You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-25 11:33
With Canada, Spain, the UK, and 38 U.S. states all cracking down on Google's wanton wardriving spyfi scandal, where is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the supposed lead agency on protecting consumers online privacy?
The FTC's silence and apparent absence from the online privacy enforcement playing field is particularly perplexing and alarming... because now it appears that we have a company that is out-of-control in tracking consumers' private actions online, and creating total information awareness power, while we have a supposed lead privacy regulator that appears not to be leading in protecting consumers' privacy...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-10-19 18:43
Google is right that they are the inverse/opposite of Apple, but not in the way that Google claims -- being open/neutral vs. being closed.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-11 16:26
Google's blog post "What we're driving at" announced that Google has "developed technology for cars to drive themselves." Google stated: "Larry and Sergey founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big problems using technology... Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people's time and reduce carbon emissions..."
This project raises some interesting questions no one has asked Google yet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-10-06 12:09
In his latest display of no-self-awareness, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, in an interview with the Atlantic, said:
Is Google's CEO the only sentient being on the planet that isn't aware that China is organized around the principles of China's National Communist Party?
"If China is best understood as a large, well-run business," why does Communist China censor and imprison their Chinese "customers" if they object too much to China's products and services?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-08-31 11:06
In one of Google's worst misrepresentations about privacy to date, Google's Head of Product Development for Google Enterprise, Matt Glotzbach, told the FT that Google did not believe that its new gmail feature -- that ranks emails automatically based on what Google's algorithm judges are the most important emails to be read first -- would raise any privacy concerns. "We're not creating any new information, we're leveraging information that is already there."
Unbelievable. This is grossly deceptive and untrue.
By any measure this is what I would call Google's "Deep Tracking Inspection."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-08-25 14:44
The top U.S. spy agency for mapping announced a no-bid digital mapping contract with Google on August 19th. However, after media inquiries, the agency modified the contract's no-bid format, but made clear "the agency's intention to award the contract to Google without entertaining competitive bids" -- per a Fox News story by James Rosen.
Has anyone in a position of authority or oversight even begun to think through the irony and stupidity of contracting out the Nation's most sensitive intelligence gathering and analysis function to a company that has:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-08-19 18:03
Good satire like this is rare and precious.
Don't miss The Onion News Network's new spoof of a Google phone that is paid for with "automated whisper advertising."
The comedy news clip is only 2 min 34 seconds... after a 15 second ad.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-08-18 13:40
In a big positive and under-reported Google privacy precedent, Google now has agreed to a new important privacy protection principle that people should be able to opt out of having their homes included in Google's StreetView. Just yesterday in Germany, Google went live with a new StreetView op-out offering for Germans.
First, if it is a good consumer protection principle and option for German citizens, why shouldn't it be a good policy and freedom for all citizens to enjoy in the 23 countries where Google has rolled out StreetView?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-07-22 16:25
The fateful policy decision by the FTC/DOJ to exclude privacy as a factor in antitrust enforcement has fostered a perverse market dynamic where many online advertising companies now effectively compete on the basis of who can most take advantage of consumer privacy fastest, rather than compete on the basis of who can best protect consumer privacy.
This analysis will show:
I. Implications of exempting privacy from antitrust enforcement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-07-21 13:12
37 States are now involved in a "powerful multi-state investigation" of "Google's Streetview snooping" per a press release from investigation leader, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who released a new follow-up letter to Google asking for more information and clarification of its representations to date.
The letter shows the investigation is very serious. Its prosecutorial exactness strongly suggests that investigators believe Google has not been forthright in its answers to date and that it could be covering up material information to the investigation.
What appears to be the most problematic line of inquiry is whether or not Google tested this software before it was used in public to collect private information on consumers.