Dab solver - Criticism of Google

Most tools require the use of JavaScript. If you are using Firefox with the NoScript addon, please mark toolserver.org as trusted. See the Help page for details.

Feedback / Report a bug

0 points on this page / 19,509 points earned collectively this month / Disambiguate pages on your watchlist

=== AdSense/AdWords ===

{{Main |Google AdSense |Google AdWords}}

In February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of [[Oceana (non-profit group)|]], a non-profit organization protesting a 's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."^ref The policy was later changed.^ref

Single scrollbar

{{undue|date=November 2012}}
{{Original research|date=October 2011}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2012}}
'''Criticism of Google''' includes possible misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's [[internet privacy|privacy]], censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as [[antitrust]], monopoly, and [[restraint of trade]].

Google Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in [[Internet search]], [[cloud computing]], and advertising technologies. Google hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products,<ref>See: [[List of Google products]].</ref> and generates profit primarily from advertising through its [[AdWords]] program.<ref name="financialtables">{{cite web |url=http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html |title=Financial Tables |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 5, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Online Ads Give Google Huge Gain in Profit |first=David A. |last=Vise |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102002058.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 21, 2005 |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref>

Google's [[mission statement|stated mission]] is ''"to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"'';<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ Google Corporate Page], accessed October 17, 2011</ref> this mission, and the means used to accomplish it, have raised concerns among the company's critics. Much of the criticism pertains to issues that have not yet been addressed by [[cyber law]].

==Page rank==
{{main|PageRank}}

=== Possible misuse of search results ===
In 2007, a group of Austrian researchers observed a tendency to misuse the Google engine as a "reality interface". Ordinary users as well as journalists tend to rely on the first pages of Google search, assuming that everything not listed there is either not important or merely does not exist. The researchers say that "Google has become the main interface for our whole reality. To be precise: with the Google interface the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools".<ref name=Graz>[http://www.google-watch.org/gpower.pdf ''Report on dangers an d opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google''], H. Maurer (Ed), Graz University of Technology, Austria, September 30, 2007, 187 pp.{{Dead link|date=February 2012}}</ref>

[[File:Eric Schmidt at the 37th G8 Summit in Deauville 037.jpg|thumb|180px|[[Eric Schmidt]]]]
[[Eric Schmidt]], Google’s chief executive, said in a 2007 interview with the ''Financial Times'': "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?'".<ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html Google’s goal: to organise your daily life] Financial Times</ref> Schmidt reaffirmed this during a 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html Google and the Search for the Future] Wall Street Journal</ref>

=== Danger of page rank manipulation ===
{{See also|Google bombing|Search neutrality}}

The page ranking algorithm of Google can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search engine could be subjected to manipulation, Google Watch implemented a [[Google bomb]] by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by ''[[The New York Times]]'', which later printed a correction.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/business/22google.html
|title=Google Edits Its Prospectus to Highlight Risk of Loss
|first=Saul
|last=Hansell
|coauthors=John Markoff
|work=The New York Times
|date=June 22, 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01EED81F39F936A15755C0A9629C8B63
|title=Corrections
|work=The New York Times
|date=June 25, 2004
| accessdate=April 30, 2010}}</ref>

Daniel Brandt started the Google Watch website and has criticized Google's [[PageRank]] algorithms, saying that they discriminate against new websites and favor established sites.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.alternet.org/rights/14001/|title= Conspiracy Researcher Says Google's No Good
|author= Farhad Manjoo|date= August 30, 2002|publisher= AlterNet|accessdate=December 12, 2009}}
</ref>
Chris Beasley started Google Watch Watch and disagrees, saying that Mr. Brandt overstates the amount of discrimination that new websites face and that new websites will naturally rank lower when the ranking is based on a site's "reputation". In Google's world a site's reputation is in part determined by how many and which other sites link to it (links from sites with a "better" reputation of their own carry more weight). Since new sites will seldom be as heavily linked as older more established sites, they aren't as well known, won't have as much of a reputation, and will receive a lower page ranking.<ref>[http://www.google-watch-watch.org/pagerank.php "Why Daniel Brandt doesn't like Google PageRank"], Chris Beasley, Google Watch Watch, accessed October 18, 2011</ref>

In testimony before a [[U.S. Senate]] [[antitrust]] panel in September 2011, Jeffrey Katz, the chief executive of [[NexTag]], said that Google’s business interests conflict with its engineering commitment to an open-for-all Internet and that: "Google doesn’t play fair. Google rigs its results, biasing in favor of [[Google Shopping]] and against competitors like us." Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief of [[Yelp, Inc.|Yelp]], said sites like his have to cooperate with Google because it is the gateway to so many users and "Google then gives its own product preferential treatment." In earlier testimony at the same hearing [[Eric Schmidt]], Google's chairman, said that Google does not "cook the books" to favor its own products and services.<ref name=Lohr-NYT-22Sep2011>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/technology/google-takes-the-hot-seat-in-washington.html "Google’s Competitors Square Off Against Its Leader"], Steve Lohr, ''New York Times'', September 21, 2011</ref>

===Page ranking related lawsuits===
In 2006, the parental advice Internet site Kinderstart.com sued Google for setting its Page rank to zero, claiming that the reset caused the site to lose 70 percent of its audience. In this lawsuit, it was stated, that "Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized".<ref>[http://www.allquests.com/question/989214/KinderStart-sues-Google-over-Pageranks.html "KinderStart sues Google over Pageranks!"], Reuters via CNN, March 19, 2006</ref>  Kinderstart claimed that they were penalized for being a Google competitor (setting up the search engine). Kinderstart has formally lost the process (while their rank seems to be no longer zero). Google Incorporated claims that allowing one to win such process would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other penalized sites to protest as well.

Numerous companies and individuals, for example, MyTriggers.com<ref>{{cite news|title=Google wins antitrust victory in Ohio case|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/google-antitrust-ruling-idUKN1E78014F20110901|author=Dan Levine |publisher=Reuters UK|date=September 1, 2011 |accessdate=September 14, 2011}}</ref> and transport tycoon Sir Brian Souter<ref>{{cite news|title=Disappearing tycoon Souter blames Google|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14884717|publisher=BBC News |date=September 12, 2011}}</ref>  have voiced concerns regarding the fairness of Google's PageRank and search results after their web sites disappeared from Google's first-page results.  In the case of MyTriggers.com, the Ohio-based shopping comparison search site accused Google of favoring its own services in search results (although the judge eventually ruled that the site failed to show harm to other similar businesses).

===Abandonment of Neutral Rankings===
In late May 2012, Google announced that they will no longer be maintaining a strict separation between search results and advertising.  Google Shopping will be replaced with a nearly identical interface, according to the announcement, but only paid advertisers will be listed instead of the neutral aggregate listings shown previously.  Furthermore, rankings will be determined primarily by which advertisers place the highest "bid," though the announcement does not elaborate on this process.  The transition will be complete in the fall of 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://googlecommerce.blogspot.com/2012/05/building-better-shopping-experience.html |title=Google Commerce: Building a better shopping experience |publisher=Googlecommerce.blogspot.com |date= |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref>

As a result of this change to Google Shopping, [[Microsoft]], who operates the competing search engine [[Bing]], launched a public information campaign titled Scroogled.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://scroogled.com/|title=Have you been Scroogled Try Bing—we don't limit your shopping choices|publisher=scroogled.com}}</ref> The ad campaign was developed by leading political campaign strategist [[Mark Penn]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112421/microsofts-scroogle-ads-and-mark-penn#|title=Microsoft's Mark Penn Mistake - The tech giant is treating Google like a political rival}}</ref>

It is unclear how consumers will react to this move.  Critics charge that Google has effectively abandoned its "[[Don't be evil]]" motto and that small businesses will be unable to compete against their larger counterparts.  There is also concern that consumers who didn't see this announcement will be unaware that they're now looking at paid advertisements and that the top results are no longer determined solely based on relevance but instead will be manipulated according to which company paid the most.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/google-shopping-no-longer-free/31052012/ |title=Google Shopping Listings Will No Longer be Free to Advertisers &#124; RKG Blog |publisher=Rimmkaufman.com |date= |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Holbrook |first=Ben |url=http://www.stateofsearch.com/paid-google-shopping-another-step-towards-googles-master-plan/ |title=Paid Google Shopping – Another Step Towards Google’s Master Plan |publisher=State of Search |date= |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref>

==Copyright issues==

=== Google Print, Books, and Library ===
{{main|Google Books |Google Books Library Project |Google Book Search Settlement Agreement}}

Google's ambitious plans to scan millions of books and make them readable through its search engine have been criticized for copyright violations.<ref>[http://benton.org/node/27683 "France to oppose Google book scheme"], Stanley Pignal, ''Financial Times'', September 8, 2009</ref> The [[Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers]] and the [[Association of American University Presses]] have both issued statements strongly opposing Google Print, stating that "Google, an enormously successful company, claims a sweeping right to appropriate the property of others for its own commercial use unless it is told, case by case and instance by instance, not to."<ref>[http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/45817.html?wlc=1284533661 "Google Print Faces More Opposition"], Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times, August 30, 2005</ref>

On September 20, 2005, the [[Authors Guild]], a group that represents 8,000 U.S. authors, filed a class action suit in federal court in Manhattan against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books through its Google Library program. Google responded that its use was a [[fair use]] because they were only showing "snippets" for books where they did not have permission from a rightsholder<ref>{{cite web |date=November 8, 2005 |title=Answer 05 CV 8136 (JES): ''Author's Guild v. Google'' |url=http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/googles-answer-to-publishers/Google%27s%20Answer%20to%20Publishers%2011082005.pdf |publisher=[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]] |accessdate=May 26, 2009}}</ref> and was in compliance with all existing and historical applications of copyright laws regarding books.<ref>{{cite web |first=China |last=Martin |url=http://www.infoworld.nl/idgns/bericht.phtml?id=00256F6C005C22FC0025709F006132F6 |title=Google hit with second lawsuit over Library project
|publisher=[[InfoWorld]] |date=November 26, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/services/mdp/um-google-cooperative-agreement.pdf | title=Cooperative Agreement, section 4.5.1 |publisher=University of Michigan and Google, Inc. |accessdate=March 10, 2010}}</ref> Google temporarily suspended scanning copyrighted works to allow for changes to its program and allow copyright owners to submit lists of books they wished to be excluded.<ref>{{cite news |first=Margaret |last=Kane |date=August 25, 2005 |title=Google pauses library project |url=http://news.cnet.com/Google-pauses-library-project/2100-1025_3-5830035.html |publisher=[[CNET Networks]] |accessdate=May 26, 2009}}</ref> In the Spring of 2006 the parties began negotiations in hopes of settling the lawsuit.

On October 28, 2008, Google announced a proposed agreement with the [[Authors Guild]] and the [[Association of American Publishers]] in which Google would pay $125 million to settle the lawsuit.<ref>{{cite news | first=Stephanie | last=Condon | title=Google reaches $125 million settlement with authors | date=October 28, 2008 | url =http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10076948-38.html | work =[[cnet]] | accessdate =March 26, 2010 }}</ref>  The agreement also included licensing provisions, allowing Google to sell personal and institutional subscriptions to its database of books. On November 9, 2009, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief suggesting that the initial agreement may violate US anti-trust laws.<ref name="Pohl">{{cite news | first=R.D. | last=Pohl | title=Google Books Settlement gets a makeover | date=November 17, 2009 | url =http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BN&p_theme=bn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12C0D444C11DDF98&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM | work =The Buffalo News | accessdate =March 26, 2010 }}</ref>

Following a Fairness Hearing in February, on March 22, 2011 supervising judge [[Denny Chin]] issued a ruling rejecting the settlement.<ref>{{cite news | first=R.D. | last=Pohl | title=Google Books Settlement "fairness hearing" under way | date=February 19, 2010 | url =http://blogs.buffalonews.com/artsbeat/2010/02/google-books-settlement-fairness-hearing-underway.html | work =The Buffalo News | accessdate =March 26, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=NYC judge rejects Google books settlement |url=http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/22/technology-us-google-book-battle_8369216.html |agency=Associated Press |date=March 23, 1011 |accessdate=March 24, 2011 |deadurl=yes}} {{Dead link|date=February 2012|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref><ref>''Authors Guild et. al. v. Google, Inc.'', no. 05-8136 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2011), [http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf order].</ref> Chin urged that the settlement be revised from "opt-out" to "opt-in" and set a date for a "status conference" at which to discuss next steps.<ref>Page, Benedicte, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/23/google-books-settlement-ruling "New York judge rules against Google books settlement"], ''The Guardian'', Wednesday March 23, 2011</ref><ref>[http://infodocket.com/2011/06/01/google-book-settlement-status-conference-begins-and-ends-in-a-matter-of-minutes/ Google Book Settlement Status Conference Begins and Ends in a Matter of Minutes]</ref> As of mid-September 2011 settlement discussions were continuing, but a discovery and briefing schedule was also established that would bring the case to a hearing sometime in the second half of 2012, if a settlement is not reached before then.<ref>[http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2011/09/update_on_google_books_settlem.html "Update on Google Books Settlement"], Mary Rasenberger, The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Blog, New York State Bar Association, September 19, 2011</ref>

In another controversy, a Chinese writer [[Mian Mian]] filed a lawsuit against the company, for scanning her entire novel without notifying her or paying her for copyright permission, in December 2009.

Also, in November of the same year, the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), which protects Chinese writers' copyrights, accused Google of scanning 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without authorization, for its library, Google Books.

Google agreed on November 20 to provide a list of Chinese books it had scanned, but the company refused to admit having "infringed" copyright laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/16/content_9184029.htm |title=Writer sues Google for copyright infringement |publisher=Chinadaily.com.cn |date=December 16, 2009 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref>

===Cached data===
[[Kazaa]]  and the [[Church of Scientology]] have used the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] to demand that Google remove references to allegedly [[copyright]]ed material on their sites.<ref>[http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31481.html "Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims"], Jay Lyman, TechNewsWorld, September 2, 2003]</ref><ref name=nytdmca>{{cite news| url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E5D7103FF931A15757C0A9649C8B63 | work=The New York Times | title=New Economy; A copyright dispute with the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to do some creative linking | first=David F. | last=Gallagher | date=April 22, 2002 | accessdate=April 30, 2010}}</ref> While Google potentially faces lawsuits when not removing such links,<ref>{{cite news
 |url = http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/
 |title = Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US
 |author=Chris Tew
 |publisher = WebTVWire
 |date = September 12, 2006
 |accessdate =October 12, 2006
}}</ref> critics{{who|date=October 2011}} argue that Google has an obligation to direct users to intended content and not censor results based on copyright. {{Citation needed|date=October 2011}}

''[[The New York Times]]'' has complained that the [[Web cache|caching]] of their content during a web crawl, a feature utilized by search engines including [[Google Web Search]], [[copyright infringement|violates copyright]].<ref>[http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html "Google cache raises copyright concerns"], Stefanie Olsen, CNET News, July 9, 2003</ref> Google observes Internet standard mechanisms for requesting that caching be disabled via the [[robots.txt]] file, which is another mechanism that allows operators of a website to request that part or all of their site not be included in search engine results, or via META tags, which allow a content editor to specify whether a document can be crawled or archived, or whether the links on the document can be followed. The U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under [[United States copyright law|American law]] in ''[[Field v. Google]]'' and ''[[Parker v. Google]]''.<ref>[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/fieldgoogle.pdf "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Blake A. Field vs. Google, Inc., No. CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL"], Judge Robert C. Jones, ''[[United States District Court]] (District of Nevada)'', January 12, 2006</ref><ref>[http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf Memorandum & Order, Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc., No. 04-CV-3918], Judge R. Barclay Surrick, ''[[United States District Court]] (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)'', March 10, 2006</ref>

===Google Map Maker===
[[Google Map Maker]] allows user contributed data to be put into the [[Google Maps]] service,<ref>[http://www.google.com/mapmaker Google Map Maker]</ref> similar to [[OpenStreetMap]] it includes concepts such as organising mapping parties and mapping for humanitarian efforts.<ref>[http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635 "We Need to Stop Google’s Exploitation of Open Communities"], Mikel Maron, April 11, 2011.</ref> It has been criticised for taking work done for free by the general public and claiming commercial ownership of it without returning any contributions back to the [[commons]]<ref>[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_Map_Maker Google Map Maker – OpenStreeMap Wiki]</ref> as their restrictive license makes it incompatible with most open projects by preventing commercial use or use by competitive services.<ref>[http://brainoff.com/weblog/2010/03/16/1541 "Why Google MapMaker is not Open"], Mikel Maron, March 16, 2010.</ref>

==Privacy==
Google's March 1, 2012 privacy change enables the company to share data across a wide variety of services.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/|title=Google Privacy Policy |date=March 1, 2012}}</ref>  This includes embedded services in millions of third-party websites using Adsense and Analytics.  The policy was widely criticized as creating an environment that discourages Internet innovation by making Internet users more fearful online.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/will-we-ever-get-strong-internet-privacy-rules/?xid=gonewsedit|title=Will We Ever Get Strong Internet Privacy Rules?|date=March 5, 2012|work=Time}}</ref>

On December 2009, after privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, [[Eric Schmidt]], declared: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/|title=Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy |last=Cade|first=Metz |date=December 7, 2009 |work=The Register}}</ref>

[[Privacy International]] has raised concerns regarding the dangers and privacy implications of having a centrally located, widely popular data warehouse of millions of Internet users' searches, and how under controversial existing U.S. law, Google can be forced to hand over all such information to the [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. government]].<ref name=BBC11June2011>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6740075.stm |work=BBC News | title=Google ranked 'worst' on privacy | date=June 11, 2007}}</ref> In its 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.<ref name=BBC11June2011/><ref>[http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf "Consultation Report: Race to the Bottom? 2007"], Privacy International, June 9, 2007</ref><ref>Delichatsios, Stefanie Alki; Sonuyi, Temitope, [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/google.pdf "Get to Know Google...Because They Know You"], MIT, Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier, 6.805, December 14, 2005</ref>

At the Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." He also said that "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"<ref name="thinq.co.uk">{{Cite news |url=http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/5/no-anonymity-future-web-says-google-ceo/ |title=No anonymity on future web says Google CEO |publisher=THINQ.co.uk |accessdate=August 7, 2010 |date=August 5, 2010}}</ref>

===Potential for data disclosure===

====Data leaks====
On March 10, 2009, Google reported, for example, that a bug in Google Docs had allowed unintended access to some private documents. It was believed that 0.05% of all documents stored via the service were affected by the bug.  Google claims the bug has now been fixed.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.54c3200989573ae4c9282658f91276df.481&show_article=1 Google software bug shared private online documents], AFP, March 10, 2009</ref>

====Cookies====
Google, like most search engines, places a [[HTTP cookie|cookie]], which can be used to track a person's search history, on each registered user's computer.  Google uses the cookies to maintain user preferences between sessions and offer other search features. Originally the cookie did not expire until 2038, although it could be manually deleted by the user or refused by setting a browser preference.<ref name=agger>{{cite web
|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
|title=Google's Evil Eye: Does the Big G know too much about us?
|first=Michael
|last=Agger
|date=October 10, 2007
|accessdate=October 23, 2007}}</ref> As of 2007, Google's cookie expired in two years, but renewed itself whenever a Google service is used.<ref name=agger/> And more recently Google anonymizes its IP data after nine months and its cookies after 18 months.<ref>[http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html "Privacy FAQ"], Google, accessed October 16, 2011</ref>

The non-profit group Public Information Research launched Google Watch, a website advertised as "a look at Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy issues."<ref name="Sherman">{{Cite book |last1=Sherman |first1=Chris |title=Google power: unleash the full potential of Google |last=Sherman |url=http://books.google.com/?id=SRadJIuhVjAC&dq=Google+Power;+Unleash+the+Full+Potential+of+Google&q=Daniel+Brandt#v=snippet&q=Daniel%20Brandt |accessdate=June 13, 2010 |year=2005 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |location=Emeryville, California |isbn=0-07-225787-3 |page=415 |quote=...a look at Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy issues.}}</ref><ref name="theage">{{Cite news |url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/Google-critic-releases-source-code-for-proxy/2005/01/12/1105423537735.html |title=Google critic releases source code for proxy |work=The Age |location=Australia |first=Sam |last=Varghese |date=January 12, 2005 |accessdate=October 11, 2008 | location=Melbourne}}</ref> The site raised questions relating to Google's storage of [[HTTP cookie|cookies]], which in 2007 had a life span of more than 32 years and incorporated a unique ID that enabled creation of a [[data logger|user data log]].<ref name=agger>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/|title=Google's Evil Eye: Does the Big G know too much about us?|first=Michael|last=Agger|date=October 10, 2007|publisher=Slate|accessdate=October 23, 2007}}</ref> Google has also faced criticism with its release of [[Google Buzz]], Google's version of social networking, where Gmail users had their contact lists automatically made public unless they opted out.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/google-buzz--facebook-in-gmail/1 | work=USA Today | title=Google adds Facebook-like features to Gmail | date=February 9, 2010 | accessdate=April 30, 2010 | first=Jefferson | last=Graham}}</ref>

There is no evidence that Google shares this information with law enforcement or other government agencies, though some users{{who|date=June 2012}} remain anxious about the possibility.<ref name=agger/>

====Tracking====
Google has been suspected to collect and aggregate data of Internet users through the various tools provided to developers, such as Google analytics, Google Web fonts and Google APIs. This might allow to figure out a user's route through internet by storing its IP on each site (cross-domain web tracking). Linked to other information made available through Google APIs, which are widely used, Google might be able to provide a quite complete web user profile linked to an IP. This kind of data is invaluable for marketing agencies, and for Google itself to increase the efficiency of its own marketing and advertising activities.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

Google is encouraging developers to use their tools and actively encouraging developers to communicate end-user IPAs to Google (https://developers.google.com/web-search/docs/):
"''Developers are also encouraged to make use of the userip parameter to supply the IP address of the end-user on whose behalf you are making the API request. Doing so will help distinguish this legitimate server-side traffic from traffic which doesn't come from an end-user."

====Gmail====
{{Main|Gmail|Gmail#Criticism|l2=Criticism of Gmail}}

[[Steve Ballmer]],<ref>[http://www.crn.com/software/202300583 Microsoft's Ballmer: Google Reads Your Mail] ChannelWeb, October 2007</ref> [[Liz Figueroa]],<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3621169.stm "Google's Gmail could be blocked"], BBC News, April 13, 2004</ref> [[Mark Rasch]],<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/15/gmail_spook_heaven/ "Google Gmail: Spook Heaven"], Mark Rasch, The Register, June 15, 2004</ref> and the editors of Google Watch<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html |title=Gmail is too creepy |work=Google Watch |accessdate=October 17, 2011 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/61rOfd8To | archivedate=September 21, 2011}}</ref> believe the processing of email message content by Google's [[Gmail]] service goes beyond proper use. Google Inc. claims that mail sent to or from Gmail is never read by a human being other than the account holder, and content that is read by computers is only used to improve the relevance of advertisements.<ref>[http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html "Privacy Policy"], Google Privacy Center]</ref>

The privacy policies of other popular email services, like [[Hotmail]] and [[Yahoo]], allow users' personal information to be collected and utilized for advertising purposes.<ref>[http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html Yahoo Privacy Policy]</ref><ref>[http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.aspx#collection Microsoft Privacy Policy]</ref>

In 2004, thirty one privacy and civil liberties organizations wrote a letter calling upon Google to suspend its Gmail service until the privacy issues were adequately addressed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm|publisher=Privacy Rights Clearinghouse|title=Thirty-One Privacy and Civil Liberties Organizations Urge Google to Suspend Gmail}}</ref> The letter also called upon Google to clarify its written information policies regarding data retention and data sharing among its business units.

The organizations voiced their concerns about Google’s plan to scan the text of all incoming messages for the purposes of ad placement, noting that the scanning of confidential email for inserting third party ad content violates the implicit trust of an email service provider. The scanning creates lower expectations of privacy in the email medium and may establish dangerous precedents. In 2013, Microsoft launched an advertising campaign to attack Google for scanning e-mail messages, arguing that most consumers don't understand how Google monitors their personal messages to deliver targeted ads.<ref>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-attacks-google-on-gmail-privacy/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto</ref> Unlike Google, Microsoft claimed its email service, Outlook, did not scan the contents of its messages. One Microsoft spokesperson called the issue of privacy "Google’s kryptonite.”<ref>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-attacks-google-on-gmail-privacy/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto</ref>

Other concerns include the unlimited period for data retention that Google’s current policies allow, and the potential for unintended secondary uses of the information Gmail will collect and store.

====Possible ties to the CIA and NSA====
In February 2010, Google was reported to be working on an agreement with the [[National Security Agency]] (NSA) to investigate recent attacks against its network. And, while the deal did not give NSA access to Google's data on users’ searches or e-mail communications and accounts and Google was not sharing proprietary data with the agency, privacy and civil rights advocates were concerned.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/google-seeks-nsa-help/ "Google Asks NSA to Help Secure Its Network"], Kim Zetter, ''Wired'', February 4, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/from-dont-be-evil-to-spy-on-everyone/ "‘Don’t Be Evil,’ Meet ‘Spy on Everyone’: How the NSA Deal Could Kill Google"], Noah Shachtman, ''Wired'', February 4, 2010</ref>

In October 2004, Google acquired [[Keyhole, Inc|Keyhole]], a 3D mapping company. In February 2004, before its acquisition by Google, Keyhole received an investment from [[In-Q-Tel]], the [[CIA]]'s investment arm.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/28/google_buys_keyhole/ "Google buys CIA-backed mapping startup"], Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 28, 2004</ref> And in July 2010 it was reported that the investment arms of both the CIA (In-Q-Tel) and Google ([[Google Ventures]]) were investing in [[Recorded Future]], a company specializing in [[predictive analytics]]—monitoring the web in real time and using that information to predict the future. And, while private corporations have been using similar systems since the 1990s, the involvement of Google and the CIA with their large data stores raises privacy concerns.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/#ixzz0v7drHZhm "Google, CIA Invest in ‘Future’ of Web Monitoring"], Noah Shachtman, ''Wired'', July 28, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-jacobson/google-and-cia-invest-in_b_664525.html "Google and CIA Invest in a Minority Report-Like Technology That May Make Our World a Less Certain Place"], Bob Jacobson, ''Huffington Post'', July 30, 2010</ref>

In 2011, a federal district court judge in the United States turned down a [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] request, submitted by the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]. In May 2012, a [[Court of Appeals]] upheld the ruling. The request attempted to disclose NSA records regarding the [[Operation Aurora|2010 cyber-attack on Google users in China]]. The NSA stated that revealing such information would make the US Government information systems vulnerable to attack. The NSA [[Glomar response|refused to confirm or deny]] the existence of the records, or the existence of any relationship between the NSA and Google.<ref name=USAToday-nsa-spy-china>{{cite news|title=Court rules that Google-NSA spy ties can remain secret|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-05-11/court-google-nsa-spy-china/54912902/1|accessdate=May 14, 2012|date=May 11, 2012|agency=The Associated Press|work=USA Today}}</ref>

====Government requests====
Google has been criticized for both disclosing too much information to governments too quickly and for not disclosing information that governments need to enforce their laws. In April 2010, Google, for the first time, released details about how often countries around the world ask it to hand over user data or to censor information.<ref name=Shiels-20Apr2010>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8633642.stm "Google reveals government data requests and censorship"], Maggie Shiels, ''BBC News'', April 20, 2010</ref> Online tools make the updated data available to everyone.<ref>[http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/ "Government Requests"], Google Transparency Report, accessed October 18, 2011</ref>

Between July and December 2009, Brazil topped the list for user data requests with 3,663, while the US made 3,580, the UK 1,166, and India 1,061. Brazil also made the largest number of requests to remove content with 291, followed by Germany with 188, India with 142, and the US with 123. Google, who stopped offering search services in China a month before the data was released, said it could not release information on requests from the Chinese government because such information is regarded as a state secret.<ref name=Shiels-20Apr2010/>

Google's chief legal officer said, "The vast majority of these requests are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations or for the removal of child pornography".<ref name=Shiels-20Apr2010/>

====Google Chrome====
In 2008 [[Consumer Watchdog]] produced a video showing how [[Google Chrome]]
records what a user types into the [[URL|web address]] field and sends that
information to Google servers to populate search suggestions, the video discusses on the potential privacy implications of this feature.<ref>[http://www.govtech.com/security/Consumer-Watchdog-Exposes-Google-Privacy-Problems.html "Consumer Watchdog Exposes Google Privacy Problems "], Digital Communities, November 5, 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncerhCLi2o0 "How Google Chrome Doesn't protect Privacy"], YouTube </ref>
<ref>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/story/chrome-spying-you</ref>

===Street View===
{{Main |Google Street View |Google Street View privacy concerns}}

Google's online map service, [[Google Street View|"Street View"]], has been accused of taking pictures and viewing too far into people's private homes and/or too close to people on the street when they do not know they are being photographed.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/google_grills_privacy_buff/ "EFF lawyer is smokin' on Google Street View"], Dan Goodin, The Register, June 13, 2007</ref><ref>[http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1870995.ece "All-seeing Google Street View prompts privacy fears"], Times Online, June 1, 2007</ref>

====Information collection from WiFi networks====
During 2006–2010 Google Streetview camera cars collected about 600 gigabytes of data from users of unencrypted public and private [[Wi-Fi]] networks in more than 30 countries. No disclosures nor privacy policy was given to those affected, nor to the owners of the Wi-Fi stations.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100528181755/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Google-grabs-personal-info-apf-2162289993.html?x=0 "Google grabs personal info off of Wi-Fi networks"], Michael Liedtke, AP, May 14, 14, 2010</ref>

Google apologized, said they were "acutely aware that we failed badly here" in terms of privacy protection, that they were not aware of the problem until an inquiry from German regulators was received, that the private data was collected inadvertently, and that none of the private data was used in Google's search engine or other services. A representative of [[Consumer Watchdog]] replied, "Once again, Google has demonstrated a lack of concern for privacy. Its computer engineers run amok, push the envelope and gather whatever data they can until their fingers are caught in the cookie jar." In a sign that legal penalties may result, Google said it will not destroy the data until permitted by regulators.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100528181755/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Google-grabs-personal-info-apf-2162289993.html?x=0 "Google grabs personal info off of Wi-Fi networks"], Michael Liedtke (AP), Yahoo! Finance, May 14, 2010</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8684110.stm | title=Google admits wi-fi data blunder | date=May 15, 2010 |work=BBC News | first=Maggie | last=Shiels}}</ref>

===Google Buzz===
{{Main |Google Buzz}}

On February 9, 2010, Google launched [[Google Buzz]], Google's microblogging service. Anyone with a Gmail account was automatically added as a contact to pre-existing Gmail contacts, and had to opt out if they did not wish to participate.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/google-buzz–facebook-in-gmail/1 | work=USA Today | title=Google adds Facebook-like features to Gmail | date=February 9, 2010 | accessdate=April 30, 2010 | first=Marc | last=Saltzman}}</ref>

The launch of Google Buzz as an "opt-out" social network immediately drew criticism for violating user privacy because it automatically allowed Gmail users' contacts to view their other contacts.<ref>[http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/15547473 "Google's Buzz 'Has Serious Privacy Flaws'"], Roddy Mansfield, Sky News Online, February 12, 2010</ref>

===Google+ and Nymwars===
{{Main|Google+ |Nymwars}}

Google+ requires users to identify themselves using their real names, and accounts may be suspended when this requirement is not met.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/07/google-plus-user-names/ "Google+ Identity Crisis: What’s at Stake With Real Names and Privacy"], Tim Carmody, ''Wired'', July 26, 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/7/8/google-starts-account-cull-google/ |title=Google Carries Out Account Cull on Google+ |publisher=Thinq.co.uk |accessdate=July 21, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author= Hardawar, Devindra |url=http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/25/google-plus-name-policy-fix |title=Google VP Offers Up Fixes to Google+ Name Policy, Debunks Myths |publisher= [[VentureBeat]] (blog) |date= July 25, 2011 |accessdate=August 23, 2011}}</ref> Critics point out that [[Pseudonymity|pseudonymous]] speech has played a critical role throughout history and feel that the Google+ policy deprives some people of an important privacy protection tool.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms "A Case for Pseudonyms"], Jillian C. York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, July 29, 2011</ref>

On October 19, 2011, at the Web 2.0 Summit, Google executive [[Vic Gundotra]] revealed that Google+ would begin supporting pseudonyms and other types of identity within a few months.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/victory-google-surrenders-nymwars "Victory! Google Surrenders in the Nymwars"], Eva Galperin and Jillian C. York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 19, 2011</ref>

===YouTube and Viacom===
{{Main |YouTube |Criticism of YouTube}}

On July 14, 2008, [[Viacom]] [[compromise]]d to protect YouTube users' personal data in their $1&nbsp;billion copyright lawsuit. Google agreed it will anonymize user information and internet protocol addresses from its YouTube subsidiary before handing the data over to Viacom. The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the [[FA Premier League]], the [[Rodgers & Hammerstein]] organization and the [[Scottish Premier League]].<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSP21085220080715 "Lawyers in YouTube lawsuit reach user privacy deal"], Eric Auchard, Reuters, July 15, 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront "Google and Viacom reach deal over YouTube user data"], Mark Sweney, ''The Guardian'', July 15, 2008</ref> The deal however did not extend the anonymity to employees, because Viacom wishes to prove that Google staff are aware of the uploading of illegal material to the site. The parties therefore will further meet on the matter lest the data be made available to the court.<ref>[http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/831528/Viacom-backs-down-YouTube-lawsuit/ "Viacom backs down over YouTube lawsuit"], Fiona Ramsay, Media Week, July 15, 2008]</ref>

===Privacy and data protection cases and issues by state===

====European Union====
[[European Union]] (EU) data protection officials (the [[Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data|Article 29]] working party who advise the EU on privacy policy) have written to Google asking the company to justify its policy of keeping information on individuals' internet searches for up to two years. The letter questioned whether Google has "fulfilled all the necessary requirements" on the EU laws concerning data protection.<ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dc89ec96-0a24-11dc-93ae-000b5df10621.html "EU probes Google grip on data"], Maija Palmer, ''Financial Times'', May 24, 2007</ref> {{As of|2007|05|24}} the probe by the EU into the data protection issue is continuing. On June 1, Google agreed that its privacy policy is vague, and that they are constantly working at making it clearer to users.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6704013.stm "Google privacy policy 'is vague'"], Darren Waters, BBC News, May 31, 2007</ref>  The resulting modifications to its privacy policies have been met with praise.<ref>[http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/72714.html Earth Times – Google's data Limiting Initiative Gets EU Praise]{{dead link|date=October 2011}}</ref>

====Czech Republic====
Starting in 2010, after more than five months of unsuccessful negotiations with Google, the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection has prevented Street View from taking pictures of new locations. The Office described Google’s program as taking pictures “beyond the extent of the ordinary sight from a street”, and claimed that it “disproportionately invaded citizens’ privacy.”<ref>[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6006085,00.html "Czech Republic stops Google from further Street View photography"], Cyrus Farivar (Reuters), ''Deutsche Welle'', September 15, 2010</ref><ref>[http://seerpress.com/czech-republic-blocks-googles-data-mapping-feature/7691/ "Czech Republic blocks Google’s data mapping feature"], J.G. Enriquez, ''Seer Press News'', September 25, 2010</ref>

====Germany====
In May 2010, Google was unable to meet a deadline set by Hamburg's data protection supervisor to hand over data illegally collected from unsecured home wireless networks. Google added, “We hope, given more time, to be able to resolve this difficult issue."<ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128021&sectionid=3510208 "Google refuses to give up 'illegal' data"], Press TV, May 27, 2010</ref> The data was turned over to German, French, and Spanish authorities in early June 2010.<ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/article/197955/google_relents_will_hand_over_european_wifi_data.html "Google Relents, Will Hand Over European Wi-Fi Data"], Robert McMillan, PC World/IDG News, June 3, 2010</ref>

In November 2010, vandals in Germany targeted houses that had opted out of Google's Street View.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11827862 "German vandals target Street View opt-out homes"], BBC News, November 24, 2010.</ref>

In April 2011, Google announced that it will not expand its Street View program in Germany, but what has already been shot–around 20 cities' worth of pictures–will remain available. This decision came in spite of an earlier Berlin State Supreme Court ruling that Google's Street View program was legal.<ref>[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383363,00.asp#fbid=MDbuVgOuOWf "Google Abandons Street View in Germany"], David Murphy, PC Magazine, April 10, 2011</ref>

====Italy====
Google vs. Vividown: In February 2010, in a complaint brought by an Italian advocacy group for people with Down's Syndrome, Vividown, and the boy's father, three Google executives were handed six-month suspended sentences for breach of the Italian Personal Data Protection Code in relation to a video, uploaded to Google Video in 2006, of a disabled boy being bullied by several classmates.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm |title= Google bosses convicted in Italy |work=BBC News | date=February 24, 2010 | accessdate=April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>[http://www.guidoscorza.it/?p=1816 "Caso Google-Vividown: un bel saggio che deve far riflettere]" {{it}} ("Google case-Vividown: a good essay that should give pause"), Guido Scorza, May 16, 2010 ([http://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm English translation])</ref><ref>[http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/356.full.pdf+html "The Italian Google-Case: Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Responsibility of Providers for User-Generated Contents"], Giovanni Sartor and Mario Viola de Azevedo Cunha, ''International Journal of Law and Information Technology'', Vol. 18 No. 4 (Winter 2010), pp. 356–378</ref> In December 2012, these convictions and sentences were overturned on appeal.<ref>[http://milano.corriere.it/milano/notizie/cronaca/12_dicembre_21/manager-google-assolti-picchiato-ragazzo-disabile-video-2113264459098.shtml "Video del ragazzo disabile picchiato, assolti i tre manager di Google"] {{it}}, English translation: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.ilpost.it/2012/12/21/assoluzione-appello-google-vividown/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgoogle-vividown%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-beta%26hs%3DzX0%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=AlhHUc_0EoXGygG8_YCgBQ&ved=0CGwQ7gEwBw "Video of the disabled boy beaten, acquitted the three managers of Google"], ''Corriere Della Sera'' (Milano), 12 December 2012</ref>

====Norway====
The Data Inspectorate of Norway (Norway is not a member of the EU) has investigated Google (and others) and has stated that the 18- to 24-month period for retaining data proposed by Google was too long.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=agImLlGaNKaw&refer=home "Google Data on Users May Break EU Law, Watchdog Says"], Stephanie Bodoni, Bloomberg, May 25, 2007</ref>

====United States====
In early 2005, the [[United States Department of Justice]] filed a motion in federal court to force Google to comply with a [[subpoena]] for "the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a two-month period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query)."<ref name="DOJsubpeona">"[http://www.google.com/press/images/subpoena_20060317.pdf ACLU v. Alberto R. Gonzales]." ''[[United States District Court]] (Northern District of California).'' August 25, 2005. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.</ref> Google fought the subpoena, due to concerns about users' privacy.<ref name="googlesubpeona">Wong, Nicole. "[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-doj-motion.html Response to the DOJ Motion]." ''Google.'' February 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.</ref> In March 2006, the court ruled partially in Google's favor, recognizing the privacy implications of turning over search terms and refusing to grant access.<ref name="broache">Broache, Anne. "[http://news.com.com/Judge+Google+must+give+feds+limited+access+to+records/2100-1028_3-6051257.html Judge: Google must give feds limited access to records]." ''[[CNET]].'' March 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.</ref>

In April 2008 a Pittsburgh couple, Aaron and Christine Boring, sued Google for "invasion of privacy". They claimed that Street View made a photo of their home available online, and it diminished the value of their house, which was purchased for its privacy.<ref>{{cite news |coauthors= |title=Couple Sues Google Over "Street View". |url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/couple-sues-google-over-street-view |quote= |publisher=[[The Smoking Gun]] |date=April 4, 2008 }}</ref> They lost their case in a Pennsylvania court. "While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any – other than the most exquisitely sensitive – would suffer shame or humiliation," Judge Hay ruled; the Boring family was paid one dollar by Google for the incident.<ref>{{cite news |first= Jemima|last= Kiss|title=Google wins Street View privacy case |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/google-wins-street-view-privacy-case |quote=An American couple who attempted to sue Google over what they claimed was its "privacy invading" Street View technology have lost their case in a Pennsylvania court. |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=February 19, 2009 |accessdate=February 19, 2009 }}</ref>

In May 2010, a U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon ordered Google to hand over two copies of wireless data that the company's [[Google Street View|Street View]] program collected as it photographed neighborhoods.<ref name="reuters">{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2713025120100527 | title=US court orders Google to copy data in Wi-Fi case | first=Diane | last=Bartz | date=May 27, 2010 | work=Reuters}}</ref>

===Do Not Track===
{{main|Do Not Track|Do Not Track Policy|Google Chrome}}

In April 2011, Google was criticized for not signing onto the [[Do not track header|Do Not Track]] feature for Chrome that is being incorporated in most other modern web browsers, including Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera. Critics pointed out that a new patent Google was granted in April 2011, for greatly enhanced user tracking through web advertising, will provide much more detailed information on user behavior and that ''do not track'' would hurt Google's ability to exploit this. Software reviewer Kurt Bakke of ''Conceivably Tech'' wrote: "Google said that it intends to charge{{sic}} advertisers based on click-through rates, certain user activities and a pay-for-performance model. The entire patent seems to fit Google's recent claims that Chrome is critical for Google to maintain search dominance through its Chrome web browser and Chrome OS and was described as a tool to lock users to Google's search engine and – ultimately – its advertising services. So, how likely is it that Google will follow the do-not-track trend? Not very likely." Mozilla developer Asa Dotzler noted: "It seems pretty obvious to me that the Chrome team is bowing to pressure from Google's advertising business and that's a real shame. I had hoped they'd demonstrate a bit more independence than that."<ref name="Bakke18Apr11">{{Cite news|url = http://www.conceivablytech.com/6863/products/chrome-shields-websites-from-denial-of-service-attacks|title = Chrome Shields Websites From Denial-Of-Service Attacks|accessdate =April 20, 2011|last = Bakke|first = Kurt|year = 2011|month = April| work=Conceivably Tech}}</ref><ref name="Bakke19Apr11">{{Cite news|url = http://www.conceivablytech.com/6891/business/google-menu-ad-tracking-a-case-of-bad-timing|title = Google Menu Ad Tracking: A Case Of Bad Timing?|accessdate =April 20, 2011|last = Bakke|first = Kurt|year = 2011|month = April| work=Conceivably Tech}}</ref><ref name="Dotzler14Apr11">{{cite web|url = http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2011/04/chrome_do_not_track.html |title = Chrome, Do Not Track, and Google Advertising|accessdate =April 20, 2011|last = Dotzler|first = Asa|year = 2011|month = April}}</ref>

Google argued that the technology is useless at the present time, as advertisers are not required to obey the user's tracking preference and as it remains unclear as to what constitutes tracking (as opposed to storing statistical data or user preferences). As an alternative, Google offers an extension called ''"Keep My Opt-Outs"'', which permanently bars ad companies from installing cookies on the user's computer.<ref>{{cite web|url =https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hhnjdplhmcnkiecampfdgfjilccfpfoe |title = Keep My Opt-Outs, Chrome Web Store |accessdate =June 19, 2011}}</ref>

The reaction to this extension was mixed. Paul Thurrott of ''Windows IT Pro'' called the extension "much, much closer to what I've been asking for—i.e. something that just works and doesn't require the user to figure anything out—than the IE or Firefox solutions" while lamenting the fact that the extension is not included as part of the browser itself.<ref>{{cite web|url =http://www.winsupersite.com/blogs/entryid/76091/daily-update-googles-do-not-track-solution-apple-stuff-crysis-2-demo-more |title = Daily Update: Google's Do Not Track Solution, Apple Stuff, Crysis 2 Demo, More|accessdate =April 22, 2011|last = Thurrott|first = Paul|year = 2011|month = January}}</ref>

In February 2012, Google announced that Chrome will incorporate a ''Do Not Track'' feature by the end of 2012, which was implemented in early November 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url =http://browserfame.com/478/google-chrome-support-do-not-track |title = Google and Chrome To Support Do Not Track|accessdate =March 3, 2012}}</ref>

==Censorship==

Google has been criticized for various instances of [[censorship|censoring]] its search results, many times in compliance with the laws of various countries, most notably when it operated in [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|China]] from January 2006 to March 2010.

===Web search===
In the United States, Google commonly censors search results to comply with [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]-related legal complaints,<ref>[http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2 "Keyword: Google and the DMCA"], Chilling Effects Clearinghouse</ref> such as in 2002 when Google censored websites that provided information critical of [[Scientology]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Google_Scientology.html|title=GOOGLE, Censorship and Scientology?|date=March 21, 2002|publisher=F.A.C.T.net}}</ref><ref>[http://www.politechbot.com/p-03281.html "Google bows to Scientology's DMCA request, yanks critics' site"], Declan McCullagh, Politech (politics and technology) mailing list, March 21, 2002</ref>

In the United Kingdom, it was reported that Google had 'delisted' Inquisition 21st century, a website which claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. Google later released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.<ref name=Gdelists>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/21/google_delists_inq21/|title=Google erases Operation Ore campaign site|first=Lucy|last=Sherriff|date=September 21, 2006|publisher=The Register}}</ref> In Germany and France, a study reported that approximately 113 [[White Nationalism|White Nationalist]], [[Nazism|Nazi]], [[anti-semitic]], [[radical Islam]]ic and other websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.<ref>Zittrain, Jonathan; Edelman, Benjamin. "[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google Localized Google search result exclusions: Statement of issues and call for data]." ''[[Harvard Law School]]: Berkman Center for Internet & Society.'' October 22, 2002.</ref> Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to [[Chilling Effects (group)|Chilling Effects]] for explanation.<ref name=gatekeepers>{{cite news |first= Jeffrey|last= Rosen|title=Google’s Gatekeepers  |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all |quote= |work=New York Times | date=November 30, 2008}}</ref>

As of January 26, 2011, Google's Auto Complete feature will not complete certain words such as "bittorrent", "torrent", "utorrent", "megaupload", and "rapidshare", and Google actively censors search terms or phrases that its algorithm considers as likely constituting spam or intending to manipulate search results.<ref>[http://torrentfreak.com/google-starts-censoring-bittorrent-rapidshare-and-more-110126/ "Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More"], Torrent Freak, January 26, 2011</ref> In addition, swear-words and pornographic words are not completed. However, they are not censored from actual search results.

As of June 2012, Google's Shopping policies were modified to prohibit the inclusion of "firearms" and firearm-related products, such as ammunition and accessory kits.<ref>[http://support.google.com/merchants/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188484#US], Google Shopping policies</ref><ref>[http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/google-censor-firearms-related-shopping-results/], Google to Censor Firearms</ref>

As of December 12, 2012, Google now 'censors' explicit content from image searches in the USA. The changes to SafeSearch now remove the "on", "moderate" and "off" settings, and instead offer the option to "filter explicit content," which will remove any such content identified as such, regardless of how specific the searches are. They have now left the USA public with the options to "Turn off Safe Search and have searches censored" or "Turn on Safe Search and have everything censored.".<ref>http://www.zdnet.com/google-com-now-censors-explicit-content-from-image-searches-7000008705/</ref> Previous options – No filtering, Moderate and Strict – is not available anymore. The two new options, Safe Search On and Safe Search Off, is now equivalent to the previous options of Moderate and Strict filtering. The option of No filtering, is not available anymore.

===China===
{{See also|Google China}}

Google has been criticized for its censorship of certain sites in specific countries and regions. Until March 2010, Google adhered to the [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|Internet censorship policies of China]],<ref name="bbc1">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm |title=Google censors itself for China |publisher=BBC |accessdate=January 31, 2008 |date=January 25, 2006}}</ref> enforced by filters colloquially known as "The [[Great Firewall of China]]". Google.cn search results were filtered to remove some results concerning the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]], sites supporting the independence movements of [[Tibetan independence|Tibet]] and [[Taiwan independence|Taiwan]], the [[Falun Gong]] movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002.<ref>[http://www.groveatlantic.com/#page=isbn9780802142979 ''The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000''], Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9</ref> The company claims it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it.<ref>"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm Google move 'black day' for China]." ''[[BBC News]].'' January 25, 2006.</ref> As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly ''inform'' the user when search results are blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of possible censorship for certain queries during search.<ref>"[http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/04/google-china-search-message-gone Google quietly removed search warning message in China in early December 2012]." ''[[Engadget]].'' January 4, 2013</ref>

Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights.<ref name="TellGoogle">[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/admirersofhhthedalailama/message/4117 "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda"], Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, February 1, 2006</ref> Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by [[Free Media Movement]] for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.<ref name="Googlebows">{{cite news |url=http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/01/25/afx2474703.html |title=Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site |author=AFX News |work=Forbes |date=January 25, 2006}}</ref> Google China had also been condemned by [[Reporters Without Borders]],<ref name="Googlebows" /> [[Human Rights Watch]]<ref>[http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/5.htm#_Toc142395827 "3. Google, Inc."] in ''“Race to the Bottom”: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China'', Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006</ref> and [[Amnesty International]].<ref>[http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL30/015/2006/en/7755adf8-d432-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/pol300152006en.html "<strike>Google does not censor:</strike> take action to defend freedom of information"], Amnesty International, May 10, 2006</ref>

In 2009, [[China Central Television]], [[Xinhua News Agency]], [[People's Daily]] reported Google's "dissemination of obscene information", People's Daily claimed that "Google's 'don't be evil' motto becomes a fig leaf".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://it.people.com.cn/GB/42891/42895/9507795.html | title=Google's "don't be evil" motto becomes a fig leaf (谷歌"不作恶"口号沦为遮羞布) |work=People's Daily |date=June 19, 2009 |accessdate=June 27, 2009 }} ([http://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://it.people.com.cn/GB/42891/42895/9507795.html English translation])</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://zb.people.com.cn/GB/14717/98407/120220/9547340.html | title=Investigating on Google China's obscene information, the public says "good"! (查处谷歌中国淫秽信息，公众都叫"好"！) |work=People's Daily |date=June 26, 2009 |accessdate=June 27, 2009 }} ([http://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://zb.people.com.cn/GB/14717/98407/120220/9547340.html English translation])</ref> The Chinese government imposed administrative penalties to Google China, and demanded for a reinforcement of the censorship.<ref name="xinhua_punish">{{cite news|url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-06/19/content_11568367.htm|title=Relevant departments punished "Google China"'s dissemination of obscene information by law (有关部门对"谷歌中国"传播淫秽色情信息行为依法处罚)|publisher=xinhuanet|author=卫敏丽|date=June 19, 2009|accessdate=June 26, 2009}} ([http://www.google.com/translate_c?langpair=en&u=http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2009-06/19/content_11568367.htm English translation])</ref>

In 2010, according to a [[United States diplomatic cables leak|leaked diplomatic cable]] from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, there were reports that the Chinese Politburo directed the [[Operation Aurora|intrusion of Google's computer systems in a worldwide coordinated campaign of computer sabotage and the attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents]], carried out by "government operatives, public security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government."<ref name=twsDecZ16aa>{{Cite news
 |author=Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren
 |title= Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy
 |work=The New York Times |quote= ...China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. ...
 |date= November 28, 2010
 |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1
 |accessdate=December 26, 2010
}}</ref> The report suggested that it was part of an ongoing campaign in which attackers have "broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002."<ref name=twsDecZ16aa>{{cite news
 |author= SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
 |title= Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy
 |publisher= ''The New York Times''
 |quote= ...The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, ...
 |date= November 28, 2010
 |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1
 |accessdate= December 26, 2010
}}</ref>

In response to [[Operation Aurora|the attack]], Google announced that they were “no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”<ref>[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html "A new approach to China"], David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, January 12, 2010</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html|title=A new approach to China|date=January 12, 2010|publisher=Google Inc.|accessdate=January 17, 2010}}</ref> On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying [[Google China]] service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. From the business perspective, many recognize that the move was likely to affect Google's profits: "Google is going to pay a heavy price for its move, which is why it deserves praise for refusing to censor its service in China."<ref>{{cite web|title=Google’s strategy in China deserves praise|url=http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/1842611/googles-strategy-in-china-deserves.html|publisher=Kansas City Star|accessdate=September 29, 2012|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20100401043301/http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/1842611/googles-strategy-in-china-deserves.html|archivedate=April 1, 2010|date=March 28, 2010}}</ref> However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4 incident" (Tiananmen Square incident).<ref>[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html A new approach to China: an update"], David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, March 22, 2010</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/google-pulls-out-of-china-2010-3 |title=BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China |date=March 22, 2010|author=Nicholas Carlson |work=Business Insider}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.8ttSrfS4DE&pos=1|title=Google Ends Self-Censorship, Defies China Government (Update4)|author=Brian Womack |date=March 23, 2010|publisher=[[Bloomberg News]]}}</ref>

===AdSense/AdWords===
{{Main |Google AdSense |Google AdWords}}

In February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of [[Oceana (non-profit group)|Oceana]], a non-profit organization protesting a <<link:0>>'s sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban|title= Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban|date=May 17, 2004 |publisher=WebProNews}}</ref> The policy was later changed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answer=48182|title=Google AdSense Program Policies |date=May 27, 2011 |publisher=Google}}</ref>

In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'"<ref>{{cite news |first=Caldwell |last=Simon |title=Christian group sues Google after search engine refuses to take its anti-abortion adverts |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558177&in_page_id=1770 |work=Daily Mail |location=London  |id= |date= April 9, 2008|quote=[Google's] Dublin-based advertising team replied: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'}}</ref> The UK Christian group sued Google for discrimination and as a result in September 2008 Google was forced to change its policy and anti-abortion ads came alive.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5827418 |title=Google OKs Religious Groups' Abortion Ads – ABC News |publisher=Abcnews.go.com |date=September 18, 2008 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref>

In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of [[Scientology]], the second closing of such a site within 3 months.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/google_kills_another_anonymous_adsense_account/ "Google murders second Anonymous AdSense account"], Cade Metz, The Register, August 15, 2008</ref> It is not certain if the account revocations actually were on the grounds of anti-religious content, however the cases have raised questions about Google's terms in regards to AdSense/AdWords.  The AdSense policy defines that "Sites displaying Google ads may not include [...] advocacy against any individual, group, or organization",<ref>[https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182 "Google AdSense Program Policies"], AdSense Help, Google Inc.</ref> which allows Google to revoke the above mentioned AdSense accounts.

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL),<ref>[http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ Turn Off the Blue Light], website</ref> claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services.<ref>{{cite news|last=Paterson|first=Jody|title=Google tramples sex workers' rights|url=http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Google+tramples+workers+rights/4999164/story.html|newspaper=Victoria Times-Colonist|date=June 24, 2011}}</ref> In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/google-uturn-on-sex-worker-groups-advert-2841940.html |title=Google u-turn on sex worker group's advert |first=Jim |last=Cusack |publisher=Sunday Independent |date=August 7, 2011}}</ref>

In June 2012, Google rejected the [[Australian Sex Party]]'s ads for [[AdWords]] and sponsored search results for the July 12 by-election for the [[Electoral district of Melbourne|state seat of Melbourne]], saying the Party breached its rules which prevent solicitation of donations by a website that did not display tax exempt status. Although the Sex Party amended its website to display tax deductibility information, Google continued to ban the ads. The ads were reinstated on election eve after it was reported in the media that the Sex Party was considering suing Google. On September 13, 2012 the Party lodged formal complaints against Google with the [[United States Department of Justice|US Department of Justice]] and the Australian competition watchdog, accusing Google of "unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election in [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] with corrupt intent" in violation of the [[Foreign Corrupt Practices Act]].<ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-sex-party-please-were-google-20120913-25tn8.html No Sex Party please, we're Google] [[Sydney Morning Herald]] September 13, 2012</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main |YouTube |Censorship of YouTube}}

YouTube is a [[Video hosting service|video sharing]] website acquired by Google in 2006.  YouTube's [[Terms of Service]] prohibits the posting of videos which violate [[copyright]]s or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or [[hate speech]].<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines|title= YouTube Community Guidelines|accessdate=May 9, 2007 |publisher= YouTube}}</ref> User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message stating: "This video is no longer available because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service".

YouTube has been criticized by national governments for failing to police content. For example, videos<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_q6mnyaK8
|title= like this one }}</ref> have been criticality accused for being "left up", among other videos featuring unwarranted violence or strong ill-intend against people who probably didn't want this to be published.  In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that YouTube remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content.<ref name=gatekeepers/> In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted [[Mustafa Kemal Ataturk]], a crime under Turkish law.<ref name=gatekeepers/> On February 22, 2008, [[Pakistan Telecommunications Authority]] (PTA) attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt inadvertently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct.<ref>{{cite web
 |url= http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=20536&pagtype=allchandate
 |title= Pakistan causes worldwide YouTube blackout
 |first= John |last= Ribeiro
 |date= February 25, 2008
 |work= Macworld UK
 |accessdate=December 23, 2010

}}</ref> Four days later, PTA lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch Member of Parliament<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/tech/main3876322.shtml "Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban"], CBS News/AP, February 11, 2009</ref> concerning Islam.<ref>[http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9879513-7.html "Pakistan welcomes back YouTube"], Greg Sandoval, CNET News Blogs, February 26, 2008</ref>

YouTube has also been criticized by its users for attempting to censor content. In November 2007, the account of [[Wael Abbas]], a well known Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations, was blocked for three days.<ref>{{cite news
 |url= http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-29/world/youtube.activist_1_youtube-videos-police-brutality?_s=PM:WORLD
 |title= YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account
 |date= November 29, 2007
 |publisher= Cable News Network
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
 |url= http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/30/friday/index.html?section=cnn_latest
 |title=YouTube reinstates account of Egyptian human rights activist
 |work= The CNN Wire: Friday, Nov.&nbsp;30
 |date= November 30, 2007
 |publisher= Cable News Network
}}</ref><ref name="EgyptTorture">[http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/27/egypt-youtube-idUSL2759043020071127 "YouTube stops account of Egypt anti-torture activist"], Cynthia Johnston, Reuters, November 27, 2007</ref>

In February 2008, a video produced by the [[American Life League]] that accused a [[Planned Parenthood]] television commercial of promoting [[recreational sex]] was removed, then reinstated two days later.<ref>{{cite web
 |url= http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/american_life_league_video_yanked_by_youtube/
 |title= American Life League video yanked by YouTube
 |date= February 12, 2008
 |publisher= Catholic News Agency

}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
 |url= http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/youtube-concedes-error-in-banning-american-life-leagues-pro-life-video-56941567.html
 |title= YouTube Concedes Error in Banning American Life League's Pro-Life Video
 |date= February 14, 2008
 |work = PR Newswire
 |publisher= United Business Media

}}</ref> In October, a video by political speaker [[Pat Condell]] criticizing the British government for officially sanctioning sharia law courts in Britain was removed, then reinstated two days later.<ref>{{cite news
 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3130883/YouTube-censors-comedians-anti-Sharia-video-called-Welcome-to-Saudi-Britain.html
 |title= YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'
 |first= Martin
 |last= Beckford
 |date= October 3, 2008
 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London

}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
 |url= http://www.religiouswatch.com/rw1008.htm#Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain_3477
 |title= Update: Welcome to Saudi Britain...
 |date= October 5, 2008
 |work= ReligiousWatch.com

}}</ref> In response, his fans uploaded copies of the video themselves, and the [[National Secular Society]] wrote to YouTube in protest.

YouTube also pulled a video of columnist [[Michelle Malkin]] showing violence by Muslim extremists.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?pagewanted=4&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1314114291-njLdaO6lH7qU1/QFhd2LQg | work=The New York Times | first=Jeffrey | last=Rosen | title=Google's Gatekeepers | date=November 30, 2008}}</ref> Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, commented that while, in his opinion, Michelle Malkin disseminates bigotry in her blog, "that does not mean that this particular video is bigoted; it's not. But because it's by Malkin, it's a target."<ref>[http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520258822 ''The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry)''], Siva Vaidhyanatan, University of California Press, 2011, page 39, ISBN 978-0-520-25882-2</ref>

YouTube censors videos by country on its site. For example, videos from certain countries are blocked from being viewed in the United States and other countries on copyright grounds. But some users allege that is blatant censorship by YouTube because it forbids users from viewing the videos that they want to see. YouTube has received numerous criticisms for blocking videos containing content from certain entertainment companies. YouTube has been criticized for heavy-handed censorship. Some allege that this censorship is xenophobic because it blocks people from enjoying foreign works because they lived in a foreign country where the content has been blocked.

===Ungoogleable===
{{main|Ungoogleable}}
In 2013, Google successfully prevented the [[Swedish Language Council]] from including the [[Swedish language|Swedish]] version of the word "''ungoogleable''" ("''[[:sv:Ogooglebar|ogooglebar]]''") in its list of new words.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21944834 | title=Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list | first=Sean | last=Fanning | publisher=[[BBC]] |work=[[BBC News]] | date=26 March 2013 | accessdate=5 April 2013 }}</ref> Google objected to its definition and the Council was forced to remove it to avoid legal confrontation with Google.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ungoogleable-removed-from-list-of-swedish-words-after-row-over-definition-with-google-8550096.html| title='Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google: California based search engine giant asked Swedish to amend definition | first=Rob | last=Williams |newspaper=[[The Independent]] | date=26 March 2013 | accessdate=5 April 2013 }}</ref> There have been accusations that Google is trying to control the [[Swedish language]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9954990/Sweden-rows-with-Google-over-term-ungoogleable.html| title=Sweden rows with Google over term 'ungoogleable' | first=Chris | last=Irvine |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] | date=25 March 2013 | accessdate=5 April 2013 }}</ref>

==Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust==
According to Joe Wilcox of [[Microsoft-Watch]] Google has increased its dominance of search, becoming an information gatekeeper despite the conflict of interest between information gathering and the advertising surrounding that information. His colleagues do not share the same view.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Google Monopoly Begins|url=http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/web_services_browser/the_google_monopoly_begins.html |publisher=eWeek Microsoft Watch |date=December 20, 2007}}</ref>

In the case of the now-defunct Google-Yahoo! deal of 2008 – a pact for Google to sell advertising on Yahoo! search pages – the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]] found that the deal would be "materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies" and would violate the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Fabio|first=Michelle|title=Is Google a Monopoly?|url=https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-headlines/corporate-lawsuits/is-google-monopoly|publisher=LegalZoom|date=September 13, 2011}}</ref>

===The Aliyun OS affair===
Google forced its partner [[Acer Inc.|Acer]] to cancel a planned announcement of an [[Aliyun OS]] powered smartphone in September 2012, because the Google senior VP [[Andy Rubin]] said that Acer is not allowed to work on a non-compatible "fork" of Android if they want to stay in the [[Open Handset Alliance]].  The VP of the Chinese company Alibaba, which have developed Aliyun OS, responded by arguing that Aliyun is not a fork, and criticised Android for not actually being open, since Google is in control of the app market through [[Google Play]].<ref>J. Angelo Racoma, [http://www.androidauthority.com/alibaba-aliyun-os-not-fork-android-115492/ Alibaba: Aliyun OS is ‘not a fork’ of Android], Android authority Sept 17, 2012.</ref><ref>Bogdan Petrovan, [http://www.androidauthority.com/google-speaks-up-on-the-aceralibaba-affair-115229/ Google speaks up on the Acer/Alibaba affair], Android authority Sept 20, 2012.</ref>

===Alternatives to Google and monopoly power===
In testimony before a [[U.S. Senate]] [[antitrust]] panel in September 2011, [[Eric Schmidt]], Google's chairman, said that “the Internet is the ultimate level playing field" where users were "one click away" from competitors.<ref name=Lohr-NYT-22Sep2011/> Beyond the existence of alternatives, Google's large market share was another aspect of the debate, as this exchange between [[Herb Kohl|Senator Herb Kohl]] and Mr. Schmidt at the September Senate hearing illustrates:<ref name=Rosoff-21Sep2011>[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-21/tech/30183638_1_monopoly-web-browser-market-microsoft "Is Google A Monopoly? 'We're In That Area,' Admits Schmidt"], Matt Rosoff, ''Business Insider'', September 21, 2011</ref>

:Senator Kohl asked: "But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant – special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you're in that area?"

:Schmidt replied: "I would agree, sir, that we’re in that area.... I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of monopoly findings is this is a judicial process."

Being a monopoly or having monopoly power isn't illegal in the United States. It depends on whether that power is used in ways that violate the special rules that apply to monopolies.<ref name=Rosoff-21Sep2011/><ref>"Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices" from the [[Dominance and monopoly|Law section of the Wikipedia article on Monopoly]], accessed November 11, 2011</ref>

==Other==

===Energy consumption===
{{See also|Google Energy}}

Google has been criticized for the high amount of energy used to maintain its servers,<ref>[http://www.harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html "Keyword: Evil"], Ginger Strand, ''Harpers Magazine'', March 2008</ref> but was praised by [[Greenpeace]] for the use of renewable source of energy to run them.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/business/energy-environment/cloud-services-rely-on-coal-or-nuclear-power-greenpeace-says.html Online Cloud Services Rely on Coal or Nuclear Power, Report Says], New York Times</ref>  Google has pledged to spend millions of dollars to investigate cheap, clean, [[renewable energy]], and has installed [[solar panel]]s on the roofs at its [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]] facilities.<ref>[http://www.news.com/Google-to-enter-clean-energy-business/2100-13844_3-6220341.html Google to enter clean-energy business] CNET News, November 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/technology/28google.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Google's Next Frontier: Renewable Energy] New York Times, November 2007</ref> In 2010, Google also invested $39&nbsp;million in wind power.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7679402/Google-blows-39m-into-wind-power.html | title= Google blows $39m into wind power | date=May 5, 2010 | accessdate=May 25, 2010 |location=London | first=Rupert | last=Neate |work=The Daily Telegraph}}</ref>

===Doodles===
{{Main |Google doodle |List of Google Doodles}}

Google was criticized by U.S. conservatives in 2007 for not featuring [[Google Doodle]]s for American patriotic holidays such as [[Memorial Day]] and [[Veterans Day]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google9oct09,0,2321354.story?coll=la-home-center | title=Tweaks send Google critics into orbit | date=October 9, 2007 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Jim | last=Puzzanghera}}</ref> That year, however, Google featured a logo commemorating [[Veterans Day]].<ref>[http://www.google.com/holidaylogos07.html "Holiday and Events – Google style! – 2007"], Google Logos, Google Inc., February 14, 2007</ref> The issue continues to be pressed. Most recently, on the 68th anniversary of [[D-Day]], a doodle commemorating the 79th anniversary of the first [[Drive-in theater]] was used.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.seroundtable.com/first-drive-in-theater-15255.html | title=D-Day vs The First Drive-In Theater? Google Picks Theater | date=June 6, 2012 | work=Search Engine Round Table | first=Barry | last=Schwartz}}</ref>

===Google Video===
{{Main |Google video}}

On August 15, 2007 Google discontinued its Download-to-own/Download-to-rent (DTO/DTR) program.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/08/google_drm_question/ "Is Google DRM crippling culture as great as it seems?"], Ashlee Vance, The Register, January 8, 2006</ref> Some videos previously purchased for ownership under that program were no longer viewable when the embedded [[Digital Rights Management]] (DRM) licenses were revoked. Google gave refunds for the full amount spent on videos using "gift certificates" (or "bonuses") to their customers' "Google Checkout Account".<ref>"[http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/10/google-video-robs-cu.html Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"]", [[Cory Doctorow]], boingboing, August 10, 2007</ref><ref>"[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2170676,00.asp Google Pulls Plug, Everyone Misses Point]", [[John C. Dvorak]], PC Magazine (online)], August 14, 2007</ref> After a public uproar, Google issued full refunds to the credit cards of the Google Video users without revoking the gift certificates.

===Search within search===
{{Main |Google search}}

For some search results, Google provides a secondary search box that can be used to search within a website identified from the first search. Although this is an innovative search tool for users, it sparked controversy among some online publishers and retailers.  When performing a second search within a specific website, advertisements from competing and rival companies often showed up together with the results from the website being searched. This has the potential to draw users away from the website they were originally searching.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/03/24/why-companies-are-upset-about-googles-search-within-search/|title=Why Companies Are Upset With Google's Search-Within-Search|author=Nick Stamoulis |work=SEO Blog|publisher=Search Engine Optimization Journal|date=March 24, 2008}}</ref> "While the service could help increase traffic, some users could be siphoned away as Google uses the prominence of the brands to sell ads, typically to competing companies."<ref name=timesws>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24ecom.html|title=A New Tool From Google Alarms Sites|author=Tedeschi, Bob|work=New York Times|date=March 24, 2008}}</ref> In order to combat this controversy, Google has offered to turn off this feature for companies who request to have it removed.<ref name=timesws/>

According to software engineer Ben Lee and Product Manager Jack Menzel, the idea for search within search originated from the way users were searching.  It appeared that users were often not finding exactly what they needed while trying to explore within a company site. "Teleporting" on the web, where users need only type part of the name of a website into Google (no need to remember the entire URL) in order to find the correct site, is what helps Google users complete their search. Google took this concept a step further and instead of just "teleporting", users could type in keywords to search within the website of their choice.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/62270.html?welcome=1206452899|title=Google's Search-Within-Search Draws Scutiny|author=Regan, Keith|publisher=E-Commerce Times|date=March 24, 2008}}</ref>

===Naming of Go programming language===
{{Main |Go (programming language) |Go! (programming language)}}

Google is criticized for naming their programming language "[[Go (programming language)|Go]]" while there is already an existing programming language called "[[Go! (programming language)|Go!]]".<ref>{{cite web |url= http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 |title= Issue 9 – go -I have already used the name for *MY* programming language |author= Francis McCabe (fmccabe) | date= November 10, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/web_services/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221601351 |title= Google 'Go' Name Brings Accusations Of 'Evil' |work= InformationWeek |author= Thomas Claburn
|date= November 11, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title= Google didn't google "Go" before naming their programming language |author= John Brownlee |publisher= geek.com |date= November 13, 2009 |url= http://www.geek.com/articles/news/google-didnt-google-go-before-naming-their-programming-language-20091113/ }}</ref>

===Potential security threats===
Google has been criticised for providing information that could potentially be useful to terrorists. In the UK during March 2010, [[Liberal Democrats]] MP [[Paul Keetch]] and unnamed military officers criticised Google for including pictures of the outside of the headquarters of the [[Special Air Service|SAS]] at [[RAF Hereford|RAF Base Hereford]], stating that terrorists might use this information to plan attacks, rather than having to drive past it themselves. Google responded that there was no appreciable security risk and that it had no intention of removing the pictures.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259162/Google-Street-View-shows-secret-SAS-base-major-security-breach.html |location=London |work=Daily Mail  | title=Fury as Google puts the SAS's secret base on Street View in 'very serious security breach' | date=March 19, 2010}}</ref>

On Google Maps, street view and 360 degree images of military bases were removed at the Pentagon's request.<ref>{{cite news|publisher=Information Week|url=http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/google_caves_to.html|title=Google Caves To Pentagon Wishes|author=Eric Ogren |date=March 7, 2008}}</ref>

===Tax avoidance===
Google has been criticized by journalists and others for using legal, but aggressive tax avoidance strategies to minimize its corporate tax bill.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fernholz|first=Tim|title=Does a "Dutch Sandwich" Make Google Evil?|url=http://prospect.org/article/does-dutch-sandwich-make-google-evil|accessdate=January 22, 2012|journal=The American Prospect|date=October 22, 2010}}</ref><ref name=Drucker2010/> Google cut its taxes by $3.1&nbsp;billion in the period of 2007 to 2009 using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and The Netherlands to Bermuda.  Google’s income shifting – involving strategies known to lawyers as the “[[Double Irish arrangement|Double Irish]]” and the “[[Double Irish arrangement#Dutch sandwich|Dutch Sandwich]]” – helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.<ref name=Drucker2010>{{cite news
| url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
| title=Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60&nbsp;Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes
| author=Jesse Drucker
| date=October 21, 2010
| publisher=Bloomberg
| quote=Google is “flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they’re perpetrating evil under our noses,” said Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College in New York who has examined Google’s tax disclosures. “Who is it that paid for the underlying concept on which they built these billions of dollars of revenues?” Briloff said. “It was paid for by the United States citizenry.”
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/22/google_double_irish_tax_loophole/
| title=Google slips $3.1bn through 'Double Irish' tax loophole
| author=Cade Metz
| date=October 22, 2010
| publisher=The Register
| quote="Basically, Google licenses foreign rights to its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary known as Google Ireland Holdings, and this outfit owns a separate subsidiary known as Google Ireland Limited. It's Google Ireland Limited – the second subsidiary – that actually sells advertising across the globe. Last year, it accounted for 88 per cent of Google's $12.5&nbsp;billion in non-U.S. sales."
}}</ref>

Following criticism of the amount of corporate taxes that Google paid in the United Kingdom, Chairman Eric Schmidt said, "It's called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic." During the same December 2012 interview Schmidt "confirmed that the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer."<ref>{{cite news
 |url        = http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/google-boss-im-very-proud-of-our-tax-avoidance-scheme-8411974.html
 |title      = Google boss: I'm very proud of our tax avoidance scheme
 |last1      = Kumar
 |first1     = Nikhil
 |last2      = Wright
 |first2     = Oliver
 |date       = December 13, 2012
 |publisher  = The Independent
 |accessdate = December 17, 2012
}}</ref> In 2013 Schmidt again responded to questions about taxes paid in the UK, by pointing to the advertising fees Google charged UK companies as a source of economic growth.<ref>{{cite web|last=Arthur |first=Charles |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/22/google-eric-schmidt-tax-avoidance |title=Google chairman Eric Schmidt defends tax avoidance policies |publisher=The Guardian |date=22 April 2013 |accessdate=22 April 2013}}</ref>

===Real names===
In 2012, Google changed its policy to require Google members to use their real names instead of pen names, causing anger among members who use pen names.<ref>{{cite web|last=McCracken |first=Harry |url=http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2094409,00.html |title=Google+'s Real-Name Policy: Identity vs. Anonymity |publisher=TIME |date=September 22, 2011 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref> In July 2012, Google began to suspend accounts of those who used pseudonyms.<ref>{{cite web|author=Clint Boulton |url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Real-Name-Policy-Refresh-Afoot-Amid-Privacy-Concerns-288324/ |title=Google+ Real Name Policy Refresh Afoot Amid Privacy Concerns |publisher=Eweek.com |date=July 26, 2011 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref> Google+ captured 20 million members in a few weeks.<ref>{{cite web|last=Whitney |first=Lance |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20083499-93/google-name-policy-frustrating-google-confesses/ |title=Google+ name policy 'frustrating,' Google confesses &#124; Internet & Media – CNET News |publisher=News.cnet.com |date=July 26, 2011 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref> In August 2012, Google enforced real name policy after four-day grace period. The four days allows members time to change their pen name to their real name.<ref>{{cite web|author=Clint Boulton |url=http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Google-to-Enforce-Real-Name-Policy-After-4-Days-621086/ |title=Google to Enforce Real Name Policy After 4 Days |publisher=Eweek.com |date=August 12, 2011 |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref> Google now allows members to have nicknames in addition to their real names, but real names are still required. The policy extends to new accounts for all of Google services, including [[Gmail]] and [[YouTube]]{{citation needed|date=September 2012}}, although accounts existing before the new policy are not required to be updated.

According to Google, the real name policy makes Google more like the real world. People can find each other more easily, like a phone book. The real name policy protects children and young adults from cyber-bullying, as those bullies hide behind pen names. Real names make Google+ a better place for businesses.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271 |title=Google+ Page and Profile Names – Google+ Help |publisher=Support.google.com |date= |accessdate=October 30, 2012}}</ref>

According to critics,{{Who|date=August 2012}} the real name policy is not like the real world, because real names and personal information are not known by everyone off-line. Critics say the policy is against privacy. The policy could benefit businesses, because it would allow them to link people to their activity{{citation needed|date=September 2012}}. Critics{{Who|date=August 2012}} call this greed over privacy. One fear is that the policy prevents users from protecting themselves by hiding their identity. For example, a person who records a human rights violation or crime and posts it on YouTube can no longer do so anonymously. The dangers cited include possible hate crimes against gays, retaliation against whistle-blowers, executions of rebels, religious persecution, and revenge against victims or witnesses of crimes.<ref>[http://gizmodo.com/5830471/googles-real-names-policy-is-evil] [http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219153/Elgan_Even_Google_hates_its_own_names_policy] [http://boingboing.net/2011/08/04/google-pluss-real-name-policy-is-abusive-facebook-is-not-a-real-name-success-story.html]</ref>

=== Politics ===
Despite being highly influential in local and national public policy,{{citation needed|date=September 2012}} Google does not disclose its political spending online. In August 2010, [[Bill de Blasio|New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio]] launched a national campaign urging the corporation to disclose all of its political spending.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://advocate.nyc.gov/google |title=Google: Disclose Now! |last1=Bill de Blasio |first1=Office of the Public Advocate for the City of New York |date=August 5, 2010 |accessdate=August 11, 2010}}</ref>

Google sponsors several non-profit lobbying groups, such as the [[Coalition for a Digital Economy]] (Coadec) in the UK.<ref>Orlowski, Andrew. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/23/google_lobby_why/ "Why DOES Google lobby so much?"] ''The Register'', July 23, 2012.</ref>

=== COPPA Compliance ===
Google has been criticized by some as a supporter of [[COPPA]] because of its "biased" terms of service on [[YouTube]] and its "heavy handed" ways of enforcing the law. According to Google's Privacy Policy, children under 13 aren't allowed to use any Google services, including Gmail.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sunpig.com/martin/archives/2011/07/03/google-made-my-son-cry.html |title=Google made my son cry [Legends of the Sun Pig – Martin Sutherland's Blog&#93; |publisher=Sunpig.com |date= |accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Don't be evil]]
* [[Googlization]]
* [[History of Google]]
* [[Google Glass]]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://privacyrights.org/ar/Gmail.htm "Google's Email Service 'Gmail' Sacrifices Privacy for Extra Storage Space"], Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, April 2, 2004
* [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2145273,00.asp "Privacy Group Flunks Google"], Lisa Vaas, ''eWeek.com'', June 12, 2007
* [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9725272 "Who's afraid of Google?"], ''The Economist'',  August 30, 2007
* [http://mushon.com/blog/2010/02/17/buzzoff-10-reasons-to-turn-google-buzz-off/ "10 reasons to turn Google Buzz off"], Mushon Zer-Aviv, ''Mushon.com'', February 17, 2010
* [http://culturalbytes.com/post/781876273/googoochinasaga "Googlist Realism: The Google-China saga and the free-information regimes as a new site of cultural imperialism and moral tensions"], Tricia Wang, ''Cultural Bytes'', June 29, 2010
* [http://www.tahaali.com/#/news/2012/03/01/clear-your-google-web-history-before-new-policy-implemented/ "Clear your Google Web History Before New Policy Implemented"], Taha Ali Adil, March 1, 2012
* [http://marketing.newagemedialtd.com/search-engine-optimisation/google-may-be-sued-over-manipulating-search-results "Google May Be Sued Over Manipulating Search Results"],{{dead link|date=January 2013}} ''New Age Media'', October 20, 2012
{{Censorship}}
{{Google Inc.}}
{{Censorship and websites}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism Of Google}}
[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Criticisms of companies|Google]]

Edit summary:
This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel

Dab solver - Criticism of Google

Tools

Interaction