About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereInternet SecurityGoogle: Transparency for thee but not for meSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-09-21 10:53In another Google fit of no-self-awareness, Google has launched a new web tool that they call the "transparency report" in order to promote transparency as "a deterrent to censorship," per a Google spokeswoman in the NYT's Bits Blog. While I applaud the tool and Google's effort to promote transparency as a deterrent to censorship, the effort appears disingenuous because of Google's double standard that others must submit to transparency, but not Google. Google's tool will have "a map that shows every time a government has asked Google to take down or hand over information, and what percentage of the time Google has complied," per the NYT's Bits Blog."
If transparency is good: Big Brother Inc. Implications of Google Getting No-Bid U.S. Spy ContractSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-08-25 14:44The 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: Why Privacy Is an Antitrust Issue & Why Google is its Poster ChildSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-07-22 16:25The 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. 37 States now investigating Google StreetView snoopingSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-07-21 13:1237 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. Google China License: What's the rest of the story?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-07-09 11:00In 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? Google's Wanton WarDriving Scandal: Fallout & Cover-upSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-05-18 18:21Google's wanton "wardriving," i.e. detecting, accessing, and recording residential WiFi networks in 30 countries for over three years, was not simply a "mistake," "inadvertent," or an "accident" as the Google's PR machine has spun it. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming to anyone who bothers to examine it closely.
The case for why Google's wanton wardriving is more than just a "mistake." I. Identifying the questionable practice: "Wardriving" Questions for Google on its Latest Act of Privacide -- Part XXI Privacy vs. Publicacy seriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-04-23 12:26Google's latest privacy-killing act of privacide is "Google's roving Street View spycam," which is not only taking pictures, but is also scanning to log WiFi network addresses and unique Media Access Control (Mac)addresses per Andrew Orlowski's excellent scoop at the Register. Google's Titanic Security Flaws -- "Security is Google's Achilles Heel" Part VIII of SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-04-22 12:49Well informed reports (that Google will not deny), that hackers breached Google's most sensitive software code, the Gaia password system, surface titanic security flaws at Google. Why Google is too big not to fail. 1. "Bigtable" Storage design: How Google stores and accesses "all the world's information" in and from its data centers is: "'Bigtable:' a Distributed Storage System for Structured Data." It is Google's innovation to maximize scalability, speed and cost efficiency -- not security, privacy, or accountability. Simply, Bigtable is an "all eggs in one basket" approach to information storage and access. Google's Liability Decade: Why Google's leadership ducks investorsSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-04-20 17:03The abrupt change, that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt will no longer be accountable to shareholders on Google's earnings calls, should prompt investors to ask why?
What has changed, and what Google has been not been open about, is the very serious ripening of three different types of going-forward franchise risks (antitrust, privacy/security, and intellectual property) that cumulatively herald a de facto change in Google eras: from the roaring "Growth Decade" of 2000-2009, to the more unpredictable "Liability Decade" of 2010- 2019. Google on Chrome: we don't need your permissionSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-04-02 17:04For skeptics of Google's need for more transparency and accountability, consider the latest disturbing example of Google Chrome not asking tens of millions of Internet users for their permission to gain wide open access to their computers and content -- when it clearly should ask for permission -- like every other Internet browser provider does. Per ComputerWorld's article: "Google's Chrome now silently auto-updates Flash Player."
What this means is that unlike all other browsers or Google competitors, Google does not believe it needs permission from users to gain wide open access to users' entire computer software and all its private contents. Pages |