You are here
Google Apps for Education Dangers – An Open Letter to School Administrators, School Boards & Parent AssociationsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-05-13 10:36
Dear School Administrators, School Boards, and Parent Associations,
If you assume Google is careful to protect your students when they use Google Apps for Education, you are sadly mistaken.
Too many assume that someone else must have done the due diligence necessary to ensure that Google Apps for Education adequately protects students’ privacy and safety, because they unfortunately did not. If they had, they would have been alarmed at Google’s shocking history of knowing disregard for the privacy and safety of their users including students.
This open letter will spotlight student privacy/safety concerns with Google that responsible parents and educators would want to know, given that Google Apps for Education, and Google’s other services, pervasively insinuate themselves into so many aspects of their students’ education and private lives.
It also will provide an important jumpstart to long-overdue, better due diligence of Google’s impact on student privacy and safety. Better late than never, the old adage says.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2014-05-09 18:07
Given the avalanche of misinformation and manufactured hysteria by net neutrality proponents over the FCC’s proposed rulemaking to make the FCC’s Open Internet Order comply with the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision, AT&T’s FCC filing here (and below) is a welcome and much-needed total debunking of the call for Title II reclassification of broadband.
For anyone, analyst, reporter, etc. who cares to really understand how Title II common carrier law and regulation actually would play out in the real world, not in the nostalgic imaginations of people who have no real life experience in this matter, this filing eviscerates Title II proponents’ partial, over-simplified, inexperienced, and ill-informed thinking.
Beware proponents of Title II reclassification; if you read this AT&T rebuttal you will begin to comprehend the depth of vacuousness of arguments for reclassification of broadband and you will realize that manufactured-public-perception, is no match for facts, reality and real world experience.
The “Aristechracy” Demands Users Subsidize Their Net Neutrality Free Lunch – Part 45 FCC Open Internet Order SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-05-08 18:25
The Net Neutrality movement has lost its way. It’s now perversely focused on advancing Internet companies’ economic interests at the expense of Internet user interests.
The Net neutrality movement’s main priority used to be about ensuring that Internet users have the freedom to access the legal content of their choice.
Now they have become singularly-focused on securing permanent economic subsidies for edge companies by demanding the FCC set a zero-price for all downstream Internet traffic via reclassifying broadband as a Title II common carrier service.
Essentially, what their latest net neutrality scheme would mean is that Internet users would be forced to shoulder the entire cost burden of maintaining and upgrading America’s expensive Internet infrastructure without a fair-share contribution from the top Internet companies for the infrastructure costs they cause as a result of their dominant consumption of the nation’s daily downstream bandwidth.
Simply, net neutrality has transmogrified from preserving users’ Internet freedoms to forcing all Internet users to fully subsidize all Internet companies’ bandwidth usage bill no matter if they use a particular edge companies’ services or not.
Google’s Anti-Competitive Rap Sheet Warrants Prosecution Not Leniency – An Open Letter to European CommissionersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-04-30 21:51
Dear European Commission Official,
Would Interpol, or any EU prosecutor, ever recommend pursuing a lenient settlement with their overall #1 worst offender -- without extracting any punishment, restitution, admission of wrongdoing, or deterrent effect -- rather than prosecuting the worst offender to the full extent of the law?
Would any other prosecutor publicly threaten swift prosecution against a high-profile defendant repeatedly and then give the defendant three chances to settle over a period of several months when the defendant’s first two proposed remedies proved to be demonstrablydeceptive in market tests?
Of course not! That would be antithetical to the fair, honest, and effective administration of justice.
Then why, after its own investigation found Google to be dominant, and to have abused its dominance in four distinct ways, is DGComp strongly advocating that Google be protected from prosecution for clear violations of EU competition law?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-04-28 09:01
The Internet has long had multiple speeds. And it constantly gets faster speeds via technological and commercial innovation, competition, and investment.
The Internet also has long met people’s diverse needs, wants and means for speed, with different technologies, pricing, and content delivery methods, and it will continue to do so.
Net neutrality activists’ latest rhetoric that opposes the FCC’s court-required update of its Open Internet rules, by implying that there haven’t been “slow and fast lanes” on the Internet before, is obviously factually wrong and misleading, both for consumers receiving content and for entities sending content.
Many in the media have fallen for this mass “fast lane” deception without thinking or questioning it.
First, isn’t it odd that those who routinely complain that the Internet is not fast enough oppose genuine FCC efforts to make the Internet faster?
Moreover, isn’t it ironic that the net neutrality activists -- who have long criticized the FCC for the U.S. falling behind in the world in broadband speeds, and long advocated for municipalities to create giga-bit fast lanes for some communities -- vehemently oppose FCC efforts to create “faster lane” Internet for those entities that need it and are willing to pay for it?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-04-17 19:13
Is Google saying one thing and doing another – yet again?
Given how many times we know Google has misled everyone about the implications of its activities, we should be highly-skeptical of Google’s public claims about what it will do with its nascent Titan drone surveillance capability.
This week Google said it bought Titan Aerospace, which makes solar-powered, high-flying drones, ostensibly because they “could help bring Internet access to millions of people, and help solve other problems, including disaster relief and environmental damage like deforestation.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-04-14 17:08
Please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Google’s Glass House.”
It is Part 40 of my Google Disrespect for Privacy series.
Google's Disrespect for Privacy Series
Part 1: Why Google is the Biggest Threat to Americans' Privacy; House Testimony [7-18-08]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-04-08 17:14
Please don’t miss my new Daily Caller op-ed: “Online Video Competition’s Tipping Point Has Tipped.”
It pulls together how regulatory developments, much faster wireless networks, and several new entrants with deep pockets are converging to create a tipping point for over-the-top, online video competition.
It is Part 25 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom series.
Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series
Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-04-07 15:43
Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Diverging US-EU Internet Trade Visions.”
It spotlights that starkly diverging US-EU net neutrality and data protection policies complicate negotiations for the nascent and pending Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) trade agreement.
This is Part 6 of my “World Changing the Internet” research series.
World Changing Internet Series
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-03-31 08:58
Dear European Commission Official,
The more the European Commission learns about the proposed EC-Google competition settlement, the less sense it makes, and the more scandalous it appears.
Never has the European Commission been presented with such a controversial, perverse, and unreasonable competition settlement to approve. This is not how the EC’s law enforcement process is supposed to work.
Everyone knows that a worthy settlement is a true compromise, where most parties gain something they need, and on balance support it as a reasonable net gain from the status quo. It is telling that virtually no one but Google is supporting this settlement outcome publicly or coming to Google’s defense. That fact should scream that this proposed settlement is not what it is represented to be.
Sadly, this particular process and settlement has devolved into an indefensible and perverse spectacle that has brought unwelcome attention and ridicule to a critical EC law enforcement process that must be beyond reproach.
The reason the European Commission has yet to disapprove a DGComp proposed settlement, is that the European Commission has never been presented with a toxic settlement that is so perversely: anti-consumer; un-European; worse than the status quo; pro-dominance; tolerant of dominance abuses; and ineffective in achieving its main priority – “quick resolution.”