You are here
Google’s Empty Privacy Promises for Nest, Contacts, etc. – Part 38 Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-01-20 21:59
As Google’s pervasively-invasive, track-to-target, advertising-ambitions continue to metastasize throughout people’s lives and physical space -- via contact lens monitoring, Google Glass recording, Nest home sensors, self-driving car tracking, Internet of things listening devices, etc. -- Google’s privacy promises simply don’t have credibility.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-01-16 17:25
Recently the leading public voice of Title II reclassification of broadband, Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford, asserted “All the FCC has to do is change their mind and say, ‘We got it wrong.’ [The FCC] has ample political congressional authority to do that, this is just a political battle. The FCC is concerned that if it acts to carry out this administrative relabeling, it will lose half its budget and half its staff.”
The FCC did not get it wrong. Professor Crawford and supporters of reclassification have it all wrong.
There are three key problems with Professor Crawford’s reclassification position:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-01-15 12:32
For those who want to hear some of the best arguments and rebuttals for/against Title II reclassification of broadband, please listen to the 13 minute back-and-forth between Professor Susan Crawford and I today.
It’s a good precursor of the debate ahead.
Title II Reclassification Series
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2014-01-14 12:27
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2014
Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
Court Upholds FCC’s “General Authority to Regulate” Broadband in Verizon v. FCC, But Denies FCC Authority to Impose Common-Carrier-like Regulation of Broadband. This win-win, Could Settle into a de Facto Net Neutrality Peace, if Parties Don’t Appeal
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following quotes addressing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Verizon v. FCC decision may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2014-01-12 21:12
Net neutrality activist opposition to AT&T’s new Sponsored Data offering exposes that the purpose of “net neutrality/open Internet” is not just about protecting consumers and free speech, or preventing anti-competitive behavior.
Those calling for an FCC investigation of AT&T’s Sponsored Data are trying to mutate the “net neutrality/open Internet” debate to also be about whether or not there should be permanent economic entitlements, i.e. downstream “zero-price” subsidies, for edge websites and applications – to “subsidize creativity” and start-up innovation via an explicit FCC ban on network termination charges.
Translation: all websites and applications should be entitled, by “open Internet” network design, to no cost Internet distribution/access to consumers forever, regardless of the costs that their services cause everyone else to pay for.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-01-09 19:20
Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Google’s Robots and Creeping Militarization.”
It is Part 20 of my Google Spying Series.
Google Spying Series
Part 1: All the Blackmail-able Info that 'J. Edgar Google' Collects on You [7-17-08]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-16 14:37
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-09 10:17
Google Glass’ easy eavesdropping on people may be illegal wiretapping.
Two courts already have ruled in different class actions that Google can be sued for illegal wiretapping for “interceptions” of personal information without meaningful consent -- in circumstances analogous to how Google Glass operates.
First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that wiretap law prohibits the type of transmission “interception” that Google StreetView cars’ did in secretly collecting personal information from unencrypted home WiFi networks.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-12-06 09:06
The op-ed provides a foundational answer to both:
This is Part 21 of my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
FYI: See additional background below: two key PowerPoint presentations & my Obsolete Communications Law Series.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sat, 2013-11-23 18:21
Mr. Ammori, one of Google’s and Free Culture’s most able defenders, comes to the public defense of Google in his recent USA Today op-ed “Blame the NSA not Facebook & Google.”
He publicly castigates privacy advocates for doing their jobs, stating: “blaming tech companies for the NSA’s overreach isn’t just ignorant, but dangerous.”
As most understand, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know the facts are not on their side.
Nevertheless Mr. Ammori does us all a favor for elevating the important public question of whether or not Google, in particular, deserves any blame for its significant role in the NSA spy scandals.
First, let’s address whether it is “ignorant” to blame Google for complicity in NSA spying. Consider the following facts.