You are here
Why Google is America’s Cybersecurity Achilles Heel -- Part 14 Security is Google’s Achilles Heel SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-05-29 10:19
Every system has a most vulnerable point, an Achilles heel. The overwhelming evidence below indicates that Google is America’s cybersecurity Achilles heel.
While America faces a plethora of serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities, Google’s unique scale, scope, tracking, and centralization puts Google alone at the pinnacle of America’s cybersecurity vulnerabilities, in a class all by itself.
Simply, hackers understand Google is by far the world’s single most-comprehensive source of intimate surveillance information on people and their behaviors, while also being the major entity that is least-committed culturally to protecting people’s security, privacy, and property.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-12 15:17
In advance of the Senate Antitrust oversight hearing for the DOJ and FTC Tuesday, please see my Daily Caller op-ed "DOJ & FTC Antitrust Report Cards" -- here -- to learn two of the big oversight questions for the hearing.
This is Part 20 in the Google Unaccountability Research Series.
Google Unaccountability Research Series:
Part 0: Google's Poor and Defiant Settlement Record
Part 1: Why Google Thinks It Is Above the Law
Part 2: Top Ten Untrue Google Stories
Part 3: Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
My video explanation of Google Glass' upcoming privacy problems given that 8,000 people soon will be testing them in publicSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-03-27 14:36
Google is notifying 8,000 people that they can now buy and use a prototype of Google Glass as part of a real-world Google marketing experiment of this controversial new product.
Expect this first wave of Google Glass-arazzi and storm-snoopers to run into significant privacy problems to the extent they film/record people's private conversations/activities without their knowledge or permission.
What we don't know yet is if Google will:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-03-14 19:19
The big problem with Google Glass is that it disrespects others’ privacy in the real world.
In creating an innovative form-factor for Google users to use most all of Google’s services in the real-world on-the-go and hands-free, Google Glass would fundamentally change how Google users socially interact and affect others in society.
In the virtual world, Google is a champion of users having the freedom to do most whatever they want online. In the real physical world, people’s freedoms begin to end when they begin to seriously infringe upon the freedoms of others – like the freedom of reasonable privacy.
The greatest Google privacy outcries have been when Google products disregarded and disrespected non-Google users’ or others’ privacy. Gmail users may have assented to Google scanning their emails to target personal ads to get free email, but the billion or so non-Gmail users that happen to trade emails with Gmail never agreed to Google’s privacy-invading deal.
Cellphone Unlocking Effort a Trojan Horse to Gut DMCA Digital-Locks Copyright Enforcement – Part 10 Defending First Principles SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-03-11 17:03
I have repeatedly warned that the so-called copyright “reform” movement is deceptive because it masks its true purposes. It knows that the real change it seeks -- to neuter anti-piracy enforcement – is an out-of-the-mainstream idea and a political loser.
So the copyright-neutering movement uses an elaborate Trojan-Horse deception – a politically-contrived “cell-phone unlocking” problem -- as its political entrée into the copyright legislative process to forward its real goal of gutting DMCA digital-locks enforcement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-03-08 12:04
To understand why Google owns the single worst privacy record over the last decade of any Global 2000 corporation, listen to what Google’s leadership says about privacy-related matters in their own words. Then compare what Google Says about privacy below, with Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet – current up to June 4, 2012.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-01-23 08:44
The Real Motive behind Opposition to Broadband Usage Pricing -- Part 13 Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-11-14 20:49
Now we know the real reason why there has been such strong opposition by FreePress and other net neutrality proponents to the common sense economic notion of broadband usage pricing. The newly launched Open Wireless Movement now wants to turn everyone's home WiFi routers into interconnected, free, public-community, "open WiFi" hotspots.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-10-30 11:15
Google's Global Privacy Counsel, Peter Fleischer, cheered Singapore in his blog for passing a "modern privacy law" as a way of denouncing the EU's "out of date" privacy law and its recent threat to enforce it against Google.
Fully exhibiting a couple of the most common Google PR traits, a lack of self-awareness and an instinct for political polarization, Mr. Fleischer effectively lectured the world that it should emulate the privacy lawmaking of a hybrid-authoritarian regime, Singapore, as he denounced and belittled the privacy lawmaking of European democracies. How Orwellian this is, to praise the politically authoritarian treatment of the Singaporean people as "modern," and to denounce the democratic concern for the individual liberties of EU citizens as "bizarre" and "out of date."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-10-23 11:02
Google remains its own worst enemy in trying to resolve EU antitrust charges.
In early 2012, when Google was trying to convince EU antitrust authorities that enforcement action against Google's search practices -- preferring its own content in search ranking over competitors -- would only harm consumers and was unnecessary because competition was but "a click away" for consumers, Google announced it would consolidate 60 privacy policies without user permission or user choice to opt-out, and then did it a month later, over the EU's strong objections.
This was a flagrant strategic mistake because: first the EU prides itself for strong consumer privacy laws and privacy protections; second the EU fully-understands that consumers' privacy is the de facto currency that Google uses to propel its monopoly; and third Google's primary antitrust defense is that they are the ones that are best looking out for consumers interests and that consumers have plenty of choice.