You are here
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-16 12:00
Google has much to lose in its ill-advised PR and public policy war with Apple, its previous closest Silicon Valley ally.
Antitrust or Fiduciary liablility? Google's recent market behavior puts Google and its CEO Eric Schmidt in a lose-lose situation.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-06-14 14:31
Predictably, the FCC's Google-oriented-BICS-scheme has three fatal flaws -- making it a disaster waiting to happen.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-06-10 15:12
Google unwisely brought closer scrutiny to Google's public representation of its business model by pushing WSJ columnist, Holman Jenkins, to run this footnote/correction:
With all of the controversy surrounding Google's business model (WiFi privacy-invasion investigations on four continents... a massive private data spill from Chinese hackers stealing Google's password security system... and increasing calls for the DOJ/EU to bring an antitrust case against Google), it seems particularly ill-advised for Google to be nitpicking about how Google wants to represent/misrepresent its business model to the public.
Let's parse Google's misleading nitpicking.
First, Google is being too cute by half in insisting its business is not as Mr. Jenkins succinctly encapsulated it to be: "collecting data it can sell to advertisers."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-06-07 12:57
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, dismissed the notion that Google was "arrogant" in an FT interview.
It seems to me that "the arrogance comes across" with Google because Google operates, and expects to operate, under a double standard -- where rules, laws and expectations apply to others, but do not, and should not, apply to Google -- because Google is somehow special.
The latest example of Google's expectation to be treated differently and better than Google treats everyone else -- is Google's "permissions" policy. (See the Goobris Series below for other examples.)
Google's "Total Information Awareness" Power -- A one-page graphic of all the information Google hasSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-06-04 12:50
To help you picture both the enormity and unprecedented power of what Google knows about you and the world's information: public, private and proprietary, I have organized all the world's information types that Google collects onto a one-page chart/PDF: "Google's 'Total Information Awareness' Power."
For those who really want to understand Google and its impact on most everyone and most everything, please read and study this one-page chart/PDF, because much valuable work and insight has gone into it.
A short refresher on where the term "Total Information Awareness" came from and why it is aptly employed here.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-02 22:18
The FCC has a ready-made opportunity to protect consumers by approving the simple rule updates recommended in the pending Retransmission Petition.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-02 12:34
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-05-26 18:57
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-18 18:21
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.
The case for why Google's wanton wardriving is more than just a "mistake."
I. Identifying the questionable practice: "Wardriving"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-05-17 12:34
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.
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.