Thoughts on Google-Plus Beta
I was recently invited to the Google+ Beta. Feel free to connect if you’re also on there.
Not that I need yet another social network, but as a business person who definitely realizes the value of SEO and social influence it’s impossible to ignore what one of the most powerful corporations on the web is doing.
One of the first opt-out questions (you’re automatically opted-in unless you expressly say no), is “May we use your information to customize your browsing experience and advertising on sites outside of Google?”. The next step in set up is sorting the “suggested connections”, many of which make you wonder how Google found as I hardly ever use my Gmail account, into predefined ‘Circles’ such as “Friends”, “Family”, “Acquaintances” and “Following”. You are also encouraged to define your own circles. I initially set up “NGMR members”, “NGMR Influencers” and “work friends”.
In the back of my mind I’ve always been a bit wary of allowing Facebook, and LinkedIn to know who I’m connected to. But because I had so many contacts, and I have my LinkedIn network privacy settings on high (partly to protect the privacy of my connections), I’ve felt somewhat safe in the numbers. In other words only I have known which of my contacts were friends etc.
Having worked with LinkedIn on their initiative to sell B-B sample by helping them do analysis of their network and comparing that to what marketing research companies are able to do via panels, I’m also very aware of the fantastically rich data available through a social network. Knowing who someone is connected to, and utilizing text analytics to gain additional information from other available unstructured fields allows for unheard of insights for purposes of research and targeting.
As a researcher, while I’m very excited about the types of big data analytics, as well as merging of other data including but not limited to text analytics and even survey data this network can ultimately provide, as a social media citizen it is also more and more concerning.
Tracking our behavior online as a consumer is one thing. Understanding exactly how we are connected to everyone else in life is another. I don’t believe this is something that should, will or even can be legislated against. Most of us will freely choose to volunteer this information, and even if you don’t, others will provide this information to the Google’s of the world on your behalf without you knowing it.
Once classification like this starts on a wide scale where will/can it end? It’s not hard to imagine a lot of scenarios. I’ll just mention a hypothetical one, details of which might be tweaked should it ever be realized by a company, and one that is probably more relevant in countries like the US where there is private healthcare.
Imagine an insurance company utilizing this type of data to class people into risk categories. It could be done partly based on whom is connected to whom (research shows in several regards we are very much like those we are most connected to). Someone connected to someone with depression is more likely to be depressed. Someone who has someone with diabetes in their family is also more likely to have or develop diabetes etc.
It’s not even too difficult to imagine a future version of circles which asks the user to classify their closest connections into categories of risk. Imagine the following hypothetical future insurance promotion below. [click on image to enlarge]
Sounds crazy? Not to get political, but I hope we’ll have public health insurance for all before this happens, but I’m not holding my breath 
What do you think?
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tomhcanderson.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-big1.png){kind=icon}
12 responses so far ↓
1 Tom H C Anderson // Jul 13, 2011 at 10:49 am
To me this is also yet more evidence that the future of research lies in big data, data mining and text analytics. Who will care about sampling (and PRC type accreditation) when we can analyze and predict what ALL our customers are doing?
2 Rick Hobbs // Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09 am
Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean they are not out to get you. Thanks for scaring the hell out of me Tom. LOL. Of course certification could help with this problem.
-Rick
3 Jennifer // Jul 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Tom,
Thanks for the thought-provoking and slightly chilling post. I was reading somewhere (frantically trying to find the article) about the UK Privacy act, where information collected about you has to be made available to you. I don’t know if this is true or not but it might go some way towards evening the scale of knowledge between organizations and consumers.
Thanks again.
4 Tom H C Anderson // Jul 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Who owns the information willingly provided by your cousin “Tara” to Google concerning you, your mother and father?
‘Big Data’ CAN NOT be stopped!
I just thank God we’re an analysts so we’ll at least be able to benefit from this in some way…
5 Rajan Sambandam // Jul 14, 2011 at 9:35 am
Here is an excellent NYTimes article /proposal by one of the godfathers of behavioral economics (Richard Thaler) on owning your online data. (http://nyti.ms/rmY1Fv). I think this may be the ‘Mydata” initiative from UK that @Jennifer is referring to.
6 Don Peppers // Jul 15, 2011 at 7:51 am
With respect, and at the risk of sounding like a techno-Pollyanna:
Yes the scenario you outlined is scary, Tom, but also highly unlikely. Can you imagine ANY circumstances in which an insurance company could make this kind of inquiry and not have it create a whole shit-storm of negative commentary in social media, more or less instantaneously? Come on, folks - WE are the enforcers. In our own lifetimes, we are witnessing the end of sneaky.
7 Tom H C Anderson // Jul 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm
@Don, agree social media has some of the benefits of greater transparency, basically making even life in the big cities like small town life where everyone knows everyone else and what they are doing (to some degree).
While the example I gave though is not even hypothetical in terms of applications that are already out there. There have been several on facebook that have collected this type of data, heck we even had a couple of our own.
So maybe the insurance company doesn’t have to build their own branded application, maybe the data will be collected by someone else…
This was just one of many examples though, of how ‘responsible companies’ might use Big Data in ways that some of us might not like. (In my example it didn’t matter if some of us didn’t like it, because others might still contribute info about those who do not.)
But if we look at the other extreme of potential misuses, hackers for instance, then this example is actually rather tame. See my recent interview with Jeff Jonas of IBM on big data and Spear Phising: http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2011/04/27/ngmr-guru-interview-with-jeff-jonas-of-ibm/
8 Michel Floyd // Jul 16, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Corporations have been around for years that have amazing amounts of data on you but that we just accept. Two in particular: Visa and AT&T. Visa (or MC or Amex) know where and when you’ve spent your money, and on what. If you’re trying to find a missing person or fugitive your first call is often to their credit card company. AT&T on the other hand knows who you call, when, and how long you talk to them. They have also shown themselves quite willing to give up your calls to the Feds in violation of your 4th amendment protections. This applies to Verizon as well, I believe Sprint was the only major Telco to decline to participate in the illegal wiretapping program - which by the way for all we know is still running.
9 Tom H C Anderson // Jul 17, 2011 at 10:28 am
By the way, if anyone needs an invite to the Beta, just let me know
10 Lynn Stalone // Jul 17, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Tom - I’d love an invite.
11 CASRO’s Google Plus Circles // Jul 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm
[...] Google+ Plus [...]
12 Janelle Fields // Aug 1, 2011 at 6:39 am
the train has left the station….
Leave a Comment