free html hit counter Policy Archives - Page 16 of 62 - John Battelle's Search Blog

WiFi On Steriods

By - March 24, 2008

Cnet piece on Google’s view of the 700Mhz auction.

  • Content Marquee

Trust.

By - March 23, 2008

And the lack thereof. We’re all living in the world of the Database of Intentions, except, apparently, the White House.

Older White House computer hard drives have been destroyed, the White House disclosed to a federal court Friday in a controversy over millions of possibly missing e-mails from 2003 to 2005….

… the White House disclosed in January that it recycled its computer backup tapes before October 2003. Recycling — taping over existing data — raises the possibility that any missing e-mails may not be recoverable.

Gee. I am sure this was not intentional.

Can't Lose For Winning: Google on Spectrum

By - March 21, 2008

Love the spin here from the AP, with which I do agree:

Losing the battle for a prized piece of the airwaves isn’t necessarily a setback for Google Inc.1

If anything, Thursday’s news that Verizon Wireless had won the government-run auction for a pivotal swath of spectrum may even have been the ideal outcome for Google.

That’s because investors no longer have to fret about Google straying from its main business of Internet search to spend more than $10 billion buying and building a wireless network.

Yet Google still positioned itself to profit from the newly available airwaves by ensuring the bids for the so-called “C block” escalated to $4.6 billion. Reaching that price triggered a provision that requires the new wireless network to accommodate all mobile devices, including equipment using a software package called “Android” that is supposed to give Google a better opportunity to sell more advertising.

The Great Firewall, Again

By - March 17, 2008

This issue is not going away, and the Olympics will only heighten it…from ars:

China has joined the ranks of countries that have instituted either temporary or permanent blocks on YouTube. The decision came as clips of the recent riots in Tibet—a “sensitive” topic in China—have made their way onto the popular video sharing site. As usual, the Chinese government has remained mum on the move to block content from the eyes of Internet users, so it’s unclear whether this block will remain in effect for the long term or if it’s merely a short-term solution.

YouTube isn’t the only site that has reportedly been added to China’s Great Firewall since the Tibetan riots started last week. Popular news sites reporting on the riots—such as CNN, The Guardian, the BBC, Google News, and Yahoo!—have allegedly had all or parts of their sites blocked. Some Chinese readers have reported that only specific articles have been blocked, including ones that contain keywords about Tibet, riots, or the Dalai Lama.

Right On, House Dems

By - March 15, 2008

Immunity for the telcos is taken off the table, for now. It’s my guess that the backwards immunity for telcos pushed for by the Bush Administration is far less about protecting the telcos, and far more about making sure that court cases don’t end up revealing the really dark shit that our goverment has been doing.

That Old Database of Intentions, It Be Growin'

By - March 10, 2008

The Web companies are, in effect, taking the trail of crumbs people leave behind as they move around the Internet, and then analyzing them to anticipate people’s next steps. So anybody who searches for information on such disparate topics as iron supplements, airlines, hotels and soft drinks may see ads for those products and services later on.

Consumers have not complained to any great extent about data collection online. But privacy experts say that is because the collection is invisible to them. Unlike Facebook’s Beacon program, which stirred controversy last year when it broadcast its members’ purchases to their online friends, most companies do not flash a notice on the screen when they collect data about visitors to their sites.

“When you start to get into the details, it’s scarier than you might suspect,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group. “We’re recording preferences, hopes, worries and fears.” (NYT link)

Again With the High Click Fraud Stats

By - February 23, 2008

Click Forensics, a company that certainly benefits from press about high click fraud, has come out with another scary statement: Click Fraud accounts for more than 28% of clicks on content networks, which I assume means AdSense and similar types of syndicated networks. The overall rate of fraud is more than 16%, the company claims. Seeking Alpha covers it here.

The thing is, we’ve heard this before, and before that, and probably before that, and the response from Yahoo and Google is always the same: Click Forensics has got it all wrong. We catch nearly all fraud before anyone has to pay for it. All of this is overblown and misunderstood.

So why does Click Forensics keep at it? Who’s right here?

Microsoft President on Yahoo

By - February 22, 2008

Just sent this link – an internal email from Kevin Johnson, Microsoft President, to employees (and posted to Microsoft’s press area as well). Can’t find much news in it but…

Google Responds to Privacy Fears On Searchblog

By -

A while back I wrote a piece in which I expressed concerns about how Google might use data it has on individuals, and suggesting that I and perhaps others have hit their “Google saturation point.” The post elicited alot of comments, including Matt Cutts of Google, who promised to respond with some policy clarifications. Well, the response got stuck in his mailbox, but he just posted it now. Here is the highlight:

For example, our internal user data access agreement explicitly mentions that Google employees are not allowed to try to access data on any public figure, any employee at a particular company, or any acquaintance. To do so would be grounds for immediate termination. So for the case that you’re worried about (running a start-up using Google’s tools), we have mechanisms and policies in place that specifically protect your privacy in that situation.

But…this allows them, from what I can tell, to access information on anyone who is not a “public figure, any employee at a particular company, or any acquaintance.”

The way it’s worded, it seems to be pretty easy to get around. “Hey Joe, do you know Battelle?” “No, who’s he?” “Never mind, can you just go check out his files for me?”

Anyway….