Patterico's Pontifications

5/26/2011

Google: Hey Why Don’t You Trust Us With Your Money, Now? (Update: Instalink!)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 4:23 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Instalink! Thanks. And thanks to Scott Jacobs for telling me about the link.

Google is now proposing something called Google Wallet:

Google’s announcement today was as everyone expected an official unveiling of its NFC-based Google Wallet payment system. The addition of Google Offers was somewhat less expected and probably not exactly welcomed by daily-deal competitors Groupon and LivingSocial.

The Internet giant appears to have thought of everything. This in-phone system will not only work with a select set of Citibank MasterCard credit cards, but with the use of the built-in, prepaid Google card, it’ll let you add funds from virtually any credit card (but you’ll use the Google Card to pay). Paying with an NFC-enabled phone (which Google optimistically says will account for 15% of the mobile phones on the market by the summer) is pretty much like paying with any of the tap-and-go credit cards and fobs you’ve used in the past.

Google, are you kidding me?  You want me to trust you guys with something as important as my money, after how you allowed Ann Althouse to be treated, as well as the people who criticized how she was treated, and then lied about what happened? Indeed, if you guys have disciplined Nitecruzr at all, I have seen no evidence of it.  Last we heard his status was under review.  How did that ever turn out?  And why haven’t you guys made the slightest effort to contact myself or Patrick to explain what happened and what you will do to prevent it from happening again?

As far as this blogger is concerned, you have some fences to mend before I even think of letting you into my wallet.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

29 Responses to “Google: Hey Why Don’t You Trust Us With Your Money, Now? (Update: Instalink!)”

  1. this will be a great way to make untraceable donations to Obama and other dirty socialist freedom-hating wankjobs that google gets a googly googly hard-on for

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  2. Yeah, well, I’m pretty sure that nitecruzer does not meet PCI standards …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. In addition to agreeing with happyfeet completely on this, I have my own concerns vis-a-vis security/hacking.

    That, and as you not Aaron, I fundamentally distrust Google; face-chimp-book as well. And it’s not a tin-foil-hat-thing, more a combination of what happyfeet noted combined with “nitecruzer” examples of incompetence/arrogance.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  4. Just wait until they unveil Google Power Of Attorney! Making your life so much easier…

    Dirty Old Man (2e2a43)

  5. I don’t really want all my financial info to be on something as easily lost as a phone. That’s why I’m not that excited by NFC technology. But I can assure you that it has all the card processing companies frothing at the mouth with excitement.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. @Dirty Old Man-
    Or the Google Last Will and Testament Registry

    elissa (514870)

  7. Can you imagine? It’s time to pay for automated bills, and some jackass has shut down your account for ‘suspicious’ activity (expressing the wrong opinion)?

    You could wind up seriously screwed by something like that.

    I demand reliability for that kind of function. I know if I need customer service, “Google Help” = some creep who hates my guts.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  8. Dirty

    as long as they don’t try to replace us lawyers. THEN ITS WAR!!!

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  9. I’ve had a Google email account for 5 years, and I own an Android phone.

    And I’m not TOUCHING Google Wallet, since I’m not dying to get the Nightcruzr treatment if I offend some Lefty at Google.

    Calvin Dodge (c24b9e)

  10. the way they do it, making you run everything through the “Google Card,” they own and control all the purchase data, which is good for them for so they can exploit your data for to make more money to donate to their fave dirty socialist pin-up boi Barack Obama, as well as for so they can giver their googler minions the opportunity to googlescrew you hard hard hard and capriciously ruin your life

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  11. Fees forwarded to the DNC.

    Arizona Bob (aa856e)

  12. Consider on Android if you want to buy things in Android market, you’re already kind of trapped into giving Google a credit card (my solution: a small prepaid Amex gift card).

    Kieran (c50d16)

  13. TO: All
    RE: And Lest We Forget….

    ….how ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Google helped the Communist Chinese suprress freedom of expression in that country.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Put your money in Trust. Not your trust in Google.]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  14. Not just no. HA-ELL NO!!

    When Google replaced Microsoft as “The Evil Empire”, to the point I actually replaced Google with Bing as my homepage, I decided then and there to never again send any of my business Google’s way, and now they think they have enough trust to be allowed near my money and credit?

    Those guys really are drinking the koolaid of “Because I want something to be true, it must be true, no matter what my lying eyes are telling me!”

    Tim McD (9b8f37)

  15. Forget about the whole Althouse fiasco. Why in the world would you give Google your money anyway? Just so you can use a phone to swipe money? That’s moronic regardless of the politics.

    Alex (4a530b)

  16. P.S. In the Army we refer to Google’s actions with the Communist Chinese as evidence of moral turpitude.

    We won’t let ANYONE with ANY INDICATION of such from even having ANYTHING to do with the MAIL system. Let alone MONEY.

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  17. The maroons who are naive/ stupid/ foolish enough to trust Google, Apple, Facebook etc. (or any of their assorted subsidiaries) with anything deserve everything they get done to them and their personal information/ security.

    Sean (1cb50c)

  18. I wouldn’t trust Google to walk my dog.

    serpent (0089af)

  19. Hey, Google!

    No
    F#@king
    Chance!

    Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea)

  20. One jerk moderator on Google’s blogs is largely irrelevant to this system. Google has a tediously left-wing monoculture, and combined with the inherently “he said she said” nature of blogs it’s very plausible that this guy could be completely unethical and get away with it. It’s a different story if money is changing hands.

    The potential disincentives include jail time, since this is fraud and probably across state lines. And most of the potential shenanigans are easily traceable. (Everyone uses personal accounting software, right?) Even if they only committed a misdemeanor they’d have a criminal record that would prevent them from getting a job in IT ever again.

    Leftists get a lot more bang for far less risk by either illegal voting or donations.

    Ben (8b79c9)

  21. the google obamawhores can let overseas America-hating socialists donate to Obama every bit as much as Visa Mastercard did

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  22. Carry cash, and carry a gun.

    Bill Johnson (a3dcdc)

  23. Why stop with Google Power-o’-Attorney™? How about Google Advanced Health Care Directive™ and Google Living Will™?

    Aaron, you didn’t just get insta-linked, but insta-linked by your name (instead of the blog’s).

    It’s hard to disagree with anyone urging caution about being over-trusting. I certainly agree that Google didn’t cover itself with glory in responding to Prof. Althouse’s problems or the concerns she and others (including Aaron and Patterico) raised.

    But one should also try to keep a sense of proportion about things.

    Beldar (7c0dd5)

  24. Tim McD (#14): You realize that Bing is Microsoft?

    Beldar (7c0dd5)

  25. Beldar, he’s saying he returned to MS simply because he was giving up on Google, to the point where he’s even using MS’s products again despite them being the former evil empire.

    MS is one of America’s greatest companies, but they deserve some of the flack they get. It’s a shame Google is turning out to be much more insidious.

    I wonder how far Google will go. They have an attitude about data. If they drive by my house, they can intercept my wifi signal. God knows what kind of analysis of my emails they have and will do. What happens if someone wants to buy a list of all conservatives who paid for adult films, or a list of everyone who bought non union cars?

    People already rely on Google to screen job applicants, so it’s not too much of a stretch for Google to eventually screen people at a much more precise level. As Google says: if you don’t want other people know about it, maybe you shouldn’t be doing/saying it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. Dustin, I hope your home wifi is encrypted. If it’s not, it should be.

    Beldar (7c0dd5)

  27. Good point, Beldar. That’s my responsibility.

    However, it would be easy to determine many things about me from simply monitoring my wifi encrypted. Google didn’t invest in getting this information for no reason. They aren’t trying to hide what they got for no reason.

    They know who is just reading blogs, and who is uploading torrents.

    Also, while I know my neighbors won’t be getting around my WPA2, I don’t really know Google hasn’t.

    Ultimately, I’m the one who broadcast the radio waves. It’s my responsibility to protect it. But that’s just a complaint about Google’s attitude. They have driven around neighborhoods recording wifi signals, while telling people if they are embarrassed by something, they shouldn’t have done it in the first place.

    That attitude is creepy, and a Google with my purchase history? Creepy. What happens when some low level agent of the company leaks something? Google will handle it like they handled Nitecruzr (unclearly).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  28. “Also, while I know my neighbors won’t be getting around my WPA2, I don’t really know Google hasn’t.”

    For example, theoretically, it shouldn’t be easy to decrypt this stuff since the key is always changing.

    Unless you know some of what was being encrypted. Like if you own the largest website in the world.

    Say 5% of the homes they recorded data from were watching Youtube videos, for example.

    Obviously, the effort to associate those videos with a particular wifi signal would be herculean. The notion is radical.

    More likely, they just have some basic idea of which homes are using what sort of internet services so they can do more effective marketing. Homes with Hondas and flower gardens like online games and Netflix, and many of the torrent uploaders were at addresses sharing traits x,y,z.

    That kind of thing.

    My point is that this is quite an aggressive hunt for more and more and more data on folks.

    Dustin (c16eca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8220 secs.