You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sat, 2013-11-23 18:21
Mr. Ammori, one of Google’s and Free Culture’s most able defenders, comes to the public defense of Google in his recent USA Today op-ed “Blame the NSA not Facebook & Google.”
He publicly castigates privacy advocates for doing their jobs, stating: “blaming tech companies for the NSA’s overreach isn’t just ignorant, but dangerous.”
As most understand, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know the facts are not on their side.
Nevertheless Mr. Ammori does us all a favor for elevating the important public question of whether or not Google, in particular, deserves any blame for its significant role in the NSA spy scandals.
First, let’s address whether it is “ignorant” to blame Google for complicity in NSA spying. Consider the following facts.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-11-19 15:24
America's dominance of the Internet has peaked. Read why and what it means.
World Changing Internet Series
Part 1: Seven Ways the World is Changing the Internet
Part 2: Twitter’s Realpolitik & the Sovereign-ization of the Internet
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-11-12 13:26
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-10-24 11:44
Google represents its new default policy -- taking a user’s name and picture and putting it in their ads without permission or compensation -- as “Shared Endorsements.” This deceptive and unfair business practice is more aptly named Google-YouAd, “Pirated Endorsements,” or “Swindled Endorsements,” because they are taken deceptively without permission or compensation.
To Google, people apparently are just another form of digital content that should be open and free to exploit without asking the owner for permission and without any expectation of payment from Google for the value that Google generates from the taken content.
We should not be surprised. Google is treating their users, not as humans with privacy and ownership rights, but as inanimate products, content, and “targets” of their advertising model. Notice that they are treating people’s unique identities just like they treat others valuable content that is trademarked, copyrighted, patented, private, confidential or secret. Simply they take it without permission or compensation until an authority that they fear compels them to cease and desist.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-10-14 19:41
Just like the wisdom that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear; one cannot make “modern” FCC policy from obsolete communications law.
Apparently that is not stopping Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Greg Rosston from trying in their new white paper: “Articulating a Modern Approach to FCC Competition Policy.”
Their paper contrives: “three different competition policy approaches: the classicrole of regulating terms and conditions of sale, the modernrole of using various tools to create largely deregulated, multi-firm, competitive markets, and the laissez-faire approach of believing that unregulated markets, even if monopolized, will produce the best outcome.”
Implications of EU Ruling Google Abused its Search Dominance – My Daily Caller Op-ed – Part 28 Google Unaccountability SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-09-27 16:53
Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership – My Daily Caller Op-ed – Part 2 of Privacy Theft SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-09-19 08:55
Please don’t miss my latest op-ed: “Congress: Restore Our Rightful Privacy Ownership” – here.
It makes the case that privacy is a form of property under the Constitution and that Congress must step up and legislate in order to restore Americans’ reasonable expectation of privacy online -- regardless of what technology is involved.
Own your privacy.
Privacy Theft Series
Google’s SpyGlass – Google’s Big Rest-of-World Trust Problem -- Part 35 of Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2013-09-08 23:46
Google can expect a big rest-of-world trust problem when it rolls out Google Glass overseas, because of: foreign fallout from Edward Snowden’s illegal disclosures of NSA surveillance activities; Google’s reputation for aggressive and pervasive spying on people’s privacy; and Google’s cavalier legal stance that people have “no legitimate expectation of privacy.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-09-05 16:34
This should make it much easier to scan and find particular research of interest by subject and theme.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-09-04 13:28
Anyone interested in Google Glass should not miss CNET Molly Wood's "Google Glass Rant."
In a short and very entertaining ~2 min video, she explains, and acts out, why she believes: "Google Glass is a new frontier in human rudeness, inattention, and danger." And she concludes that "the world is not ready for Google Glass."
Simply, she understands that the real problems with Google Glass are not so much problems for the actual users of Google Glass, but for other people who happen to find themselves in proximity of glass users.