You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2015-01-07 17:28
As EC law enforcement confronts Google’s uniquely extensive wrongdoing in competition, privacy/security, property, and tax matters, it is critical to examine if Google’s longstanding public promises to consumers to gain their trust are in fact true and trustworthy.
Central to law enforcement’s role in determining the extent of its Google charges, penalties and remedies is determining whether or not the infractions were willful or unintentional.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-09-07 21:51
While a well-positioned façade of a castle can create the illusion of a fully-fortified castle, real people’s data requires more than the illusion of security; it requires real data-protection-security.
Google’s outsize ability to create the illusion of data-protection-security is particularly apt given that Eran Feigenbaum is Google Apps Security Director by day, and also a professional magician/illusionist by night.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-08-04 11:18
Google-Android sacrifices users’ security, privacy and data protection to scale Android fastest so that Google can dominate mobile software and advertising.
This charge and analysis is timely and relevant because Reuters is reporting that European Commission competition authorities are “laying the groundwork for a case centered on whether Google abuses the 80 percent market share of its Android mobile operating system to promote services from maps to search.”
The purpose of this particular analysis is to help a user better understand how they are harmed by Google-Android’s disregard for data protection.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-06-24 23:37
Google recently boughtDropcam for $555m, a company which makes inexpensive, easy-to-install, WiFi-video-streaming-cameras that connect to cloud-based networks for convenient monitoring, set-up and retrieval.
Please don’t miss this graphic -- here -- of how the Dropcam acquisition fits into Google’s plans for a new ubiquitous physical surveillance network that will complement and leverage its existing virtual surveillance network.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-05 21:54
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-01-09 19:20
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Google’s Robots and Creeping Militarization.”
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]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-11-01 18:16
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-10-24 11:44
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.
Google’s SpyGlass – Google’s Big Rest-of-World Trust Problem -- Part 35 of Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2013-09-08 23:46
Google can expect a big rest-of-world trust problem when it rolls out Google Glass overseas, because of: foreign fallout from Edward Snowden’s illegal disclosures of NSA surveillance activities; Google’s reputation for aggressive and pervasive spying on people’s privacy; and Google’s cavalier legal stance that people have “no legitimate expectation of privacy.”