About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereOnline SafetyA Google Android Botnet Problem? "Security is Google's Achilles Heel" Part X of SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-11-12 10:40Hackers have discovered a new serious security vulnerability in certain Android smartphones that is not easily or quickly patched because of Android's open and fragmented platform -- per Joseph Menn's report in the FT.
The potential security implications of this are even more serious than they first appear.
Why Google's Privacy Controls are a Joke -- Lessons for FTC/FCCSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-11-11 11:03Google's latest privacy controls are a bad joke, certainly not sufficient to warrant the FTC completely absolving serial privacy violator Google from all responsibility in the Google WiSpy Affair, especially given that other law enforcement bodies have found misrepresentation of facts and violation of users' privacy.
Why are Google's latest privacy controls insufficient? First, Google's leadership is clearly not publicly supportive of more privacy controls, but openly skeptical and defiant that Google does not need to alter its approach to innovation to better protect privacy and security. Google Wi-Spy Was an Intentional Plan to Beat Skyhook WirelessSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-11-09 17:35Google's 'Wi-Spy' vacuuming of all of everyone's WiFi signals was no "mistake" -- as Google has repeatedly asserted -- but part of a purposeful and comprehensive Google business expansion plan to enter, catch up and compete with SkyHook Wireless, Google's only significant competitor in mobile location services. (In September, Skyhook sued Google for deceptive and unfair trade practices and patent infringement.)
Google's mandatory location profiling/trackingSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-01 11:56Google won't allow you to opt-out of their location tracking for search, we learn from CNET's Chris Matyszczyk's outstanding post "How Google stops you hiding your location."
What does this mean? First, it means that Google has not learned much from its serial privacy problems, like Google setting a default that everyone's house should be included in StreetView photographing and Spi-Fi signal recording, and everyone that signed up for Google Buzz by default should share their Gmail addresses with the public. Second, it means that Google profiles and tracks your location by default and that you can't opt out from Google knowing where you are, you can only select what local setting Google will use to customize your search results.
Why is the FTC AWOL on Google Privacy?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-10-27 22:45Congress needs to conduct oversight hearings to learn why the FTC is apparently giving Google special treatment, and more specifically why the FTC inexplicably dropped its Google StreetView spi-fi privacy probe without any charges, before it even learned all the facts, and without any accountability mechanism in place to protect consumers or prevent repeat violations. Google's wanton wardriving in 33 countries for over three years secretly recording people's WiFi transmissions, including full emails and passwords, arguably is the single broadest privacy breach in the Internet era. And the FTC did nothing. And the FTC sees no need for any further action. Amazing. What's wrong with this picture? A lot. A better question might be what's right with the FTC-Google privacy enforcement picture?
Where's the FTC on Google SpyFi?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-25 11:33With Canada, Spain, the UK, and 38 U.S. states all cracking down on Google's wanton wardriving spyfi scandal, where is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the supposed lead agency on protecting consumers online privacy? The FTC's silence and apparent absence from the online privacy enforcement playing field is particularly perplexing and alarming... because now it appears that we have a company that is out-of-control in tracking consumers' private actions online, and creating total information awareness power, while we have a supposed lead privacy regulator that appears not to be leading in protecting consumers' privacy... Apple's Individualism vs. Google's CollectivismSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-10-19 18:43Apple's CEO Steve Jobs is wise to publicly debunk Google's claim that: Google defines "openness" (aka -- good), and Apple defines "closedness" (aka -- evil).
Google is right that they are the inverse/opposite of Apple, but not in the way that Google claims -- being open/neutral vs. being closed.
10 Questions for Google ChauffeurSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-11 16:26Google's blog post "What we're driving at" announced that Google has "developed technology for cars to drive themselves." Google stated: "Larry and Sergey founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big problems using technology... Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time and reduce carbon emissions..."
This project raises some interesting questions no one has asked Google yet.
Google Schmidt: "China can be best understood as a large, well-run business"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-10-06 12:09In his latest display of no-self-awareness, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, in an interview with the Atlantic, said:
Is Google's CEO the only sentient being on the planet that isn't aware that China is organized around the principles of China's National Communist Party? "If China is best understood as a large, well-run business," why does Communist China censor and imprison their Chinese "customers" if they object too much to China's products and services?
Google's Deep Tracking Inspection -- a privacy nightmareSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-08-31 11:06In one of Google's worst misrepresentations about privacy to date, Google's Head of Product Development for Google Enterprise, Matt Glotzbach, told the FT that Google did not believe that its new gmail feature -- that ranks emails automatically based on what Google's algorithm judges are the most important emails to be read first -- would raise any privacy concerns. "We're not creating any new information, we're leveraging information that is already there." Unbelievable. This is grossly deceptive and untrue.
By any measure this is what I would call Google's "Deep Tracking Inspection."
Pages |