COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Showing posts with label Google behaving badly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google behaving badly. Show all posts

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Google says that just because it's big doesn't mean it's bad



Consumer Watchdog targets Google
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 9, 2010; G01

Too big to fail turned out to be wrong for banks and other corporations. But don't tell that to Google, which has quickly expanded into making smartphones, mapping streets of the world, streaming videos, connecting friends and selling digital books.

As Washington focuses more on Google's explosive growth, one thorn in the company's side is John Simpson, a 62-year-old veteran journalist with a deep suspicion of big business and a mission to break up the search giant.

Federal regulators have launched a handful of investigations of the Internet behemoth -- which dominates Web search -- to ensure it doesn't unfairly hurt competitors and consumers in its feeding frenzy of online businesses. So far, there hasn't been a full antitrust review of the variety that hobbled Microsoft, AT&T and Standard Oil.

But Simpson thinks that needs to happen.

He's no longer in the newspaper business, having lost two jobs during "restructurings," he says, scooping the air with curled fingers. Now Simpson works for a nonprofit group called Consumer Watchdog, where his singular focus is turning up the regulatory heat on Google. With its brand appeal, he says, Google is an ideal target.

He's turned the tables, digging up data on the giant that tracks every move its users make and collects information without their knowledge. Also, he said, the company unfairly uses its size to barrel into new businesses.

Google says that just because it's big doesn't mean it's bad. In other words, it hasn't used its dominance in search to edge out competitors unfairly in other businesses it enters. An example of that would be forcing cellphone makers who use Android software to use only Google's search engine and YouTube on those phones.

Nonetheless, the company has responded to antitrust finger-pointing by beefing up its staff in Washington. It also hired a lawyer focused on competition. He and others have given more than 100 talks to Hill staff members, regulators and journalists, saying that Google is just one click away from losing its 65 percent dominance in search.

"We're always happy to engage with groups that are interested in constructive solutions, but they seem more interested in grabbing headlines," said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Google.

Simpson doesn't deny that this is a battle he takes personally.

"You become convinced something is wrong with corporate America if someone who has loyally worked for 30 years can be thrown out on his ass," Simpson said last week over a ham sandwich lunch at Jimmy T's diner on Capitol Hill.

From foes to friends

Yet true to Washington's playbook, he's found unexpected allies. That meant making friends with likely opponents: corporate giants such as Microsoft.

Last month, Simpson organized a news conference with lawyers representing Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon and other Google competitors after he petitioned the Justice Department for a broad antitrust investigation. He found he was in good company.

Joseph Bial, an attorney for the search start-up MyTriggers, talked about his client's lawsuit against Google in Ohio for allegedly putting the competitor out of business by raising minimum bids for keyword ads by 1,000 percent. Bial also works for Microsoft but said his role in the MyTriggers case is separate.

Gary Reback said his Open Book Alliance, whose members include Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon, think Google has unfairly precluded competition in the digital book market through a settlement that gives it first dibs on millions of titles.

"Look, we have all found similar concerns with Google and are coming together to show this is not a small problem," said Reback, an antitrust lawyer who a decade ago was on the other side, trying to break up Microsoft.

Simpson's crusade against Google comes amid growing public frustration that big corporations are largely responsible for a stubborn recession that has kept people out of jobs and forced them to foreclose on homes.

Although still relatively unknown, he's become an aggressive player in a growing party of companies and privacy and consumer groups who have called Google's business practices and influence into question.

Every month, Simpson, who lives in Santa Monica, Calif., comes to Washington to meet with staff on the Hill and regulatory agencies, journalists and corporate lobbyists. Simpson said he met last week with Jim Tierney, chief of the networks and technology section of the antitrust division of the Justice Department, and staffers about his petition for a broad investigation. Last year, he testified before Congress about privacy and competition concerns in Google's book settlement.

Simpson's work is funded by the Rose Foundation, which provides grants for projects like privacy advocacy, and other charitable organizations that have no corporate ties, he said. He has a budget of about $200,000 that covers his salary and travel and was recently given a grant from a charitable foundation he won't name because he is afraid Google will press that foundation to pull its funding.

According to Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, there was a precedent. He said Google called the Rose Foundation to yank Simpson's project last year. Google declined to comment on the claim.

Hired as a 'hell-raiser'

White-haired with black-rimmed glasses, Simpson smiles frugally, a trained skeptic after decades of editing foreign news for USA Today and the Los Angeles Times. Before joining Consumer Watchdog, he spent a few years soul searching, teaching in Ireland and going to graduate school. He found a calling when his wife saw a Consumer Watchdog want ad looking for "hell-raisers." He speaks as plainly as his brown L.L. Bean boat shoes.

"I'm a hell-raiser. That was what I was hired to be," Simpson said. "The more I looked, the more I saw that this company was abusing its market power to dominate book search and now the mobile marketplace."

Those and other practices by Google don't sit comfortably with regulators, either. The Justice Department said Google's digital book settlement could give it an unfair advantage in the burgeoning market for e-books.

Chief executive Eric Schmidt's seat on Apple's board, as both companies compete on mobile phones, was scrutinized by the Federal Trade Commission and led Schmidt to give up his board position. Now, the FTC appears skeptical of a merger with AdMobs, which competitors argue will extend Google's search dominance onto mobile phones, according to Bloomberg News.

"It is entirely appropriate to investigate not only Google but the entire developing space because it is incredibly important and changing so quickly with affects that will be felt in every household not only in the U.S., but in the world," said Bert Foer, head of the American Antitrust Institute.

Google isn't the only high-tech giant under a microscope. The FTC is suing Intel for anticompetitive practices and investigating IBM on antitrust allegations. Simpson isn't out to only bash Google: He's praised the company's decision to withdraw from China because of censorship practices there.

Yet his pursuit doesn't necessarily come from grass roots. Consumer Watchdog doesn't have the populist structure of Consumers Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports, for example, with hundreds of thousand of members who are regularly surveyed on their views.

And Simpson acknowledges that Consumer Watchdog's strategy is to grab attention on a complex topic that is often overlooked in Washington.

Drawing from his journalism background, he said, he knows he's got a better story when focusing on the biggest Silicon Valley brand around. Talking to lawmakers about privacy concerns in digital book search can have a eye-glazing effect. Saying Google isn't living up to its motto to "don't be evil" resonates with people, he said.

"If you can focus your attention on them, it shines a light on the whole industry," Simpson said. "I don't see any problem with publicity in good things. I'd say, 'just spell our name right.' "

As for Simpson's alliances with other corporate giants, he says they are necessary and approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

"This is purely professional," he said.


Sunday, April 25, 2010

Past Time to Throttle Google

Google Street View logs WiFi networks, Mac addresses

Why are you doing this?, ask Germans
By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK

Posted in Government, 22nd April 2010 15:46 GMT

Google's roving Street View spycam may blur your face, but it's got your number. The Street View service is under fire in Germany for scanning private WLAN networks, and recording users' unique Mac (Media Access Control) addresses, as the car trundles along.

Germany's Federal Commissioner for Data Protection Peter Schaar says he's "horrified" by the discovery.

"I am appalled… I call upon Google to delete previously unlawfully collected personal data on the wireless network immediately and stop the rides for Street View," according to German broadcaster ARD.

Spooks have long desired the ability to cross reference the Mac address of a user's connection with their real identity and virtual identity, such as their Gmail or Facebook account.

Other companies have logged broadcasting WLAN networks and published the information. By contrast Google has not published the WLAN map, or Street View in Germany; Google hopes to launch the service by the end of the year.

But Google's uniquely cavalier approach to privacy, and its potential ability to cross reference the information raises additional concerns. Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide. And when there's nowhere left to hide...?




Monday, February 15, 2010

Buzz Off! It is way past time to throttle Google.



Listen to the soothing words. Think Google!


Allow me to post a question. Should the US Postal Service be permitted to open all your mail, copy it, file it, cross-reference it, index every word, store it indefinitely and use and share that information as it sees fit for commercial purposes or most any other purpose?

Ridiculous? Outrageous? Yes. Yes.

But guess what, Google is already doing it. Any email you send either using a gmail account or to someone with a gmail account is being stored and used by Google for whatever they may want to do with it in the future and now.


Here is a story that did not get posted. It is about a new service offered by Google called Buzz. As it turns out, Google, is already toning down Google Buzz because of growing criticism from people concerned with privacy. Google is backing off, slightly.

Google has already prowled most every neighborhood in the US and photographed every house and posted it for whomever for whatever, and is aggregating intelligence on a scale that would have staggered the KGB and CIA in the not too distant past.

It is way past time to throttle Google.

_________________________


Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service


By MIGUEL HELFT
Published: February 12, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — When Google introduced Buzz — its answer to Facebook and Twitter — it hoped to get the service off to a fast start. New users of Buzz, which was added to Gmail on Tuesday, found themselves with a ready-made network of friends automatically selected by the company based on the people that each user communicated with most frequently through Google’s e-mail and chat services.

Google's decision to use e-mail and chat as the basis of a social network was unfair and deceptive, some critics claimed.

But what Google viewed as an obvious shortcut stirred up a beehive of angry critics. Many users bristled at what they considered an invasion of privacy, and they faulted the company for failing to ask permission before sharing a person’s Buzz contacts with a broad audience. For the last three days, Google has faced a firestorm of criticism on blogs and Web sites, and it has already been forced to alter some features of the service.

E-mail, it turns out, can hold many secrets, from the names of personal physicians and illicit lovers to the identities of whistle-blowers and antigovernment activists. And Google, so recently a hero to many people for threatening to leave China after hacking attempts against the Gmail accounts of human rights activists, now finds itself being pilloried as a clumsy violator of privacy.

As Evgeny Morozov wrote in a blog post for Foreign Policy, “If I were working for the Iranian or the Chinese government, I would immediately dispatch my Internet geek squads to check on Google Buzz accounts for political activists and see if they have any connections that were previously unknown to the government."

Mr. Morozov is a researcher on the impact of the Internet on totalitarian regimes at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University under a fellowship financed by Yahoo. In an interview, he said the flap over Buzz “definitely undermines Google’s credibility when it talks about freedom of expression.”

In an e-mail message, Todd Jackson, product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, said, “Google remains completely committed to freedom of expression and to privacy, and we have a strong track record of protecting both.”

Mr. Jackson defended the setup of the Buzz service. He said that Buzz came with a built-in circle of contacts to provide a better experience to users and that many liked that feature. He said that it was very easy for users to edit who they were following on the service and who could follow them. He also said that anyone could hide their list of Buzz contacts with a single click.

After numerous bloggers complained that the privacy controls were difficult to find and adjust, Google agreed to make changes. In a blog post Thursday night, Mr. Jackson wrote that the company had made it easier for people to hide their Buzz contacts and block followers whose identity was unknown.

“It is still early, and we have a long list of improvements on the way,” Mr. Jackson wrote. “We look forward to hearing more suggestions and will continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind.”

Mr. Jackson said Buzz had proved popular, with tens of millions of people trying it in the last two days.

But some critics said that Google’s decision to use e-mail and chat correspondence as the basis of a social network was fundamentally misguided. While it is common for social networks to make public a person’s list of friends and followers, those lists are not typically created from e-mail conversations.

“People thought what they had was an address book for an e-mail program, and Google decided to turn that into a friends list for a new social network,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in Washington. “E-mail is one of the few things that people understand to be private.”

Mr. Rotenberg said that his organization planned to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming that the Google’s use of e-mail conversations to build a social network was unfair and deceptive.

In an expletive-laden article that was widely cited on the Web, a blogger who writes about issues related to violence against women complained that Google had made her fearful. She said that she had unexpectedly discovered a list of people, which may have included her abusive ex-husband or people who sent hostile comments to her blog, following her and her comments on Google Reader, a service for reading blogs and automated news feeds.

“My privacy concerns are not trite,” wrote the blogger, who uses the pseudonym Harriet Jacobs. “They are linked to my actual physical safety, and I will now have to spend the next few days maintaining that safety by continually knocking down followers as they pop up.”

In a further effort to contain the fallout, Google reached out to her and made changes to enhance the privacy of shared comments on Google Reader.

Some privacy experts said that Google had made matters worse by making it difficult for people to hide their lists of Buzz contacts after they realized that those lists had been made public. Some users assumed that they could simply turn off the Buzz service, but that proved inadequate.

“You want to have a simple rollback mechanism, so once things are not what you expected them to be, you can get out quickly and not have to play a game of Whack-a-Mole,” said Deirdre Mulligan, a privacy expert and assistant professor at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley.

Google said it was planning to address that issue soon.

Google is known for releasing new products before they are fully ready and then improving them over time. But its decision to do so with Buzz, coupled with its introduction to all 176 million Gmail users by default, appears to have backfired.

“It was a terrible mistake,” said Danny Sullivan, a specialist on Google and editor of SearchEngineLand, an industry blog. “I don’t think people expected that Google would show the world who you are connected with. And if there was a way to opt out, it was really easy to miss.”

An earlier version of this article misidentified the name of the blog Evgeny Morozov wrote a post for. It is Foreign Policy, not Foreign Affairs.