The fight for the title of Privacy Champion continues. Candidate was nominated by the head of Google

Sundar Pichai no longer wants to be a boy to beat Tim Cook. The CEO of Google decided to put an opponent in the industry and defend him. To this end, he made a statement in the New York Times to prove to the world that who, how, but Google cares about the privacy of everyone, not what Apple does.

Before reading a Google CEO statement, it 's better to get your handkerchiefs. It is touching that nothing is more at the heart of one of the world's largest technological corporations than the good and privacy of humanity. At least according to the words of her boss, who in this way sends a message to investors and us little ones.

Everyone should be able to afford privacy - I look at you Timie Cook.

The boss of Google in the most spicy part of his statement sends a nudge towards Tim Cook. Pichai emphasizes several times that Google's solutions are designed for everyone, not just those who can afford expensive solutions. Taking into account the prices of iPhones or Macs, it is not difficult to guess who the head of the Mountain View company is drinking. This is the answer to the accusations often directed by Tim Cook directed at other technology giants.

Google's CEO statement does not follow this idea. Perhaps out of sheer courtesy, he does not want to point his finger at anyone, or maybe he is just aware of the fact that the consequence of this thought somewhat undermines his argument about the fact that Google enjoys the trust of users in terms of security and privacy.

Pichai declares that he is honored that millions of people around the world trust Android and Google. Google CEO tries to prove that using certain solutions is synonymous with trusting them. After all, all Android phone owners and Google search engine users choose them because they trust the company in Mountain View and its approach to privacy and security, not because the alternative does not respond to them or in practice hardly exists.

When you have to choose any color, as long as it's black, the fact that you're driving a black Ford does not necessarily mean you've joined the light cavalry night guard.

No, Mr. Pichai, privacy is not subjective.

In addition to pointing fingers at other companies, Pichai does something potentially dangerous. He tries to move the discussion about privacy into more convenient territory. Relativizes the concept of privacy claiming that not everyone defines it in the same way.

To support his thesis, he cites examples of three people who would define privacy in three different ways: a business owner who wants his clients' data to remain private, a young man who wants to mainly be able to delete a self-made selfie after some time, a family who I use multiple accounts on one equipment and would not want my parents to know which websites my kids are entering (and vice versa). The Google CEO thus extracts privacy from the framework of the abstract concept and tries to bring it to a practical framework that is easier to capture and control.

Privacy, however, is not a subjective concept. Our approach to it may be different, as Pichaia's priorities may differ, which we choose depending on the context.

If you can argue about its definition, how about the definition of each abstract concept, then relativizing it and defining only on the level of what you can and can not do is rubbing it out of the philosophical, psychological and social dimension, that is, turning your eyes away from the essence of the problem. This causes it to cease to be a value, and it becomes a practical feature, more easily exchangeable, for example, for convenience.

Privacy, however, is not a currency or a feature, it is a value that should be inalienable and obvious. Even for technological giants.

Google is still this ad company .

Google is a company that is supposed to make money and who wants to make money and I do not have a grudge against it. Let's make an appointment, most of us work just to get the money she can spend on food, clothing, home and a new Fortnite skin. And there is nothing wrong in it.

The bulk of Google's revenue comes from advertising. Its main sales product is us, or more precisely our virtual profiles, which help us identify what we want today and what we want in the future.

However, Google CEO tries to convince us that only a small portion of data goes towards the company's advertising needs. Even if it is true, then questions arise - what does it mean and little or too little? We are habits of habits and do not need so much data to predict what we will do, where we will be and what we will want to buy in the future. The Mountain View giant knows us well enough to know when our children want a hot dog .

Google convinces us, however, that all this data collection is happening for our own good.

Collecting information about us is to enable a better fulfillment of the mission, which is to serve us, users. There is nothing to laugh out loud, because there is some truth in it. A better product simply sells better. Knowing the location, the maps will better answer the question about the best restaurant nearby, and the Google translator will handle the translations really decently thanks to the large amount of data entered by users.

The user should give his consent for technology companies to improve their life in this way, but not in the form of a default consent when making a purchase or downloading data in the application.

Sundar Pichai, however, focuses on missionaryity, peace in the world and the spreading of goodness, which awakens in me, and probably not only, a reflex of defensive skepticism at once. He begins his whole statement with a serious declaration:

Google products have been created to be helpful. They make everyday life easier (for example showing the fastest route to your home at the end of a long day) and give you time to spend time on things you really want to do.

If you ever wondered why looking at a medium length movie from your favorite Youtuber's channel for breakfast, you can also read three different ladies advertising three different shoe stores, you know. That's what you really want to do. In the end, it is not known today that Google knows us better than the mother, grandmother and neighbor's dog together.

Privacy sells well.

At I / O 2019, the word privacy was, just after inclusion, one of the key words. It must be admitted that recently the company has significantly improved its approach to the issue . It was announced that it will be easier to make changes to the privacy settings on your Google account, as well as to automatically delete your location and activity history . For this, the Incognito mode has been extended and introduced on YouTube. In the end, everyone has one song on their playlist, which he is ashamed of and would prefer that nobody knows that every day when going to the shower lets go "Nasny dogonyat".

Also Mark Zuckerberg tried to write the Brave Knights of Privacy at his conference. At F8 he convinced the over-zealous mother controlling the purity of the ears of her 16-year-old son that Facebook cares about the privacy of its users. Unfortunately, the credibility of the Facebook boss is even smaller than Google's.

You can leave skeptical about the declared intentions of companies, but it is impossible not to enjoy the trend in which the heads of the largest companies try to become a Privacy Champion.

It was us, the users, who made this category even more important and that the elections are in progress. The more emphasis we place on privacy and security, the more chances we have that companies will also apply to it. The latest PR muscle pressure only confirms this.

The fight for the title of Privacy Champion continues. Candidate was nominated by the head of Google