You are here
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.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-07-09 11:00
In an exceptionally uncharacteristic low-key PR manner for Google, Google announced on its blog in one sentence that China renewed its license to operate in China.
What's the rest of the story here?
Google and China have been at loggerheads with one another in one of the highest-of-profile international standoffs between a private company and a superpower in modern history, since Google publicly accused China in January blogpost of being complicit in a hack of Google that resulted in the theft of Google's intellectual property, (which John Markoff of the New York Times reported was the extremely sensitive computer code for Google's password control system.)
What is the quid pro quo here?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-06-28 12:02
As the biggest and most powerful Internet company in the world, and the most unaccountable and non-transparent, Google's public representations and new major ads require regular third-party fact-checking, especially because Google employs no ad disclaimers, obviously confident that it has no Federal oversight to worry about.