This is about the transparent society versus the surveillance society.<p>Google represents the transparent society. Tons of information that used to be public but impractical to collect is now available to ordinary citizens, who can use it for good or evil as they please. There are plenty of examples of both.<p>Financial Times is located in what is likely the most extreme example of a surveillance country in existence today. There are cameras everywhere, and the government collect detailed information about all citizens. Strict regulations exist to ensure that this information can only be used by the government, and there is an outrage only when these regulations are broken.<p>It is not surprising that these two views on the role of information in society clash. Information is power, and the question if this power should be centralized in the government, or spread out to the people. The risk of abuse is far greater for the later, but the consequences of abuse is far greater for the former.<p>Some may prefer a third way, an opaque society where public information won´t be collected, even though the technical means for doing so exists. I doubt that is feasible, it will probably result in another society where the collected information is only available to the few.