You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-02-25 17:55
How come the company whose success depends entirely on the public being open, transparent and trusting towards Google, is so closed, secretive and distrusting toward the public?
How come the company with a mission to make the world’s information universally accessible, goes to such extraordinary lengths to cover up evidence in legal documents in public proceedings?
European media could learn an important lesson from their American media brethren about confronting Google’s extensive cover up of the evidence of their wrongdoing in legal proceedings.
In Europe, there was surprisingly little media pushback initially when Google and EC Vice President Joaquin Almunia first proclaimed a secret settlement of charges of Google’s abuse of its search dominance.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-02-05 21:54
Google’s Empty Privacy Promises for Nest, Contacts, etc. – Part 38 Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-01-20 21:59
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-09 10:17
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-11-19 15:24
America's dominance of the Internet has peaked. Read why and what it means.
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
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-11-01 18:16
Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership – My Daily Caller Op-ed – Part 2 of Privacy Theft SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-09-19 08:55
Please don’t miss my latest op-ed: “Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership” – here.
It makes the case that privacy is a form of property under the Constitution and that Congress must step up and legislate in order to restore Americans’ reasonable expectation of privacy online -- regardless of what technology is involved.
Own your privacy.
Privacy Theft Series
Video: Why Google’s WiSpy Wiretapping is Now Class Action Catnip – Part 36 Google’s Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2013-09-15 19:14
Last week a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that Google’s recording of peoples’ home WiFi signals without their knowledge or permission is indeed wiretapping.
For those interested in the implications of this ruling, please see a five minute video -- here -- where I explain what Google did; why the Ninth Circuit ruling is so significant and ominous for Google; why Google’s public story of how this happened is preposterous; and why it is now class action lawsuit catnip.
Thanks and kudos to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for his video interview.
Google's Disrespect for Privacy Series
Part 1: Why Google is the Biggest Threat to Americans' Privacy; House Testimony [7-18-08]
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.”