Category: Policy

The meme most media outlets have given to their second day coverage of Gmail is that it gives folks “the creeps.” In essence, the idea that machines will be reading folks’ email freaks a lot of observers out. Privacy advocates are connecting the dots on mailing lists like Farber’s IP, and Cnet, the LA Times, and Wired News have written stories turning on this angle.

I think the jury is out on this issue. If people willingly give up their privacy to get a gig of storage and the ability to search their email (email search is one of the biggest search hairballs out there, IMHO), who’s to say that’s wrong? On the other hand, this does create a lot of potential for trouble, given how much information can now be connected. If you get on the wrong side of the government, for example, and use GMail and Google search (and Orkut…), you had better hope the Patriot Act has been repealed. But this is true if you’re using Yahoo, AOL, or MSFT as well. All these companies would have to give up your personal information to a government demand. It’s just that with Google, the power of that information working together is so obvious, and is, in a way, made available to you via a business model which – thanks to contextual advertising – makes it economical for you to have a gig of storage and a whole new interface to mail (search). Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. But I do think it’d be very wise for Google to lay out a white paper explaining all of this in intricate detail, a link to which is prominently displayed to all Gmail users.

Trust me, Google may be the first company to show the general public the power of personal information leveraged against search, but they won’t be the last. Think about Amazon for a microsecond…

Read More

When I met with Eric a year or so ago, he said that Google had gotten to the size that draws lawsuits, and he expected his legal department, already robust, would have to get even bigger. He was right. Add another suit to the pile: Digital Envoy is suing Google for violation of a licensing agreement.

Details from CNET:

Several years ago, the two companies struck a licensing agreement allowing Google to use “geo-location” technology invented and developed by Digital Envoy, said Timothy Kratz, a lawyer with the firm of McGuireWoods. The technology uses the Internet Protocol (IP) address of a computer visiting a particular Web site to determine the nearest city in order to direct specific advertisements to the computer’s user.

Read More

Not sure the issues discussed in this piece are Google’s problem alone. In fact, I’m quite sure they are not. But, often the press can’t tell the difference. In any case, the set up of the piece:

“Google kind of makes it easy to connect all the dots together,” said Richard M. Smith, former chief technology officer at the Privacy Foundation. “I think Google is the biggest privacy invader on the planet, no doubt about it.”

But interesting and good to hear Larry quoted in this piece responding to the privacy concerns thusly: “We’re not experts on all possible topics,” Page said. “These (privacy issues) are hugely controversial, and I don’t think it’s a good idea for us to set policy.” And…
“Do you not want Google to make information available that’s available to other people?” Page asked. “I want to know it’s out there on the Web. I don’t want Google to censor it.”

This is interesting: Man ‘Googles’ Himself, Sues for Libel

His lawyers blame PageRank…and want it taken offline.

LOS ANGELES — An accountant who said an Internet search engine returned “alarming” information about him and his firm sued Google, AOL, Time Warner and Yahoo! Friday for libel.

Wired News runs an AP story that covers some of the fuzzy stuff going on in ARDA, DARPA, and other spooky places w/r/t data mining. Upshot: When TIA was killed, as we know, much of its work was redistributed to other agencies. But one portion stayed dead: the privacy guarantees.

This is rich! At issue: The Broadcast Flag. Posted on Boing Boing…background from this site…

This sure feels familiar. Owners of large database businesses, who have been coining cash for decades based on the model of aggregating freely available information, then monopolizing access to and distribution of that information, have finally realized that their business is imperiled by search engines and the web. So they’re pushing shitty legislation through Congress, just like Hollywood did with the DMCA. This is an important issue, well summarized in this Wired News story.

In essence, a bill winding its way through the House (HR3261) would redefine databases in such a way as to extend the owners of those databases far more power over how information could be used. This is a very bad thing. It’s part of the same creeping copyright chill driven by the MPAA and RIAA. This time, it’s Reed Elsevier and Westlaw, et al. Instead of figuring out new distribution and business models, these old line businesses are forcing Congress to do their bidding so they can sue their way into continued existence. It’s depressing, but it’s not surprising. From the story:

Imagine doing a Google search for a phone number, weather report or sports score. The results page would be filled with links to various sources of information. But what if someone typed in keywords and no results came back?

Read More

Via IP, this Newsday piece reminds us that the TIA never really went away…

We all got peeved when CBS said no to MoveOn, but this kind of policy is quite widespread. Google also does not allow advocacy ads, in particular ads that criticize other people or companies (their terms are here). Latest news on this front: An environmental organization that had purchased AdWords like “cruise ship” has been bounced from Google. Why? It ran ads next to the results which pointed out that cruise ships pollute the ocean (which they do, often spewing out raw sewage near coastlines. Not that the couple at left seem to mind…).

Google (and Overture) have to tread a thin line here between free speech, the law, and protecting its more lucrative clients (travel sites are huge paid search customers). Clearly this action is well within Google’s rights as per its contract. But shouldn’t Google be a bit more like the New York Times, which accepts these kind of issue ads, and a bit less like CBS? I certainly hope so.

(thanks, Dave)

Read More

Extraordinary: The city most wounded by the Sept. 11 attacks makes a powerful statement about the Patriot Act: No thanks. The City Council has passed a resolution affirming the US Constitution and rejecting the bill, which was run through Congress in the wake of 9/11 with little debate. Some excerpts:

  Whereas, The City of New York has a diverse population, including immigrants and students, whose contributions to the city are vital to its economy, culture and civic character; and

    Whereas, The members of the Council of the City of New York believe that there is no inherent conflict between national security and the preservation of liberty — Americans can be both safe and free; and

Read More