You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 18:38
Danny Sullivan of Advertising Age spotllights another systematic Google privacy invasion in his great new article: "Google's latest power grab."
Check this out:
One more way Google spies on you, but of course it's only for your own good!
Google is amassing an amazing profiling database on people that would be extremely frightening if it fell into the hands of bad people: criminals, stalkers, predators, con artists etc.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:10
I always love to juxtapose a couple of stories to point out irony.
Yesterday, I blogged that Tech Daily reported that the Google gang, AKA ItsOurNet ... will be relaunched in May as the "Open" Net coalition.
Well today I laughed out loud when I read in Tech Daily, that Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales is promoting a new collaborative search process like the wiki online encyclopedia.
Seems like those who really know "open" don't think Google is worthy of its self annointed name of the "Open" Net Coalition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-05-01 19:53
Google blasted Viacom today in the press for suing Google in court for "building a business on a library of copyrighted video clips without permission," according to the NYT today.
Let's have some fun and dissect some of the Google quotes and translate what they are really thinking behind their PR spin...
Google's filing said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-02 10:06
I recommend a strong academic paper that debunks the sloppy thinking and analysis behind Columbia Professor Tim Wu's call for wireless net neutrality -- its by: Robert Hahn and Robert Litan of AEI/Brookings and Hal Singer of Criterion Economics.
What I like most about the study is that it is a systematic evisceration of the logic and evidence behind Mr. wu's call for wireless net neutrality.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-05-02 14:33
I recommend listening to Larry Irving's, (President of the Internet Innovation Alliance) keynote at the Killer App expo that can be heard by podcast.
He makes a great point. It makes no sense to tax an engine of economic growth as mucha s we do.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-03 10:33
The WSJ yesterday had an illuminating interview with David Rosenblatt CEO of DoubleClick about its acquisition by Google.
Mr. Rosenblatt engaged in some pretty effective "spin" so I thought it would be helpful to shine a brighter light on some of his pat answers that were... how should I say it... less than forthcoming.
In response to a question about whether he could reassure web publishers that Google did not have too much market power, he said: "Google shares revenues with publishers so it makes sense that their interests are pretty much aligned."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-05-03 17:08
It is always a joy to read clear thinking rigorous analysis. I have known and respected Marius Schwartz's mind and work for several years, and I am delighted that he brought the heft of his intellect and DOJ experience to the question of "wireless net neutrality" in his white paper:
For anyone who cares about the merits or substance of net neutrality as a proposed public policy, it would be hard to find a better debunking of Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu's sophomoric and vacuous work on wireless net neutrality than Marius'.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-04 15:13
I just got around to reading the WSJ small business insert section from April 30, and to my surprise what do I find?
In the WSJ section cover story: "In search of traffic" by Kelly Spors, she notes this in her third paragraph:
Very interesting that search is not neutral. It favors big companies!
If Google is the dominant search engine and the main Internet access technology for upwards of a half billion Internet users, and Google itself is not net neutral -- how is that setting a good example for the broadband companies Google demands should be net neutral?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-05-04 17:45
I always take time to read interviews with CEOs because I always learn something.
What did he say that was relevant to the Google-DoubleClick?
First, he made the case why the Google-DoubleClick merger is a big deal:
In response to a question about being third in search -- Ballmer said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-05-07 10:34
eGoogle-YouTube was sued yet again for rampant copyright infringement in U.S. District Court in New York.
Plaintiffs, including the English Football Association Premier League and others said in their court filing that Google-YouTube is "pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright infringement" in order to increase the value of Google by generating more traffic which it could monetize without having to pay for.
Why is this British suit particularly interesting? Remember the fact that Google already has 75% share of the search market in the UK?