You are here

Online Privacy

Regulatory Dissonance: FreePress' Tim Wu at FTC & Administration: No Burdensome Regulations

If ever there was a prime example of "regulatory dissonance" it would be:

 

 

Google: 'Settlements 'R' Us?' Is Google Choosing Regulation?

Has Google shifted its legal strategy from its scorched earth legal tactics to more brand-friendly 'Settlements 'R' Us' political tactics?

  • And is Google politically ramping up its lobbying against "search regulation" to try and minimize the restrictions it has to abide by in order to settle the phalanx of serious law enforcement investigations and lawsuits it is facing on antitrust, privacy and intellectual property?

I. There is emerging evidence that Google may be in settlement court-regulation-submission mode.

Glass House Google Throws Stones

The company that has copied all the world's information on its servers without permission and has a mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," ironically has decided to be publicly indignant about the alleged copying of its public search information.

 

  • It is the supreme irony that "glass-house Google" has accused Microsoft of copying Google's public search results.
    • In a blog post Google shared its purpose behind its stone-throwing accusation: "...to those who have asked what we want out of this, the answer is simple: we'd like for this practice to stop."

It pathetically ironic that Google can comprehend that it does not like to have its own claimed private or proprietary information copied and made accessible to the world for free, but Google cannot comprehend why anyone else would not like Google to copy their private or proprietary information without permission and make it available to the world for free.

Let's review all of the other entities who like Google would "like for this practice to stop" -- by Google.

Could Google now possibly better understand why:

 

Skyhook Wireless is Google's Netscape -- Googleopoly VII: Monopolizing Location Services

Skyhook Wireless' anticompetitive complaints are to Google's antitrust problems what Netscape's complaints were to DOJ's anti-monopolization case against Microsoft -- i.e. the most blatant, understandable, and strategically-important example of abusing monopoly power to monopolize a linchpin technology in order to extend the monopoly into other strategic markets.

 

  • Simply, Skyhook Wireless is the poster child victim of Google monopoly abuse.

 

 

I.  Why is Skyhook-Google analogous to  Netscape-Microsoft ?

Of all the many claims of anti-competitive behavior against Google that I have reviewed over the last four years, I believe the Skyhook complaints are the charges that Google should be most worried about and that the DOJ/EU should be most interested in.

Google Sides with Wikileaks

It is stunning that Google's decision to side with Julian Assange's Wikileaks and make all the stolen secret, private and proprietary Wikileaks information universally accessible to the world via Google search, has gotten virtually no media attention, given the:

 

  • International carnage and controversy caused by Wikileaks reprehensible actions;
  • Media's broad coverage of Wikileaks;
  • Google's serial disrespect for others as evidenced by its serial privacy, IP, cybersecurity, and antitrust problems around the world that have been broadly covered by the media; and
  • Google is the world's leading source for accessing Wikileaks secret, private and proprietary information.

 

When Google's Acting CEO Eric Schmidt told the DLD media conference in Munich (as reported by Reuters):

 

Larry Page's Biggest Challenges as Google CEO

Larry Page is very different from Eric Schmidt, consequently he will be a completely different Google CEO.

 

  • Mr. Page is the internal hardliner and the main driving force behind Google, providing the uber-ambition, the "open" philosophy/ideology zeal, the passion-for-innovation, and the impatient, aggressive take-no-prisoners approach to most everything Google does.
  • Mr. Page has always been the penultimate power, final decision-maker and driving force inside Google behind the scenes.
  • Mr. Schmidt has been the co-founders' public face and very able implementer and businessman.

 

The biggest difference people will notice will be external relations.

First, Schmidt and Page are polar opposites when it comes to external relations.

Why FCC's Net Regs Need Administration/Congressional Regulatory Review

To promote "America's free market," President Obama today ordered a government-wide review of regulations that "make our economy less competitive," in order to take us "toward a 21st century regulatory system."

Here is the case for why the FCC's December Open Internet order deserves to be atop of the Administration's regulations to review for abolition.

 

 

First, the FCC's new Internet regulations violate the President's goal of a "21st century regulatory system" by applying "outdated" 19th century common carrier regulatory thinking and approaches to the previously un-regulated, and flourishing 21st century Internet. (Para 68)

Second, the FCC rules violate the President's goal of avoiding "excessive, inconsistent, and redundant regulation."

 

Wikileaks & Responsible Open Internet Boundaries

Julian Assange's reprehensible Wikileaks data breaches of secret, private and proprietary information to the web, endangering lives, diplomacy and peace, has thrust to the forefront of public debate: what are the responsible boundaries of an "Open Internet?"

 

  • It is an especially timely debate given that the FCC is proposing an "Open Internet Order" for FCC decision on December 21st, and given that the FCC is trying to officially define what an "open Internet" is for the first time, in order to restrict what competitive broadband Internet providers can and cannot do.

 

It is instructive that the term "open Internet" is found nowhere in law.

 

Privacy Neutrality?

If online users can and should be able to expect the "net neutrality" freedom of choice to access whatever content they want on whatever technology they want, why can't and shouldn't online users be able to expect to have the "privacy neutrality" freedom of choice to protect whatever privacy they want on whatever technology they want?

Isn't it curious that Google and the Open Internet Coalition are so adamant that consumers have access to all of the content of their choice, but apparently are opposed to consumers having all of the privacy protections of their choice?

How do net neutrality proponents justify the stance that consumers know best for access to content, but they don't know best when it comes to protecting their own online privacy and online safety?

Why would net neutrality proponents be opposed to allowing consumers the freedom to choose to either fully protect their privacy or to exploit their privacy for personal gain?

Could it be that consumer choice/freedom for  content is good for Internet companies' business models, but consumer choice/freedom to protect their own privacy is not good for Internet companies' business models?

 

 

 




 

 

 

 

A Google Android Botnet Problem? "Security is Google's Achilles Heel" Part X of Series

Hackers have discovered a new serious security vulnerability in certain Android smartphones that is not easily or quickly patched because of Android's open and fragmented platform -- per Joseph Menn's report in the FT.

 

  • Specifically an HTC Android browser vulnerability enables a hacker to take broad control of an Android device.

 

The potential security implications of this are even more serious than they first appear.

 

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths