bug – – the like button – – became a feature.

Google upped the ante when they acquired DoubleClick and began connecting online data collection with data collected off-line.

The original "evil empire" – – Microsoft, is no stranger to massive data collection. Zuboff does not highlight this feature particularly strongly but Microsoft’s move to Microsoft 360 is one such contemporary example of their continuation of dominance in this area. 

Users no longer purchase software updates at their insistence and convenience; the company forces updates on users and makes it difficult for users to opt out especially when users belong to enterprises using the software. 

Many of Microsoft's software products report data back to the mothership. When researchers, hackers, or users report these data collection techniques, Microsoft usually apologizes and then buries an option for controlling the collection someplace in the operating system or software.

Continuing the search engine war by bringing Bing on board is a further attempt by Microsoft to compete with Google and data acquisition.

The 2016 position of LinkedIn marked a moment for Microsoft that was similar to Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. LinkedIn is one of the most data sensitive social media sites on the planet. And yet is also one of the leaky-ist as it reports directly to Microsoft.

Recently, the super privacy – oriented product company "duck duck go" admitted to cutting a deal with Microsoft by which duck duck go directed data collected from users of their apps to Microsoft while withholding data from their search engine.

VI. The siren song of surveillance revenues

Here come the telecoms and the ISPs – – the broadband service providers jump into the data collection pool

Sometimes users forget that the most powerful data collection device possible is their router. While many users maintain relatively powerful control over their devices they often fail to address the network equipment that they use.

Further, users have little to no control over surveillance behavior/data acquisition on the part of service providers on their end of the transaction.

A primary strategy of all players in the data collection business is to make subtle changes to their terms of service, their end-user license agreements, and their privacy policies that shift the promises they made earlier to new terms. Generally, the public doesn't read the new terms and even if they do they would not be able to opt out or resist the terms.

Providers often use the same language that web operators have always used: “we want to personalize your services to make them more useful to you.” This sentence is, of course, code for "we're now going to collect more data from you."

Arguments between the FCC and Verizon led to the net neutrality cases that I have referenced in concept number 6. 

The status quo today is that full net neutrality has not been restored heaven only existed for a few months at the end of the Obama administration. The FCC does not currently claim regulatory control over the Internet. 

The FTC is primarily involved with regulating fraud and very seldom finds the fraudulent activities of online actors to be worthy of litigation for enforcement as long as those actors are major technology players rather than individuals or small time outfits.

The sale of information about people is become a business of its own – – software as a service—SVaas— mines individual profiles and dossiers and provides conclusive intelligence for business clients.