You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2012-03-02 17:16
Count me as totally perplexed how the supposedly-security-minded U.S. State Department could decide to adopt security-challenged Google's Chrome browser for worldwide use by the State Department. What are they thinking?
Chrome is a consumer-grade, ad-supported, tracking-driven browser. By design Chrome has an advertising default omni-tracking capability inappropriate for Federal Government secret classified work. For the first time only last week, Google begrudgingly committed to offering a voluntary do-not-track capability for Chrome by the end of 2012 as part of the White House brokered Online Privacy Bill of Rights. However, will Google respect the State Department's right to secrecy? That's a very fair question given that…
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-02-22 13:22
Since Privacy International ranked Google worst in the world for Privacy in its 2007 privacy survey for its unique “comprehensive consumer surveillance & entrenched hostility to privacy,” Google has had at least 24 more public scandals/controversies over privacy/security.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2012-02-17 16:20
(Note: The text in quotations are verbatim quotes from Google via a Politico post. The italics in [ ] is a satirical translation of what Google really is saying.)
“Google’s Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president for Communications and Public Policy issued the following statement to POLITICO regarding a WSJ report that the company has been bypassing the privacy settings of Apple's Web browser on iPhones and computers:”
“The Journal mischaracterizes what happened and why.”
“We used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-01-11 16:25
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-12-21 08:04
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-12-14 12:20
The House Manager’s Amendment to the pending House Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) fixed the major legitimate problems with the original bill, effectively isolating the small but extremely vociferous minority of SOPA opponents, especially Google.
See my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here for a political outlook of the SOPA/PIPA anti-piracy legislation, which is likely to become law in 2012.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-12-12 13:59
Many thanks to Adam Thierer of the Technology Liberation Front, for selecting my book, Search & Destroy, as a top twenty most Important Cyber-Law & Info-Tech Policy books of 2011 because “it represented the beginning of an articulation of a philosophy of “cyber-conservatism.” I also thank Adam for his critical and insightful review of Search & Destroy, which clearly delineates his principled cyber-libertarian differences with my principled “cyber-conservative” views.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-12-09 10:15
The kerfuffle painting the Google Wallet App as an innocent victim of Verizon blocking -- in violation of an "open" Internet and net neutrality regulations -- completely misses the forest for the trees. This conflict revolves around two ongoing industry battles.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-11-15 12:19
In compiling and ranking the top threats facing Google, I was amazed at the breadth, depth, diversity and seriousness of the threats and liabilities facing Google.
Please see my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here to learn the ranking of what threats to Google are most serious and why.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-10-28 11:03
How could Google fail to meet the security needs of the City of Los Angeles in its trophy government cloud contract?
Learn why in my Forbes Tech Capitalist post here, entitled "Google Too Fast and Loose for LAPD."