Category: Policy

NYT today has an overview of the ongoing JewWatch.com case. The case reveals the bind Google faces when asked to remove offensive search results, in this case, the first result for the word “Jew” is an anti-semitic site. I am sure that does not leave many “feeling lucky.”

The company, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., said it had no plans to remove the site from the search results list because it trusts its automated program to rank Web sites accurately. The search engine has been listing “Jewwatch.com” as the first-ranked site for three years.

“We find this result offensive, but the objectivity of our ranking function prevents us from making any changes,” said David Krane, a spokesman for Google, adding that an exception is made only in cases where a site is illegal. Mr. Krane said the company has, for example, removed sites from its rankings that promote pedophilia, which is illegal.

Read More

They must know something, because late last week they notified their advertisers that it was open season on trademark keyword buys (CNET story here). Yes, this is the long simmering issue that is still in the courts – trademark owners don’t want third parties bidding on their trademarked terms (the most well-known case is Playboy).

In any case, this is a bold move, akin to “waving a red flag at the bull” as one source told CNET. But is it? At the end of the day, the law favors clarity and consistency, if it can. Seems to me this move forces clarity: It’s all or nothing. Google is, by its action, declaring what it thinks is the appropriate approach – let the market decide. LImiting *some* keywords forces the courts into a never ending cycle of litigation around where the boundaries w/r/t fair trademark use are.In the current political climate, such an approach will probably prove futile in the long run. Google is playing this move against what they believe is the end game, and they may not be far off in their estimation of the courts.

In a letter released yesterday twenty eight privacy experts and civil liberty organizations urged Google to suspend Gmail. This is quickly becoming a significant test of not only Google’s ability to communicate its intent to the world, but of what it means to live in a web centric world where your data is out there, with all the consequences, good and bad. One company cannot solve this problem.

PS – Gmail also has some trademark issues…

A lawsuit at the heart of the trademark/paid search issue will not be tossed out lightly, a judge ruled yesterday. CNET reports.

Yahoo and Google have agreed to stop take online gambling advertising. Lycos already has.

I’m not sure I like this, for the precedent it sets. I don’t like the lack of clarity by the companies about why they made this decision, and I don’t like the perception that the threat of government action was behind it all. In essence, it feels this was done behind closed doors, without a clear signal as to why the action was taken. Again, I don’t like the precedent. First this, then? Don’t Be Evil can cut both ways.

Google is blocking a small web developer from scraping Google News, which itself is a scrape of a bunch of other sites. The developer admits his scrape breaks Google’s TOS. Rich, how do you feel about this over at Topix? Will you let him scrape you?

Developer’s lament here…

(Thanks, Beal.)

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.