Privacy

Please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “How the Google-EC Competition Deal Harms Europe” – here.

• It is Part 31 of my Google Unaccountability research series.

***

Google Unaccountability Series

New evidence continues to contradict Google’s public representations of outrage over, and non-involvement in, NSA spying revealed by the Snowden leaks.

As Google’s pervasively-invasive, track-to-target, advertising-ambitions continue to metastasize throughout people’s lives and physical space -- via contact lens monitoring, Google Glass recording, Nest home sensors, self-driving car tracking, Internet of things listening devices, etc. -- Google’s privacy promises simply don’t have credibility.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed:  “Google’s Robots and Creeping Militarization.”

• It explains how the U.S. military is on path to become Google’s largest customer and why Google likely has a closer working relationship with the NSA than it acknowledges publicly.  

It is Part 20 of my Google Spying Series.

***

Google Spying Series

Part 1: All the Blackmail-able Info that 'J. Edgar Google' Collects on You [7-17-08]

Please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “The European Commission’s Google Antitrust Problems are not Going Away” – here.

• It is Part 30 of my Google Unaccountability research series.

***

Google Unaccountability Series

Part 0: Google's Poor & Defiant Settlement Record [5-1-12]

Google Glass’ easy eavesdropping on people may be illegal wiretapping.

Two courts already have ruled in different class actions that Google can be sued for illegal wiretapping for “interceptions” of personal information without meaningful consent -- in circumstances analogous to how Google Glass operates.

First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that wiretap law prohibits the type of transmission “interception” that Google StreetView cars’ did in secretly collecting personal information from unencrypted home WiFi networks.

Mr. Ammori, one of Google’s and Free Culture’s most able defenders, comes to the public defense of Google in his recent USA Today op-ed “Blame the NSA not Facebook & Google.”

He publicly castigates privacy advocates for doing their jobs, stating: “blaming tech companies for the NSA’s overreach isn’t just ignorant, but dangerous.”

As most understand, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know the facts are not on their side.  

Nevertheless Mr. Ammori does us all a favor for elevating the important public question of whether or not Google, in particular, deserves any blame for its significant role in the NSA spy scandals.

First, let’s address whether it is “ignorant” to blame Google for complicity in NSA spying. Consider the following facts.

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “The De-Americanization of the Internet” -- here.  

America's dominance of the Internet has peaked. Read why and what it means. 

• It is Part 3 of my “World Changing Internet” research series.

World Changing Internet Series

Part 1: Seven Ways the World is Changing the Internet

Part 2: Twitter’s Realpolitik & the Sovereign-ization of the Internet

Big Brother Inc. Google is outraged at Big Brother NSA?

Is there no honor among spies?

Google represents its new default policy -- taking a user’s name and picture and putting it in their ads without permission or compensation -- as “Shared Endorsements.”  This deceptive and unfair business practice is more aptly named Google-YouAd, “Pirated Endorsements,” or “Swindled Endorsements,” because they are taken deceptively without permission or compensation.

To Google, people apparently are just another form of digital content that should be open and free to exploit without asking the owner for permission and without any expectation of payment from Google for the value that Google generates from the taken content.

We should not be surprised. Google is treating their users, not as humans with privacy and ownership rights, but as inanimate products, content, and “targets” of their advertising model. Notice that they are treating people’s unique identities just like they treat others valuable content that is trademarked, copyrighted, patented, private, confidential or secret. Simply they take it without permission or compensation until an authority that they fear compels them to cease and desist.