You are here

Online Safety

Privacy Will Burst Bubble 2.0

Expect privacy concerns to be the eventual catalyst that ultimately bursts the Internet investment Bubble 2.0. It is rare when there is a profound disconnect and suspension of reality between industry behavior/investment expectations and customer wants, needs and expectations, but that is precisely what is at work in Bubble 2.0.

 

  • Almost by definition, investment bubbles are unsustainable; what goes up must come down, it is only a matter of how and when -- not if.
  • Simply what fuels Bubble 2.0  is the patently false core assumption that the current unfettered, widespread, and largely clandestine data mining of individuals private information in order to target specific individuals with personalized online advertising:
    • Is aligned with real user interests;
    • Is a forthright business practice consumers are aware of and have meaningfully consented to;
    • Will not be legally constrained in the future; and
    • Will become the accepted norm -- meaning that the populace and governments will adapt to the wishes and desires of the online-ad- industry and not the other way around.
  • In a word, is online tracking, profiling and data mining a consumer-driven model? -- or a consumer-dragged model?

    This is deja vu for me. I've seen this movie before when I had a front row seat as the original dotcom Bubble 1.0 wiped away $4 trillion in market valuation in a few weeks.

    Preview Google's Apology for Collecting Kids SS#s

    See a preview below of Google's likely official public apology for collecting kids' partial Social Security #s and other private information -- without the permission of their parents.

    Per Google's Official Blog:

    "We are deeply sorry, very very sorry, and even oh-so-sorry for collecting partial social security numbers, date and place of birth on kindergartners and grade schoolers participating in the Doodle-4-Google contest.

    Mobile Content: Google's Commons vs. Apple's Market

    Mobile content producers do not have a truly competitive choice between Google's 10% fee One Pass service and Apple's 30% fee subscription service, as much as they have a value system choice between Google's Internet commons model and Apple's property-rights-driven market.

     

    • Google's One Pass offering looks eerily like its Google TV offering, where major video content owners faced the platform choice between dumb content and Content is King."
      • Given that choice, content-is-king-oriented owners broadly rejected Google's property-hostile, dumb-content system/model.
    • As mobile content providers and carriers threatened with "dumb content" and bandwidth/spectrum commodification from Google's "free" commons model assess their real long term strategic competitive and value-creation options, they will increasingly look toward, and forward to, the nascent Microsoft-Nokia alliance offering and RIM's offering for content-is-king allies and true competitive choices.

    As much as Google tries to fool Little Red Riding Hood content owners that their Grandma always had such big eyes and big teeth, most mobile content providers will spot the Google commons wolf in disguise.

     

    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:

     

    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.

     

    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.

     

    Why Google's Privacy Controls are a Joke -- Lessons for FTC/FCC

    Google's latest privacy controls are a bad joke, certainly not sufficient to warrant the FTC completely absolving serial privacy violator Google from all responsibility in the Google WiSpy Affair, especially given that other law enforcement bodies have found misrepresentation of facts and violation of users' privacy.

     

    • Hopefully, the FCC's investigation of Google WiSpy will not look the other way like the FTC apparently did, when a Fortune 200 company with the industry's longest privacy violation rap sheet, was caught red-handed violating millions of Americans' privacy and found to have misrepresented facts and misled investigators, got off without any FTC sanction, oversight or accountability whatsoever.

     

    Why are Google's latest privacy controls insufficient?

    First, Google's leadership is clearly not publicly supportive of more privacy controls, but openly skeptical and defiant that Google does not need to alter its approach to innovation to better protect privacy and security.

    Pages

    Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths