Online Privacy

My detailed analysis over the last several weeks leads me to believe that the FTC is likely to block the Google-DoubleClick merger because it will enable Google to dominate online advertising and dramatically increase the opportunity for market collusion and price manipulation in the market for consumer click data, ad-performance tools, ad-brokering and ad-exchanges.

Antitrust is fact-specific and evidence-driven. To understand the true antitrust outlook for a merger one needs to become familiar with the core facts of the case. To date, media and investment coverage of this merger has been remarkably superficial.

• The executive summary and my new 35-page white paper: "Googleopoly: the Google-DoubleClick Anti-Competitive Case" can be found at Googleopoly.net. An audio file of my conference call on this merger outlook will also be on Googleopoly.net. The analysis and conclusions are driven by pages and pages of facts and evidence.
• The purpose of the paper is to present the detailed case theory, argumentation and evidence of why the merger is anti-competitive and harms consumers, content providers and advertisers.
• The paper:
• Defines the market;
• Explains why Google-DoubleClick are competitors;
• Explains why startups, Yahoo and Microsoft can't compete with Google in search;
• Spotlights the four anti-competitive network effects of the merger; and
• Shows how the merger harms consumers, content providers and advertisers.

I see three big takeaways from my white paper.

First, the more people learn about this merger the more concern they will develop.

You're invited to participate in a conference call Tuesday July 17th at 11 am EST to hear a discussion of, and Q&A on, my new 35-page white paper, entitled:

• "Googleopoly: the Google-DoubleClick Anti-competitive Case;" which will be released publicly at the time of the call at www.Googleopoly.net.

I will explain how a Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) - DoubleClick merger will facilitate a de facto Internet information access monopoly, substantially lessen competition, and harm consumers, Internet content providers, and advertisers.

The New York Times article today: "South Koreans Connect Through Search Engine" provides a huge window into what the real source of a search engine's market dominance is. (The article indicates that in South Korea, Naver.com is the leading search engine with 77% share, followed by South Korean company Daum.net with 10.8%, and Yahoo with 4.4%. Google's market share is 1.7% in South Korea.)

• The South Korean example is a particularly helpful set of facts and insights to the FTC and Congress in their journey to understand Google's increasing search dominance and the potential anti-competitive effects of the Google-DoubleClick merger.

Specifically, what makes Google's 1.7% South Korean search market share different from its 90% share in Germany, Spain, 82% share in France, 75% share in the UK, and its 65% share in the US -- given that Google has been competing in the South Korean market since 2000?

Anyone concerned about their privacy should read the GREAT article in PC World on Google and privacy, and in particular should look at the call out box to see the risk about all that Google knows about you.  

• The article does a great job of explaining all the ways that others and the government could easily access tons of private information on you via Google's huge cache of private information on you.
• Google is quickly becoming the enabler of George Orwell's feared "Big Brother" in "1984."

Let's see if the mainstream press picks up on this obvious and interesting populist story... it has legs.

Anyone interested in privacy issues, should be on a heightened sense of alert, because Google has just won a big victory in getting its "pryware" deeper into the average American's private life.

The media focused only on the antitrust angle in covering Google's antitrust complaint against Microsoft, for not making it easy enough in its new Vista operating system for users to select Google as its search engine of computers' INTERNAL hard drive.

Reuters did a decent article on Google and growing privacy concerns about Google practices.

• My beef is with the editor's choice of words in the title.
• Either the editor does not know the real definition of "paranoia" or the editor was trying to cut the knees out from under the reporter's story and soften the article.
• I've included the definitions of "paranoia" and "fear" from www.dictionary.com at the bottom of this post.

"Paranoia" is either a mental disorder or a baseless suspicion.

• I don't think Reuters meant to imply that an American is mentally ill if he/she fears that their privacy is being invaded by Google recording and storing all of their searches and click paths, electronically reading all their g-mails, and surveilling many people's lives through Street View cameras.
• As you remember, anybody that stood up to the proverbial "Big Brother" in George Orwell's 1984, was also accused of being ill.

Let's keep an eye on Google's spinmeisters to see if this was just one editor who chose the wrong word, or if it is part of Google's talking points to defend itself against privacy concerns.

• My suspicion, is that the word came from Google.
• Oops! Does that candor make me paranoid?

par·a·noi·a –noun

Can you believe it?

Google launches its new public policy blog today and the NetCompetition/Precursorblog is not one of the blog links under "What We Are Reading!" Horrors!

First of all, it is not very "authentic" of the Google bloggers to not admit that they regularly read Precursorblog -- we know they do!

• Of course they do.
• It's just one of those guilty pleasures that they do behind closed doors because it is not politically correct at Google to expose one's mind to conservative or free market thoughts.  

Second, don't you believe for a minute that Google does not want to know what their latest public policy or PR vulnerability is.

The following is the comment I posted to Google's first "authentic" blog post on net neutrality in Google's new public policy blog:

Welcome to the blogosphere! We congratulate Google for joining the NN debate more openly using your own "authentic" voice and not those of your surrogates. It is also about time for Google to be more specific on the issue of net neutrality.

It is very rare when I feel compelled to praise the liberal New York Times editorial board for one of its editorial positions, but to be fair, I must when they get an issue dead right.

• Please read the New York Times' outstanding editorial today called "Watching your every move." 
• The NY Times appropriately sees Google's new "Street View" public surveilance feature as a "Big Brother"-like threat to everyone's privacy.
• They also connected-the-dots that Google is collecting more personal information on Americans than any other entity in the world. Which is particularly disturbing because Google reportedly has the world's worst privacy policies and an "entrenched hostility to privacy."

George Orwell's seminal book "1984" ingrained the totalitarian metaphorical threat of "Big Brother" in the world's thinking and lexicon.

Google, in making a high-profile complaint to the Justice Department and State Attorney Generals, about Microsoft's latest operating system Vista, appears to be naively unaware of its own antitrust vulnerabilities in its pending Google-DoubleClick antitrust review at the FTC.

• The NY Times made Google's complaint a top right cover story on Sunday and the Wall Street Journal featured Google's complaint as its top business story Monday.  

It has always been unwise for those in "glass houses to throw stones."