Conflict of Interest

The FCC has a ready-made opportunity to protect consumers by approving the simple rule updates recommended in the pending Retransmission Petition.

• The FCC has the authority and the obligation to protect consumers by updating the FCC's Section 325 rules with a functional dispute resolution framework and a mandatory interim carriage agreement during negotiations.
• Without these common sense consumer protections, consumers unnecessarily will continue to be unintended collateral damage in someone else's commercial fight.

The petition is laser-focused on updates to the FCC's rules to protect consumers from being used as pawns or hostages in commercial disputes not of their making or interest.

It is highly instructive that opponents of the retransmission petition focus most all their argumentation on protecting the status quo, that unnecessarily puts consumers directly in harms way, and that does not directly address why consumers should not be protected as recommended in the petition.

Current privacy investigations of Google deserve to be much more comprehensive than just Google's latest StreetView wardriving scandal, given that:

Google's long-time cavalier approach to privacy and security are catching up to the company as its latest wardriving privacy scandal, appears to be spiraling out of the control of Google's legendary PR machine. 

First, the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent Google a tough investigative letter on its wanton wardriving of the U.S. The most problematic question for Google got to the root of Google's privacy scandals: "What is Google's process to ensure that data collection associated with new products and services offered by the company is adequately controlled?" This line of inquiry makes it clear this is not just a probe of this privacy incident, but of Google's systemic weaknesses in internal/management controls concerning privacy.

Google's wanton "wardriving," i.e. detecting, accessing, and recording residential WiFi networks in 30 countries for over three years, was not simply a "mistake," "inadvertent," or an "accident" as the Google's PR machine has spun it. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming to anyone who bothers to examine it closely. 

• Google's wanton wardriving was either: gross incompetence/negligence or wrongdoing. 
  • Government investigators must determine for themselves via subpoena, whether or not anyone at Google, in a supervisory or management position, knew that this private "payload" data was being collected, and whether or not this private data had been accessed, copied, analyzed, or used by Google in any way.

The case for why Google's wanton wardriving is more than just a "mistake."        

I.  Identifying the questionable practice: "Wardriving"

The FCC's retransmission rules now perversely cause consumers to suffer unnecessary collateral damage in retransmission negotiations -- the exact opposite outcome the FCC wants -- in large part because the FCC's retransmission rules have not kept pace with dramatic competitive and technology changes over the last two decades.  

• The FCC should, and easily can, protect consumers from becoming unnecessary collateral damage in retransmission negotiations by simply updating their nearly twenty-year-old FCC regulations with petitioned common sense modifications that ensure consumers never find themselves unnecessarily in the "bulls-eye" of the FCC's out-dated retransmission rules again.

To better understand how rules that possibly made sense in 1992, could produce predictably perverse and dysfunctional consumer outcomes today, think of the retransmission rules, like a regulatory "gun" that was originally and permanently pointed directly at a 1992 cable monopoly and no one else. 

Google's latest privacide admission -- that all of Google's roving StreetView vehicles around the world have been recording some of people's WiFi traffic/web behavior since 2007 -- should prompt privacy officials and the media to ask the simple question: why does Google serially keep having privacy scandals?

Simply Google will continue to have privacy scandals because Google has deep systemic privacy flaws and vulnerabilities -- by design.

• At core Google philosophically believes in "publicacy" that the world is a better place with more openness/transparency rather than closed systems or private/proprietary information.
• Thus Google has a publicacy mission, culture, business model, and no serious of effective system of management and internal controls to protect people's privacy.    

1.  Publicacy Mission: Google's infamous publicacy mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." It is their mission to collect whatever information they can, where ever they can, whenever they can without regard to whether it is private or proprietary information. As Google's repeated privacy flaps prove, they believe it is more efficient to ask for forgiveness than for permission.   

Whatever the Atlantic's national correspondent Mr. James Fallows calls his Atlantic cover story: "Google: Inside the company's daring plan to save the news (and itself)," it can't be journalism.

It was one of the most vacuous 12-page puff pieces I have ever read. Like Jeff Jarvis described: "It doesn’t break a single new nugget of news." It was the literary equivalent of a puppy jumping up incessantly to lick the face of the person in closest proximity. 

How ironic is it that a journalist, that made a point of telling the reader that he taught journalism for several years, wrote the functional equivalent of Google PR brochure extolling all the good Google has done for journalism/newspapers -- with no journalistic critical thinking or balance.   

It is hard to fathom that in twelve pages there were:

A common tactic of net neutrality proponents is to assert their desired outcome repeatedly in hopes that it becomes conventional wisdom. Now the Open Internet Coalition asserts that Title II for broadband would be a "solid legal foundation" for the FCC, while FreePress asserts broadband Title II would provide the FCC a "sounder legal basis" for its broadband agenda. 

• Fortunately, under the rule-of-law, legal authority simply cannot be asserted or deemed "solid" or "sound" by political acclamation, it ultimately must be proven and affirmed as solid and sound by a full court process (in the absence of Congress passing a new law.)

Surely the FCC understands that the courts ultimately will decide if any legal analysis defending Title II broadband is solid/sound, especially given:

• The recent D.C. Circuit Comcast decision (which the FCC is not challenging);
• Broadband has never been classified as Title II; and 
• The FCC is hardly a disinterested observer in trying to determine the boundaries of its own authority.   

In the Open Internet reply comments, there are many substantive legal analyses strongly indicating that any FCC decision deeming broadband to be Title II would not be on a solid/sound legal foundation. For just three of the most notable analyses see:

Google's latest privacy-killing act of privacide is "Google's roving Street View spycam," which is not only taking pictures, but is also scanning to log WiFi network addresses and unique Media Access Control (Mac)addresses per Andrew Orlowski's excellent scoop at the Register.

Well informed reports (that Google will not deny), that hackers breached Google's most sensitive software code, the Gaia password system, surface titanic security flaws at Google.     

Why Google is too big not to fail. 

1.  "Bigtable" Storage design: How Google stores and accesses "all the world's information" in and from its data centers is: "'Bigtable:' a Distributed Storage System for Structured Data." It is Google's innovation to maximize scalability, speed and cost efficiency -- not security, privacy, or accountability. Simply, Bigtable is an "all eggs in one basket" approach to information storage and access.