You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:10
I always love to juxtapose a couple of stories to point out irony.
Yesterday, I blogged that Tech Daily reported that the Google gang, AKA ItsOurNet ... will be relaunched in May as the "Open" Net coalition.
Well today I laughed out loud when I read in Tech Daily, that Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales is promoting a new collaborative search process like the wiki online encyclopedia.
Seems like those who really know "open" don't think Google is worthy of its self annointed name of the "Open" Net Coalition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-30 18:40
The ItsOurNet coalition is relaunching under a new name the "Open Internet Coalition" in May according to Todays' National Journal's Tech Daily .
I must say I am sad to see the ItsOurNet name fall by the wayside, it was a glorious pinata of a concept.
It also will be interesting to see if they have retooled the substance of their message and if they will abandon Moveon.org and the Dorgan-Snowe bill to try and appear more reasonable and practical.
Reading between the lines of the article it seems Moveon is "on" the defensive so to speak.
lastly it will be interesting to see if:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-30 17:49
The New York Times article today on Google highlights another reason all Americans should be worried about Google's anti-competitive arbitrage of U.S. privacy laws and consumer expectations.
I just heard someone joke:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-27 18:18
I first wanted to share some very interesting quotes that are relevant to the GoogleDoubleclick merger and privacy in general -- before I delve into the issue of "intimacy theft" more specifically.
In Comm Daily Thursday, a widely respected attorney in Washington, Christine Varney, who identified herself as a longtime attorney for DoubleClick said:
This is the marketplace context that the government will review the Google-DoubleClick merger.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-04-27 15:32
Declan McCullagh of CNET has a very insightful piece called: "Missing : Politicians who take a clear stand on tech" where he spotlights that net neutrality is not on either the Democrat or Republican tech policy agendas.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-26 17:20
Google's net neutrality hypocrisy only grows.
It will be fun to hear Google's explanatory gymnastics on this one!
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-04-26 15:56
I listened in to SaveTheInternet's conference call with reporters in celebration of their one year anniversary.
Senator Dorgan (D-ND) author of the pending Dorgan-Snowe Bill was the keynote and star.
Craig Newmark was second to speak and he asserted everyone he knew was for NN. (I guess we should give up now.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-04-25 14:47
Curt Monash in his blog suggests a "third way" for net neutrality to go -- applying regulation to the "JeffersonNet" or "bandwidth-light" parts of the Internet while not applying it to the "EdisonNet," the more "communications-rich" applications where regulation would be an impediment.
With all due respect, the "middle way" thinking is seriously flawed because it assumes a compromise between views with equal merit.
In order to talk net neutrality compromise, net neutrality proponents have to make the case that they have legitimate concerns to begin with.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-04-24 10:44
I always knew Moveon.org was a powerful political force, but I just learned how powerful -- Moveon.org was the second largest Political Action Committee (PAC) in the US in 2006, according to the Washington Post "In The Loop" column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum.
Moveon.org's political clout combined with its zealousness for promoting net neturality regulation and the front-loaded 2008 political process mean net neutrality will likely remain on the "techcom" political agenda as a key issue for the foreseeable future -- despite getting repudiated by the House, Senate, Supreme Court, FCC, FTC, NTIA, Maryland, Michigan to only name the most prominent forums that rejected regulating the Internet.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-04-23 19:17
Google just announced a new so called "service" for you: "Web History."
You know what gives me the creeps about this?
How do we know Google does not sell or give access to this extremely intimate info to the government or the highest bidder?
You know what gives me the most creeps about Google's Web History service?