A SZ data research shows how well Google knows its users: With their search queries, they reveal to the group their sexual preferences, their own mental health or their political orientation. Leena Simon is an IT consultant and network political scientist at the “Digitalcourage” association. She herself does not use Google products: to resist the surveillance society and to protect herself from manipulation and other consequences of large-scale data collection. In an interview with the SZ, she explains why we should be more careful with Google offers.
SZ: Ms. Simon, what is so dangerous about the data that Google collects?
Leena Simon: We are always very honest with our search engine. There is this phrase: “You don’t google around the bush”. That wouldn’t be very successful, you want to find what you’re looking for efficiently. Whether it’s information about endometriosis or fungal diseases or erotic fantasies, we won’t avoid using the appropriate terms – we won’t “google behind the scenes”. The search history alone therefore contains an extremely large amount of information about people.
What does Google then do with this information?
Google sells advertising. The most money is currently not made with context-based advertising, but with individually targeted advertising. Advertising should therefore primarily be displayed to those who are really interested in certain products.
But some of the data is not sensitive at all. We even give Google demographic information such as age or gender voluntarily when we create an account.
Many conclusions about a person’s life can be drawn from their age alone. Is the person older and more likely to be from the last century in their attitudes? Did she experience 9/11? This data is all used to pigeonhole us. In addition to age, there is the color of skin, occupation, and maybe where you live. So I have the most important markers to say: “Ah, an old white man from Zehlendorf, he must have a lot of money – close the drawer.” Whether that’s true or not, it’s a problem. It’s also bad to be in the wrong category.
Because then false advertising is displayed? Doesn’t sound particularly dangerous.
I don’t show a “Fridays for Future” ad to an old white man from Zehlendorf, but maybe he’ll be interested. Maybe he just swapped his SUV for an electric vehicle. But he doesn’t even see this ad.
IT consultant and network political scientist Leena Simon.
(Photo: Alexander Altmann)
Search queries often contain much more sensitive information than what we knowingly give Google – for example the vaccination status or the search for specialists.
Medical data is always sensitive, which is why there is also employee data protection: for example, employers do not find out what illness I have on the sick note. This is for good reason. Someone with a mental illness can be in very good control of their life. But psychological illnesses in particular are socially taboo and a future employer could stigmatize someone because of it. You wouldn’t write that in an application. With this information, people have to decide for themselves who to entrust it to.
Google says that it at least does not use particularly sensitive data such as information on health, sexual orientation or ethnic origin for advertising purposes. Do you still find it problematic when Google collects this data?
I can imagine that Google doesn’t do that. The company sometimes tries to have a meaningful impact on society – of course with a view to its own benefit. People find it creepy when Google knows too much. But if people’s mentality has changed and this specific information is no longer perceived as too problematic, then perhaps the data can be used after all. Also those from the past that are now being collected in reserve.
So you mean: we don’t know what will happen to our data in the future?
Google has a high probability of predicting what we will do. Former Google boss Eric Schmidt once said that: people don’t want Google to tell them what they’re looking for. People want Google to tell them what to do next. Google should provide answers before the questions even arise. We individuals cannot see into the future, but this company that has our data can. This creates a huge power imbalance.
Is this also a problem for people who say about themselves: “I have nothing to hide”?
Everyone closes the toilet door behind them in public buildings. Everyone has something to hide. Saying that is nonsense, it’s wrong, it’s dangerous – and above all it’s lacking in solidarity.
In what way?
There are people who do have something important to hide. The moment I say the sentence, I make a logical fallacy: I assume that everyone who has something to hide has also done something wrong. But that’s not the case. I am assuming that all people who have something to hide are criminals or do other bad things. For example, people with physical or mental illnesses often have something to hide. When everyone says they have nothing to hide, it makes it very, very difficult for those people. It is also anti-democratic because in a democracy it is important that I can form my own opinion independently and not be constantly observed.
This article belongs to the topic “Google’s Treasure”. All research and links to additional articles can be found here: sz.de/GooglesSchatz