You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-02-09 12:43
Google's oft-stated goal to "change the world" and its famed mission to centralize all of the world's information to make it universally accessible, self-appoints Google to be the world's omni-information gatekeeper, distributor, librarian, publisher, editor, programmer, and broadcaster.
In building its Googleopoly, Google represented itself to everyone as unbiased and neutral in order to gain everyone's trust.
A core concern with Google's centralized information power and opaque black box system is that Google has the unaccountable power and constant opportunity to decide what information people around the world access, and also to decide what information Google does not want them to find.
Today in Politico's top story "Tech War: Google vs Microsoft" by Elizabeth Wasserman, I was quoted saying: "It's scary that the monopoly information access point of the world is going after voices of dissent."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-08 17:56
If ever there was a prime example of "regulatory dissonance" it would be:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-02-07 10:40
Has Google shifted its legal strategy from its scorched earth legal tactics to more brand-friendly 'Settlements 'R' Us' political tactics?
I. There is emerging evidence that Google may be in settlement court-regulation-submission mode.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-02-02 10:50
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 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:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2011-01-30 17:57
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.
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-01-26 11:51
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:
When Google's Acting CEO Eric Schmidt told the DLD media conference in Munich (as reported by Reuters):
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2011-01-23 17:07
Larry Page is very different from Eric Schmidt, consequently he will be a completely different Google CEO.
The biggest difference people will notice will be external relations.
First, Schmidt and Page are polar opposites when it comes to external relations.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-01-03 12:02
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."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-12-07 11:27
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 instructive that the term "open Internet" is found nowhere in law.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-15 12:36
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?