You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-01 11:56
Google won't allow you to opt-out of their location tracking for search, we learn from CNET's Chris Matyszczyk's outstanding post "How Google stops you hiding your location."
What does this mean?
First, it means that Google has not learned much from its serial privacy problems, like Google setting a default that everyone's house should be included in StreetView photographing and Spi-Fi signal recording, and everyone that signed up for Google Buzz by default should share their Gmail addresses with the public.
Second, it means that Google profiles and tracks your location by default and that you can't opt out from Google knowing where you are, you can only select what local setting Google will use to customize your search results.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-11-03 09:53
Every single one of the 95 FreePress/PCCC House and Senate candidates that took the www.NetNeutralityProtectors.com pledge: "I believe in protecting net neutrality -- the First Amendment of the Internet," lost in the mid-term elections Tuesday.
As I blogged Friday in: "Tuesday's Net Neutrality's National Referendum" post FreePress/PCCC unwisely made net neutrality a measurable election issue by seeking public pledges from 95 House and Senate candidates before the election.
This means FreePress can no longer legitimately claim their net neutrality movement has significant grass roots political support.
This also means the FCC can see clearly that political support for net neutrality does not extend much beyond the email lists of the extreme left: FreePress, PCCC, and Moveon.org.
Simply, FreePress's long and loud claim that net neutrality was an important political issue to the American people has been exposed as completely untrue.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-11-03 13:46
What do the mid-term election results mean for the FCC?
First, FreePress' version of net neutrality was completely repudiated in the election.
Second, most of the FCC's business is not political or partisan -- and it need not be. (The 1996 Telecom Act was almost unanimous. And the overwhelming majority of FCC decisions are 5-0.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-11-05 11:23
Even though the PCCC has no one else to blame for digging itself into a big hole by mass emailing their list of 95 candidates who pledged support for net neutrality to reporters and bloggers prior to the election, the PCCC appears intent on continuing to dig their political hole deeper.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-08 11:10
Press reports of AOL's interest in buying or partnering with Yahoo appear to have missed another potential serious deal complication -- antitrust scrutiny.
First, AOL is financially-dependent on Google; Google is Yahoo's biggest and most stable long-term client feeding AOL with about a fifth of its revenues -- via a recently signed 5-year agreement for Google to continue to be AOL's search monetization engine. This deal was negotiated by AOL's CEO, a former longtime senior executive at Google. Simply in antitrust terms, AOL can be viewed as a satellite of Google, because AOL has hitched its financial/business/growth wagon to Google Search, Google Mobile/Android and potentially Google Places.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-11-09 17:35
Google's 'Wi-Spy' vacuuming of all of everyone's WiFi signals was no "mistake" -- as Google has repeatedly asserted -- but part of a purposeful and comprehensive Google business expansion plan to enter, catch up and compete with SkyHook Wireless, Google's only significant competitor in mobile location services. (In September, Skyhook sued Google for deceptive and unfair trade practices and patent infringement.)
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-11-11 11:03
Google's latest privacy controls are a bad joke, certainly not sufficient to warrant the FTC completely absolving serial privacy violator Google from all responsibility in the Google WiSpy Affair, especially given that other law enforcement bodies have found misrepresentation of facts and violation of users' privacy.
Why are Google's latest privacy controls insufficient?
First, Google's leadership is clearly not publicly supportive of more privacy controls, but openly skeptical and defiant that Google does not need to alter its approach to innovation to better protect privacy and security.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-11-12 10:40
Hackers have discovered a new serious security vulnerability in certain Android smartphones that is not easily or quickly patched because of Android's open and fragmented platform -- per Joseph Menn's report in the FT.
The potential security implications of this are even more serious than they first appear.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-11-12 11:53
The EU, in declining to impose net neutrality regulations, adds to the growing mountain of evidence that whatever political support may have existed in the past for net neutrality regulation -- has rapidly evaporated.
This important official International development comes on the heels of:
Simply, all of the official developments and evidence that matter since the FCC proposed to regulate the Internet as a telephone network last spring, have been in opposition to it.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-15 17:23
Comcast's EVP David Cohen spoke at Brookings today on "Who should Govern the Internet."
My big takeaway from the event, was that the FCC should declare victory -- that we have a free and open Internet -- and then get back to the real pressing work facing the FCC -- the National Broadband Plan.
There are no existing net neutrality problems, and no technical issues that the industry engineering bodies, IETF and BITAG have not been able to resolve.
There is simply no need for the FCC to fix an Internet that is already operating as the FCC and most everyone expects it to operate.