Evidence of meeting #53 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
Completely. Incognito is your anonymous way of accessing the Internet.
The other two distinctions I would make are these. I was careful in my comments to make the point about anonymized and aggregated data. As you discussed what data may or may not be valuable to the company, I was careful to emphasize that there's a substantial amount of what could be classified “transactional” or “network” data. This is about how traffic is being communicated through the network and how we see attacks on customers' accounts. That isn't necessarily user data but it is relevant to a user. We find that data very valuable, and that's what allows us to provide security services not only to the individual but to our whole company and the Internet as a whole.
There is a vast quantity of information that's not specifically user data. It is still extremely valuable to the company because we use it to turn around and provide services to individuals that allow them to operate more safely and securely and to have greater access over their own personal information online.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
If people were to log on for the very first time, download Google Chrome, and start using it as a user, they would never get any targeted, specific advertising based on their browsing history, because if they stayed in the incognito mode you would have no idea who they are? Do I understand that correctly?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
That's a great answer.
I want to talk a little bit about the delete versus.... I have a Gmail account so on. Notwithstanding how frustrated I am when I download third party software that asks me if I want to install the Google tool bar on my browser—which I don't, because I don't want to be tracked, and I don't want to have that there—at least I have the option to check it off, even though the default is to include it.
We've had lots of testimony from witnesses here about the devil being in the defaults, when it comes to the big blanket privacy policy statement in which people have to accept everything. I don't pay for any Google services; I get it all for free, but that comes at a cost to me because I have to give you something that you can turn around and make some money with. That's how business works; it's not a criticism.
If I wanted to delete my Gmail account—and I think Mr. Angus talked about this—how can I be reassured? You talked about providing the information back to me, and I could port over to another platform if I wanted to leave the Google platform, say, and move to another platform for my search engine or whatever the case might be, my e-mail client.
How can I be reassured that this is a true delete from your system? Obviously, we can talk about backups, checkpoints, and so on. At a certain point in time I can press that magic delete button, but I'm going to be in your system's history. If you have a system crash and restore it to a certain checkpoint, I might get put back in.
How do you guys manage situations like that?
3:55 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
In very general terms, when you go to Takeout and you indicate that you want to export, in this case your Gmail data, and you press that button, we deliver it to you in a format that's accessible for the other products. We also then send a signal to switch the bit, so to speak, so that information is no longer accessible.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
No, but for us switching the bit means deactivating and then it's no longer accessible, and then that signals the space is available to be overwritten.
So as we overwrite our discs, they get overwritten. We're not retaining a record. We're not retaining a copy.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
It's the technical limit to how we do that.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Oh, really? I was having so much fun here.
Thank you, Mr. McKay.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Perhaps we can come back to you later.
Mr. Andrews, you have seven minutes. Go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
I'll try to carry on in the same line.
Early on, when you talked about a person removing their history, just so that we get an idea, how many data points would you have on an individual, just so that we can get our heads around exactly how much information Google would have on a user? How long does that history go back?
3:55 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
I'm afraid I can't give a direct answer on the number of data points, in part because the information we collect through your web browsing isn't used to identify specific data points about you, as an individual. It's used to create generic profiles about our users that could be then used for providing services and providing advertising. So there may be x number of data points that simply result in a conclusion that you like American-made cars. There's no specific line that way.
In terms of how long we retain that sort of information, if we're dealing with the web search history, there's a tool called Ads Preferences Manager, on which you can go in and take a look at the buckets we've identified as applying to your particular interests, and then correct them or delete them. You can either make the point to us that, as the example was made, someone is a hunter—that you're either a very specific kind of hunter or that you're not at all.
For example, from some of my search habits, sometimes Google thinks that I'm a 35-year-old woman. I don't know quite how it arrives at that conclusion, but I have to go in and correct it. It's a click on an X, and then that data point is erased and it's reconstructed, hopefully appropriately.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Part of that “do not track”, again...as Mr. Calkins just talked about, the devil is in the details, from the commissioner. What are the defaults? When you look at the defaults, would you be opposed to regulations on what those defaults may be?
4 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
You pose an interesting question, because you started by noting that it's a process of transition and it's difficult to determine what the appropriate defaults would be. Then you closed by asking if we should regulate that.
That's what forms my answer, which is that we're still in the process of evolution where we're trying to identify the appropriate format and the appropriate time and the appropriate content to help users make decisions about their data. We feel we made a tremendous step forward this year with our changes in our privacy policy, because we took what was a very long and complex document and broke it down to several very simple elements for users to really understand how we're asking for information and what we're using it for. That's an example of trying to take what is one big long notice and giving it multi-layered notices.
It's difficult to try to set regulations in terms of what should be included in those sorts of notices and that sort of discussion with the user without a period of experimentation. In fact, setting regulations often just sets the status quo in stone, and certainly in this space we're seeing innovation every week with regard to how we evolve our relationship with our users to make sure they are informed and have that sort of level of personal control.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Also, you're not the only player. How would you put these broad brushes across many browsers, many companies, to say these are the specific defaults that you would use?
Do you collaborate within the industry, yourself with the other players in the industry, to say these are the privacy guidelines that we'd like to follow generally as a group? Would that be a worthwhile exercise? Do you do that among other companies, as we speak?
4 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
Yes, we do. The major online players as well as the offline players all regularly speak about privacy and data protection issues, and then, more specifically, we get involved in exercises both in Washington and in Brussels in trying to identify what the future challenges will be in this space as well as identify what's the appropriate level of response, whether it's on a company level, industry-wide level, or self-enforcing guidelines.
As well, for Google in particular, since we're so security-focused, we have an extreme level of interest and involvement in the technical side of every aspect of security online, which often butts up if not overlaps with privacy concerns. So I would say the level of cooperation and collaboration is great among the companies.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
You mentioned Google Dashboard. Is there a one-stop shop for all this in Google for opting in and opting out? Is everything clear and concise within Google, or do you have to do it across every individual product?
4 p.m.
Policy Manager, Google Canada, Google Inc.
That's Dashboard. Dashboard is your list of the services you belong to as well as the options available to you, whether or not you want to use them and whether you want to opt out of specific services.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McKay, for your testimony today.
I want to ask you about enforcement. I appreciate how you position your relationship with the Privacy Commissioner. You share new platforms, new concepts, and new ideas as you bring these to market. I think I'm accurate, right?