You are here
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-09-25 10:33
[Note: Please find “Google’s WorldWideWatch over the WorldWideWeb” White Paper -- here.]
The European Commission’s 28-month-old Google search Statement of Objections is out of date and myopic.
What’s changed since the May 2012 EC-Google search settlement baseline?
Google has extended its May 2012 billion-user search dominance, into three newly billion-user dominant platforms (mobile, video, and maps), resulting in new competition complaints of abuse of dominance and new potential EC investigations – with Google’s abuse of its data dominance a common thread.
Snowden’s NSA-revelations have changed everyone’s awareness of Internet surveillance and the vulnerability of personal data, contributing to the passage of much stronger data-protection legislation by the European Parliament and to a European High Court ruling on Europeans’ right to be forgotten.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-06-11 12:51
Who does Google think they are fooling?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-06-05 15:22
If Netflix’ position on net neutrality was justified on the merits, why does Netflix need to say so many deceptive things that are demonstrably untrue, in order to justify its case for its version of net neutrality?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-06-03 17:39
Unregulated Google is increasingly pushing for maximal FCC net neutrality and price regulation of its direct broadband competitors, potentially via FCC reclassification of broadband as a Title II telephone utility service.
Google AdSense Lawsuit Spotlights the Corruption of Unaccountability -- Part 41 Google Unaccountability SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-05-23 17:46
What people don’t know about the recent class action lawsuit filed against Google AdSense’s alleged embezzlement of earned revenues from shutting down of AdSense accounts, is that this lawsuit does not depend on any of the evidence of the high-profile whistle-blower that originally brought lots of attention to this alleged AdSense embezzlement racket a few weeks ago.
Under California law, the class action only needs to show that Google wrongfully pocketed earned-revenues due to its partners under Google’s own contract terms. Let the discovery begin and let the facts determine the outcome.
Google Apps for Education Dangers – An Open Letter to School Administrators, School Boards & Parent AssociationsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-05-13 10:36
Dear School Administrators, School Boards, and Parent Associations,
If you assume Google is careful to protect your students when they use Google Apps for Education, you are sadly mistaken.
Too many assume that someone else must have done the due diligence necessary to ensure that Google Apps for Education adequately protects students’ privacy and safety, because they unfortunately did not. If they had, they would have been alarmed at Google’s shocking history of knowing disregard for the privacy and safety of their users including students.
This open letter will spotlight student privacy/safety concerns with Google that responsible parents and educators would want to know, given that Google Apps for Education, and Google’s other services, pervasively insinuate themselves into so many aspects of their students’ education and private lives.
It also will provide an important jumpstart to long-overdue, better due diligence of Google’s impact on student privacy and safety. Better late than never, the old adage says.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-04-17 19:13
Is Google saying one thing and doing another – yet again?
Given how many times we know Google has misled everyone about the implications of its activities, we should be highly-skeptical of Google’s public claims about what it will do with its nascent Titan drone surveillance capability.
This week Google said it bought Titan Aerospace, which makes solar-powered, high-flying drones, ostensibly because they “could help bring Internet access to millions of people, and help solve other problems, including disaster relief and environmental damage like deforestation.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-03-20 09:21
A shocking new legal fact set recently came together in public as a result of a Gmail wiretapping case, Fread v. Google. Revelations of Google’s secret widespread wiretapping of hundreds of millions of people over the last three years, using a NSA-PRISM-like device called “Content One Box” could have Snowden-esque repercussions.
The New Legal Fact Set:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-02-27 16:51
To: All State Legislators, State Attorneys General, and State/Local Police Chiefs
In Reuter’s article, “Google Sets Roadblocks to Stop Distracted Driver Legislation,” we learn “Google is lobbying officials in at least three U.S. States to stop proposed restrictions on driving with headsets such as Google Glass.”
As your States carefully consider the potential safety repercussions of a rapidly increasing number of drivers using Google Glass on your State’s roads in the years ahead, it is in the public interest to be keenly aware of two important facts.
Why Google Glass is the Epitome of Distracted Driving
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-02-16 16:34
Dear European Commission Official,
The sovereign problems with the proposed Google-EC settlement are that it:
Simply it represents an unwarranted special EC pardon for Google’s illegal 90% search/search advertising dominance and its many illegal abuses of dominance.
Moreover, it is not in the EC’s interests to prematurely shut down the Google search investigation for the convenience of just one EC Directorate’s artificial timetable, when that would undermine the ongoing investigation of additional allegations of Google abuses of its search dominance, like Google search-Android tying, and when it would undermine the good efforts of other EC Directorates trying to get Google to be accountable to EU data protection, tax, copyright, patent, and other laws.
Making matters worse, the proposed settlement would have no deterrent capability to prevent more Google abuses of its dominance in the future. That’s because allowing Google to publicly claim it has done nothing wrong, when it has per the draft Statement of Objections, shields Google from the only thing Google cares about – potential harm to Google’s brand reputation with its users.