AUSSIE

Blog entry posted October 25th, 2008 by Daniel Storchan

I was at a party last weekend on a rooftop deck overlooking the beauty of Fort Greene. Somewhere between taking a sip from my Sangria and wincing from the deafening blast of a siren one of the partygoers exclaimed, "Any content you post or share using Google tools (Google Docs and Spreadsheets, etc.) is owned by Google."

"How do you figure?" I asked.

"Read their terms of service, and you’ll see exactly what I mean,” proclaimed the partygoer.

There wasn’t much I could say to that; because I will be the second to admit that I suffer from OCAD (Obsessive Compulsive AGREE Disorder). In my defense, we live in a fast paced society, and I simply don’t have the time or patience to navigate my way through the fine print of the numerous digital tools and services I use. Ouch, is that something I want the world to know? I found an interesting article in which Philippa Lawson, executive director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa explained, "Virtually nobody reads them and everybody knows it - the companies know it.”

The conversation at the party left me feeling uneasy, and there was a biting pain in my gut that wanted to prove the authoritative partygoer wrong. I, like so many other educators, have embraced everything Google. A good deal of my digital life is tied to using the numerous free services provided by Google. I generally start the day by checking my email (Gmail); then I read my RSS feeds (Reader); and of course I’m constantly plugged into the ongoing work/life conversations through my online messenger (Gchat). The list goes on, which is why I got home that night and immediately hunted down this little tidbit of information from Google’s terms and policies (see "Proprietary Rights"):

“… you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services…”

Wow, I thought, does that mean the partygoer was correct? Upon further reading I found a contentious blog post on Cnet in which the writer, Matt Asay, who is also a lawyer said, “I don't like this. Not one bit. Google's applications are intended to make information available ‘to the public.’ The minute you share, I would argue, you've crossed that line. And that's when the user's rights evaporate....”

As I trolled through the heated debate that followed in the comments I found a counter point from someone claiming to be the engineering director on Google Docs. He said:

“As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be.”

It’s clear that there are two sides to this story, and I’m curious to how the numerous educators who rely on Google as an integral component to their daily practice feel about this issue. I also know that many schools are turning to Google as the foundation for their virtual learning communities.

I recently spoke with an AUSSIE consultant Patrick Wagner (through Gmail) who has worked with a school in the Bronx on the development of a school based learning network using Google as their chosen platform. He explained that their “commitment to the use of the Google tools was an easy one as they were free, allowed flexible usage, and were integrated. Google tools enabled us to interact in real time, freeing us from the constraints of operating via thumb drives, CDs or internal servers. They helped us to generate a culture of sharing and collaboration.”

When I asked Patrick about his concerns regarding the terms of service he said, “ When you talk about biting the hand that feeds you, who is feeding who in this situation? Google has absolutely nothing to gain from doing anything that it is not seen to be in the best interests of the masses. The focus on 'safeguarding' the data is misdirected anyway, because the incredible growth that the use of these tools can generate is far more important than any data that will quickly become redundant anyway. We're not talking about coin collecting here. Data should be fluid and shared. The use of the Google tools enables us to collect far more data than we would otherwise have available.”

At this point, I am still very much in a phase of discovery as I continue to seek out the ultimate response to the partygoer’s declaration. Online and in print, the debate over proprietary rights is as ubiquitous as meat and potatoes. Just do a Google search and find out for yourself.