You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2011-01-03 12:02
To promote "America's free market," President Obama today ordered a government-wide review of regulations that "make our economy less competitive," in order to take us "toward a 21st century regulatory system."
Here is the case for why the FCC's December Open Internet order deserves to be atop of the Administration's regulations to review for abolition.
First, the FCC's new Internet regulations violate the President's goal of a "21st century regulatory system" by applying "outdated" 19th century common carrier regulatory thinking and approaches to the previously un-regulated, and flourishing 21st century Internet. (Para 68)
Second, the FCC rules violate the President's goal of avoiding "excessive, inconsistent, and redundant regulation."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-12-07 11:27
Julian Assange's reprehensible Wikileaks data breaches of secret, private and proprietary information to the web, endangering lives, diplomacy and peace, has thrust to the forefront of public debate: what are the responsible boundaries of an "Open Internet?"
It is instructive that the term "open Internet" is found nowhere in law.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-11-15 12:36
If online users can and should be able to expect the "net neutrality" freedom of choice to access whatever content they want on whatever technology they want, why can't and shouldn't online users be able to expect to have the "privacy neutrality" freedom of choice to protect whatever privacy they want on whatever technology they want?
Isn't it curious that Google and the Open Internet Coalition are so adamant that consumers have access to all of the content of their choice, but apparently are opposed to consumers having all of the privacy protections of their choice?
How do net neutrality proponents justify the stance that consumers know best for access to content, but they don't know best when it comes to protecting their own online privacy and online safety?
Why would net neutrality proponents be opposed to allowing consumers the freedom to choose to either fully protect their privacy or to exploit their privacy for personal gain?
Could it be that consumer choice/freedom for content is good for Internet companies' business models, but consumer choice/freedom to protect their own privacy is not good for Internet companies' business models?
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 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 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 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, 2010-10-27 22:45
Congress needs to conduct oversight hearings to learn why the FTC is apparently giving Google special treatment, and more specifically why the FTC inexplicably dropped its Google StreetView spi-fi privacy probe without any charges, before it even learned all the facts, and without any accountability mechanism in place to protect consumers or prevent repeat violations.
Google's wanton wardriving in 33 countries for over three years secretly recording people's WiFi transmissions, including full emails and passwords, arguably is the single broadest privacy breach in the Internet era. And the FTC did nothing. And the FTC sees no need for any further action. Amazing.
What's wrong with this picture? A lot. A better question might be what's right with the FTC-Google privacy enforcement picture?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-10-25 11:33
With Canada, Spain, the UK, and 38 U.S. states all cracking down on Google's wanton wardriving spyfi scandal, where is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the supposed lead agency on protecting consumers online privacy?
The FTC's silence and apparent absence from the online privacy enforcement playing field is particularly perplexing and alarming... because now it appears that we have a company that is out-of-control in tracking consumers' private actions online, and creating total information awareness power, while we have a supposed lead privacy regulator that appears not to be leading in protecting consumers' privacy...
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2010-10-19 18:43
Google is right that they are the inverse/opposite of Apple, but not in the way that Google claims -- being open/neutral vs. being closed.