You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-05-17 15:10
Sometimes something is so off-base that a straight analysis is wholly insufficient and warrants satire.
Google’s proposed search bias remedy is no remedy. It would be worse than the status quo.
If accepted by the EU, it would legitimize and entrench Google’s 90+% dominance of search and search advertising in Europe, and make it much harder for any semblance of competition to ever take root.
Google’s proposed search bias remedies are so preposterous one has to use metaphors, imagery and analogies to understand what is really going on and what Google is really proposing.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-04-09 11:48
Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet Updated: Fact-Checking Google’s Claim it Works Hard to Get Privacy Right – Part 30 Google’s Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-03-13 10:51
(The updated Google Privacy Rap Sheet is here.)
In response to Google getting sanctioned $7m for privacy violations by 38 State Attorneys General for its unauthorized collection” of private WiFi data nationwide between 2008 and 2010, Google’s public relations mantra is: “we work hard to get privacy right at Google, but in this case we didn’t, which is why we quickly tightened up our systems to address the issue.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-03-08 12:04
To understand why Google owns the single worst privacy record over the last decade of any Global 2000 corporation, listen to what Google’s leadership says about privacy-related matters in their own words. Then compare what Google Says about privacy below, with Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet – current up to June 4, 2012.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-03-07 13:18
Please don't miss my new Daily Caller Op-ed "The Looming Government Spectrum Scandal" -- here.
Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse Research Series
Part 1: U.S. Government's Obsolete and Wasteful Spectrum Hoarding and Rationing
America's Real Wireless Problem Isn't Too Little WiFi -- Daily Caller Op-ed & Part 4 Government Spectrum Waste Fraud and Abuse SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-02-07 16:17
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-01-07 11:21
Summary of Top Takeaways from the FTC's Google Antitrust Decisions:
1. Google's U.S. search bias win establishes a broad Internet-friendly FTC antitrust enforcement precedent.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-12-17 22:08
Please sing to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas."
On the twelfth day of Christmas the FTC gave to me:
Twelve winkers winking
Eleven fibbers fibbing
Ten bluffs a bluffing
Nine Google's poodles
Eight flacks a flacking
Seven fawns a fawning
No enforce-ment! ...
Three big passes
Troubling Irregularities Mount in FTC Commissioners' Handling of Google Antitrust Investigation -- Part 14 Google Unaccountability SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-12-17 00:25
The mounting number of unprecedented, inexplicable, and troubling irregularities in the FTC's cumulative law enforcement record of Google warrants oversight by Congress and renewed vigilance by other law enforcement officials -- State Attorneys General, the DOJ, and the European Commission -- in order to maintain the integrity and deterrent value of the antitrust law enforcement process.
Each of the following sets of facts and circumstances in the FTC's law enforcement experience with Google have raised eyebrows, together there is head-shaking cumulative evidence that reeks of either special treatment for Google or political interference by Google in the process.
Consider the following evidence to judge for yourself if something appears amiss here.
Only Google has been able to get FTC commissioners to twice politically overrule staff recommendations to prosecute after in-depth antitrust investigations, in approving Google-AdMob despite "serious concerns," and in rushing to close the current Google search bias investigation without seeking the most incriminating evidence available.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-12-13 14:28
Kudos to the Center For Individual Freedom CFIF for its outstanding paper: "The Constitutional and Historical Foundations of Copyright Protection" authored by former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, Viet D. Dinh, and Jeffery M. Harris, all of whom clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court.
This paper is an exceptionally lucid and particularly timely addition to the current discourse on copyright, given the recent boomlet in revisionist copyright history proffered of late by opponents of copyright specifically, and intellectual property in general, who obviously have not done their homework.
The best new fact that I learned from the paper is that: philosopher "John Locke himself... argued in a 1694 letter to the Parliament that formal publishing rights should last for the life of the author plus seventy years."
That shows that the penultimate natural rights conservative, John Locke, would not find current copyright durations out of bounds.