Home / Google
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Google caught in massive acquisition of private info in the UK

Google caught in massive acquisition of private info in the UK

With headlines noting "Web giant deliberately stole information but executives 'covered it up' for years" and "Emails, texts, photos and documents taken from wi-fi networks," it seems that the UK may finally be moving to punish Google for misleading countries on its eavesdropping on private citizens. From the UK Daily Mail:
Google is facing an inquiry into claims that it deliberately harvested information from millions of UK home computers. The Information Commissioner data protection watchdog is expected to examine the work of the internet giant’s Street View cars. They downloaded emails, text messages, photographs and documents from wi-fi networks as they photographed virtually every British road. It is two years since Google first admitted stealing fragments of personal data, but claimed it was a ‘mistake’. Now the full scale of its activities has emerged amid accusations of a cover-up after US regulators found a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the information was being captured as its cars trawled the country but did nothing. . . . Last month a report by the US media regulator the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revealed that the Google programmer who wrote the Street View software repeatedly warned that it collected personal data, and called for a legal and privacy review. . . . The report by the FCC attacked Google for inadequate oversight of Street View, and claimed it was planning to use the data collected for other internal projects. . . . .
Google Street View cars collected information on an extra-marital affair

Google Street View cars collected information on an extra-marital affair

The Obama administration let Google off the hook for this?  From the Washington Post:
A Google engineer knowingly created software that would collect sensitive personal information about people without their knowledge, according to an un-redacted version of a federal investigative report.
In a full version of a Federal Communications Commission report, an engineer shared e-mails with other Google officials indicating the company could collect “payload data,” including e-mail addresses and text messages through a program to collect location-based software from residential and business Wi-Fi networks. The company released the full contents of the report, which was heavily redacted by the FCC, except for the names of its employees.
The report, supplied by Google, concluded that the company’s actions do not violate FCC or federal eavesdropping rules. The agency recently fined the company $25,000, however, for being uncooperative in a two-years-long investigation. A separate investigation by the FTC resulted in no fines and was closed in 2010. . . .
In the report, the FCC cited an analysis by French regulators over a sample of Google’s data collection: 72 e-mail passwords, 774 distinct e-mail addresses and, for example, “an exchange of e-mails between a married woman and man, both seeking an extra-marital relationship with first names, e-mail addresses and physical addresses.” . . .
Over a sample?  I would like to know how large of a sample that involved.  It is pretty clear that the entire amount of collected information is much larger.  It would like to know how big it is.
What thrills Google

What thrills Google

Google still has some way to go to match Facebook’s 850 million users, of course, but Page is thrilled the network is giving the company more information about its users. . . .
Google develops code to bypass Apple's privacy safeguards

Google develops code to bypass Apple's privacy safeguards

This is "do no evil"? Google develops code so that it can track "the Web-browsing habits of people who intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked." That isn't wrong? Apparently one lesson is to stay away from the New York Times website. From the WSJ:

The Google code was spotted by Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer and independently confirmed by a technical adviser to the Journal, Ashkan Soltani, who found that ads on 22 of the top 100 websites installed the Google tracking code on a test computer, and ads on 23 sites installed it on an iPhone browser.

The technique reaches far beyond those websites, however, because once the coding was activated, it could enable Google tracking across the vast majority of websites. Three other online-ad companies were found using similar techniques: Vibrant Media Inc., WPP PLC's Media Innovation Group LLC and Gannett Co.'s PointRoll Inc.

In Google's case, the findings appeared to contradict some of Google's own instructions to Safari users on how to avoid tracking. Until recently, one Google site told Safari users they could rely on Safari's privacy settings to prevent tracking by Google. Google removed that language from the site Tuesday night. . . .


UPDATE: Amazing, Google apparently did the same thing to Microsoft.
More evidence how Google searches can be distorted

More evidence how Google searches can be distorted

This is pretty scary. From Fox News:

A new website with a very off-color description of Mitt Romney could create a serious image problem for the Republican presidential candidate. Reputation management experts call it “image-jacking” -- and Google says it's out of the company's hands.
Rick Santorum was the first to suffer from a “Google-bomb”: the SpreadingSantorum.com website created by sex columnist Dan Savage that offers a repulsive description of the candidate. Romney may be the latest to suffer from such repugnant manipulation of the Internet, but he won’t be last, said Reputation Management expert Kenneth Wisnefski.
“The more attention such sideshow distractions receive only takes away from politicians' ability to get their message out,” Wisnefski said. The spreading problem could affect candidates’ ability to connect with new voters.
A Google bomb is the intentional manipulation of a search engine to return a specific result, thanks to large numbers of relevant links or related searches. One recently uncovered by FoxNews.com connected the search string define: to certain swear words. And whether officially a “bomb” or merely an explosion in popularity, such image-jacking is clearly on the rise. . . .
Google moving to complete a comprehensive profile of people that includes searches, information in emails, purchases, basically everything

Google moving to complete a comprehensive profile of people that includes searches, information in emails, purchases, basically everything

Is there anything that Google won't know about people? Linking what is in your emails to what is in your internet searches and purchases leaves almost nothing that they don't know. From the Washington Post:

Google said Tuesday it will require users to allow the company to follow their activities across e-mail, search, YouTube and other services, a radical shift in strategy that is expected to invite greater scrutiny of its privacy and competitive practices.

The information will enable Google to develop a fuller picture of how people use its growing empire of Web sites. Consumers will have no choice but to accept the changes.

The policy will take effect March 1 and will also impact Android mobile phone users, who are required to log in to Google accounts when they activate their phones. . . .

A user of Gmail, for instance, may send messages about a private meeting with a colleague and may not want the location of that meeting to be thrown into Google’s massive cauldron of data or used for Google’s maps application. . . .

Google has also faced greater scrutiny that it is using its dominance in online search to favor its other applications. Google’s decision to blend Google+ data into search results has been included into a broad FTC antitrust investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Engineers from Twitter, Facebook and MySpace responded by launching a Web tool that they say shows Google is moving away from its stated mission to be a neutral Web directory.

On the Web site for the plug-in, the engineers wrote that searches for generic terms such as “movies” or “music” prioritize Google+ results over more relevant content.


Here is a nice summary of what Google knows about you. Not only does Google know about what movies you like and what you buy, it also knows this type of information:

You agreed to let Google know about your contacts and mails when you started using Gmail.
You agreed to let Google know about your photos when you started using Picasa.
You agreed to let Google know where you are when you started using Latitude.
You agreed to let Google know what people you interact with and what you are interested in when you started using Google+.
You agreed to let Google store your documents for you when you started using Docs. . . .
Does Google allow itself to be used to tilt the political debate?

Does Google allow itself to be used to tilt the political debate?

Dan Gainor has this discussion at Fox News:

When Rick Santorum essentially tied in Iowa, he gave his campaign new life. He also guaranteed America would finally learn just how disgusting, vile and despicable the left is in this country. And how major news outlets and one of the most well-known businesses in the world – Google – are complicit in trying to destroy Santorum because he opposes gay marriage.
Santorum is the victim of what Reuters partner The Wrap and many other organizations call a “Google problem.” That’s quite the understatement. He was attacked with a Google bomb from Dan Savage, a gay advocate and sex columnist who hates straight people who don’t agree with him. He also thinks they should be silenced, bullied and blackmailed. That’s exactly how he’s treated Santorum. . . .
"Android handsets secretly logging keystrokes, SMS messages?"

"Android handsets secretly logging keystrokes, SMS messages?"

CNET has this discussion:

In the nearly 20-minute video clip, Eckhart shows how software developed by mobile-device tracker Carrier IQ logs each keystroke and then sends them off to locations unknown. In addition, when Eckhart tried placing a call, Carrier IQ's software recorded each number before the call was even made.
Eckhart started making waves across the privacy community earlier this month after he dug into software developed by Carrier IQ that, he said, runs behind the scenes in Android-based devices to track what users are doing. Eckhart called the software a "rootkit," due to its ability to access device data while concealing its presence.
As one might expect, Carrier IQ took offense to Eckhart's claim, saying that its software is a "diagnostic tool" for companies to "improve the quality of the network, understand device issues, and ultimately improve the user experience." The company also sent Eckhart a cease-and-desist letter and demanded he issue an apology for calling its software a rootkit.
Just days later, Carrier IQ did an about face after the Electronic Frontier Foundation responded to its cease-and-desist letter, saying that Eckhart's comments and research are protected under the Copyright Act's fair use provision.
"Our action was misguided and we are deeply sorry for any concern or trouble that our letter may have caused Mr. Eckhart," the company said in response to the EFF's letter. "We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF's work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world." . . .
The Unknown Gov't Bank that is Giving Away many Billions of Your Money

The Unknown Gov't Bank that is Giving Away many Billions of Your Money

Today the Obama administration rushed through two more big loans before the deadline the end of this month to solar energy companies. The total came to $1 billion: "a $737 million loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy for a 110 megawatt solar tower on federal land near Tonopah, Nev. [a privately held company SolarReserve LLC owns Tonopah], and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150 megawatt solar plant near Phoenix [it is owned by a publicly held company, Sempra Energy]." It turns out that the privately held SolarReserve LLC is partially owned by "Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives."

It has also come to light that an essentially unknown government bank is holding $61 billion in loans (of course, they have obviously given out much more than that). So the Post Office is getting a direct government subsidy. The Postal Workers' Union has been claiming in ads that they haven't been getting money. Elizabeth MacDonald has this excellent article at Fox News (it is much longer than the excerpt and should be read):

Sitting at the center of the Solyndra scandal is an off-balance-sheet bank at the Treasury Department that dates back to 1973.
This little-known government bank, the Federal Financing Bank [FFB], had a zero balance in 2008 for green energy projects, but now, with little Congressional oversight, it is giving out billions of dollars in loans to White House pet projects often at dirt-cheap interest rates below 1%.
In July alone, the government bank, which had $61 billion in assets, lent nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in taxpayer funds with no Congressional checks and balances.
Plus the bank is funding the insolvent U.S. Post Office; the White House’s expensive green car projects at Ford Motor, Nissan and Tesla Motors; a $485 million loan to an expensive solar project that’s lost $160 million over the last three years that’s backed by Google . . . ; plus the FFB is funding the teetering HOPE housing bailout program, which gives delinquent mortgage borrowers breaks on their loans.
And according to KPMG’s audit report of the bank, the FFB is losing billions of dollars in taxpayer money because it is forgoing collecting interest costs on already inexpensive loans that are financing projects at agencies like the Agriculture Dept.
What’s scary for taxpayers is this: The FFB can borrow unlimited amounts of taxpayer money from the Treasury for these kinds of political pet projects. Under the 1973 “FFB Act, the bank may, with the approval of the Secretary, borrow without limit from the Treasury,” says the bank’s audited statements from KPMG.
The Treasury Department’s inspector general is now investigating the bank over its $528 million loan to Solyndra. FFB’s chairman of the board is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and the bank’s board executives are Treasury officials.
Who is getting the FFB’s green energy money? . . .
. . . Solyndra was still getting loans from the FFB up until it filed for bankruptcy. It got $3 million in loans at a 0.89% rate just a month and a half before it filed for bankruptcy protection.
The FFB is also giving loans to risky solar companies as well as to a money-losing solar energy outfit backed by companies such as Google . . . that has spilled $160 million in red ink for the last three years.
In the month of July alone, the FFB gave a $12.5 million loan to Abound Solar; 60% of Abound's balance sheet will come from federal taxpayers, or $400 million in guaranteed federal loans.
FFB also gave a $117,330 loan to the struggling Kahuku Wind Power and more than $77 million to the Solar Partners companies, which are due $485 million in White House approved loans.
The Solar Partners companies are units of BrightSource Energy, which is building a massive solar-powered energy plant near the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino, California.
BrightSource lost $45 million in 2008, $44 million in 2009, and $72 million in 2010, even though it has rich backers that include Google . . . .
Besides the green energy projects, the FFB provides a backdoor government bailout of the US Post Office, which has been spilling red ink. The FFB has lent the US Post Office so far $12.6 billion. The Post Office faces an estimated $10 billion shortfall this year . . .
And the government bank gave loans to car and car parts manufacturers to retrofit their plants to make green cars. The FFB lent Ford Motor $163 million for its green car programs. The FFB is now financing projects at Fisker Automotive, Nissan North America and Tesla Motors, with $528.6 million, $1.4 billion and $465 million in federal loans, respectively. . . .


For Tesla, "It lost $55.7 million in 2009, $154.3 million in 2010, and $108 million for the first six months of 2011." The weaknesses behind pushing electric cars is discussed here.
Google's politically biased search term results?

Google's politically biased search term results?

Is Google politically biased in terms of what search terms it is willing to clean up? This article in Politico shows that Google is less than helpful to Rick Santorum (note that this also shows how the search rankings can be played by others). An unnamed Computer Science friend of mine writes:

The google spokesman is a little disingenuous, but parsed words carefully. My sense from interaction on the inside is that google has jiggered page rank to repair similar issues for officials or candidates on the left. Likely a little nexis searching (or even with google) could get news reports about other googlebombing efforts, and then measure informally how long were there effects. In other cases, a gamed page rank from this sort of thing last a day or few. In Santorum's case, it is persistent and I see he has his own link on Wikipedia's page for "smear campaign." Google can adjust page rank and they do it all the time.


Here is a discussion about Google not answering questions about their search engine.

Even after proclaiming, "I love Google," Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) criticized Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt for being dodgy on the company's placement of its own services in Google search results.

Franken's remarks followed an earlier exchange between Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Schmidt, as Lee sought to understand the company's handling of searches in which Google services don't rank first on the results page.

That led Lee to reveal a massive chart, which he said proved Google had "cooked" the system to allow its algorithm to always serve up Google sites earlier than competitors in search results.

But later, Franken said Schmidt never fully answered Lee's question, and then lit into Schmidt for not knowing more information.

"That seemed like a pretty fuzzy answer to me coming from the chairman. If you don’t know, who does?" Franken said. . . .
Obama moves on patent reform to help out Google

Obama moves on patent reform to help out Google

Obama is trying to change the patent rules so as to help out his friends over at Google. Here is a useful piece from the WSJ:



Google has come from nowhere to build a dominant position in smartphone software based on tying a free Android to Google search advertising (which is fine) and, arguably, by helping itself to seminal Apple innovations that created today's smartphone industry (not so fine).



Google's approach implicitly assumes that nobody has a right to exclude Google from use of their intellectual property. At best, after litigation, they might have a right to be compensated by Google.



But this is not how the patent system is supposed to work. Let us understand that Google's purchase of Motorola is the purchase of a bargaining asset; it does not automatically put Google in the right. Apple, as a patent holder, has every right to seek to preserve exclusive use of its inventions. In its eBay decision, the Supreme Court allowed that the possibility of "irreparable harm" might justify banning an infringing product outright, equivalent to an ITC import exclusion.



Those given to hyperbole might wonder what could be a clearer example of "irreparable harm" than Google stealing an industry. . . .
Google's continued battle to destroy property rights

Google's continued battle to destroy property rights

Google wants to argue that patents are anticompetitive, but this is an extremely shortsighted view as a lot of products would never have been developed to begin with without patent protection. This list could obviously be added to. For example, does any believe that it is a coincidence that the Google Android system was already being worked on when Schmidt was serving on Apple's board of directors? Anyway, here is a short list from Forbes:



First, arguably no other Fortune 500 company has ever been more hostile to others’ property rights than Google.

-- To go public in 2004, Google had to settle an Overture patent infringement claim for $250 million over the core invention underlying Google’s Adwords auction process.

-- In 2005, Google began scanning copyrighted books without the permission of the rights holders; the number of infringed works now numbers 15 million books and counting. After being sued around the world by authors and publishers, Google settled for $125 million, but that settlement has been opposed for the last two years as anti-competitive by the Register of Copyrights, the Department of Justice and a Federal Court.

-- In 2007, Viacom filed a billion-dollar copyright infringement suit against Google’s YouTube for illegally downloading over 100,000 copyrighted videos. The lower court decision noted Google knew it willfully infringed copyrighted videos.

-- In 2010, Oracle sued Google for billions of dollars because it “knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related property.” The presiding Federal judge in the case has agreed to include an incriminating Google email that shows Android officials in Google did know they needed to license the Java patents in dispute.

-- Also in 2010, Skyhook Wireless sued Google for infringing several of its WiFi location engine patents that collectively enable most location-driven mobile applications. Google’s competitors have respected and licensed Skyhook’s patents.




Meanwhile Google is ramping up its donations to liberal groups. Some details are available here.
Your cell phone can give police a lot of information about you

Your cell phone can give police a lot of information about you

If true, this is worrisome.

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. . . .


Meanwhile smart phones can apparently keep the information on your movements for the last year.

Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised.

The file contains the latitude and longitude of the phone's recorded coordinates along with a timestamp, meaning that anyone who stole the phone or the computer could discover details about the owner's movements using a simple program.

For some phones, there could be almost a year's worth of data stored, as the recording of data seems to have started with Apple's iOS 4 update to the phone's operating system, released in June 2010. . . .


UPDATE: Google also apparently keeps this data also and keeps even more detailed data such as the name of the phone user.

In the case of Google, according to new research by security analyst Samy Kamkar, an HTC Android phone collected its location every few seconds and transmitted the data to Google at least several times an hour. It also transmitted the name, location and signal strength of any nearby Wi-Fi networks, as well as a unique phone identifier. . . .


UPDATE: MSNBC goes off the deep end and claims that there is a racial bias to all this. How the fact that blacks are using their phones more often is irrelevant to this. This information is being collected whether one is using the phone or not as long as the phone is turned on.

“Well, look, you know, a lot of African-Americans and Latino-Americans are victims of racial profiling,” Wilson said. “We know that, you know we’re using these phones and are using the devices more frequently. So, this raised a huge issue. California Supreme Court just recently ruled that police officers can swipe or can take information from your cell phones upon arrest. So, we know that just by nature of the fact that we are stopped more, that we’re arrested more, that we’re going to be subject to this sort of technology more.” . . .


UPDATE: TomTom to Bar Police Data Use

The use by police of navigation equipment maker TomTom NV's data to position speed cameras looks to have been limited to the Netherlands, but the company still has to lay out more clearly how it protects the privacy of its customers, Chief Executive Harold Goddijn said.
Last week, it emerged that police in certain Dutch provinces used data collected by TomTom to better plan where to locate speed traps, causing an outcry in the country and forcing Mr. Goddijn to apologize in e-mails to its customers and in full-page advertisements in Dutch newspapers.
The company can't guarantee "a hundred percent" that the issue was limited to its home market of the Netherlands, but there is no indication right now that it occurred in other countries, Mr. Goddijn said in an interview Monday.
Meanwhile, the company's customers appreciated its "open communication" over the issue and doesn't expect its reputation to be harmed, he said. . . .
More evidence that Google biases search results

More evidence that Google biases search results

The question is why Eric Schmidt thought that it was acceptable for him to hide information about himself that he deemed unfavorable.

Departing Google CEO Eric Schmidt was known for some of his bumbling public statements -- like saying that privacy didn't matter -- but apparently he made some internal blunders as well.
One of the biggest: asking Google's search team to remove information about a political donation from its search results. . . .
The fact he would make such a request at all is pretty amazing -- especially since Google's lawyers have said that the company never promotes or eliminates particular sites from search results, even when trying to fight spam. Earlier this month, Google engineer Matt Cutts contradicted this stance, basically admitting that Google can use "whitelists" to exclude certain sites from changes to the algorithm. . . .
Google to be on hot seat for helping people steal property rights

Google to be on hot seat for helping people steal property rights

Google's destruction of property rights is across the board. It is good that they are getting some scrutiny here.

Google's antipiracy efforts are likely to come under scrutiny during a congressional hearing scheduled for next week in Washington.
Google has accepted an invitation to appear April 6 before a U.S. House subcommittee investigating Web sites accused of distributing pirated intellectual property, sources with knowledge of the witness list told CNET.
Should Google testify as expected, it is believed it would be one of the first occasions the search company has been questioned publicly about whether it plays any role in Internet piracy.
Trade associations representing the film, music, software, and video game industries say "rogue" sites violate copyright law and profit from their work without compensating owners. Many of them have accused Google for years of helping to fund copyright infringement by enabling site operators to post Google ads on their sites.
A Google spokeswoman did not respond to an interview request.
Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, is expected to appear at the hearing on the company's behalf. He should be prepared for a grilling. If members of the subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, are anything like the Senate committee conducting a similar review, they will be tough on Google.
Prominent members from both major political parties appear more determined than ever to stamp out intellectual-property theft. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is preparing to reintroduce legislation that would hand the government sweeping powers to take down alleged pirate sites and try to cut off their revenue sources. Leahy tried to get a similar bill passed last year but it was held up by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). . . .


By the way, remember all Google's claims about being "open source."

“When Android hit the scene in 2008, Google had a tantalizing pitch: Android was ‘open source.’ That is, Google would do the hard work of developing the code, and hardware and software makers were free to use the system at no charge. Carriers and device makers relished the idea of not paying royalties,” Vance and Burrows report. “As Google introduced Android updates, each named after a sweet, devices of varying capabilities flooded the market… It isn’t easy for consumers to keep up—and the same goes for software makers, who have to retool apps for every version and device to give their products a consistent look and feel.”
Vance and Burrows report, “Google owes it to its partners and consumers to prevent Android from running amok. And yet murmurs abound that Android’s master has tightened up too much—that its policies limit licensees’ ability to differentiate their products. “The premise of a true open software platform may be where Android started, but it’s not where Android is going,” says Nokia Chief Executive Stephen Elop, a former Microsoft executive who recently inked a deal with his former employer instead of Google. He says he did so in part because he thought he would have more opportunity to innovate atop Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 software.” . . .
Judge says that Google goes too far in ignoring copyright protection

Judge says that Google goes too far in ignoring copyright protection

Google continues to ignore property rights. From Fox News.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan said the creation of a universal library would benefit many but would "simply go too far." He rejected a $125 million settlement that was opposed by Google rivals, consumer watchdogs, academic experts, literary agents and even foreign governments.
Google has already scanned more than 15 million books for the project.
Chin said the settlement that the company reached with U.S. authors and publishers would "grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners."
The deal gives Google "a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case," Chin said. He noted that many of the concerns raised in objections to the settlement would go away if it were converted to an "opt-in" settlement from an "opt-out" settlement. . . .
Did government regulation prevent the iPad2 from using 4G networks?

Did government regulation prevent the iPad2 from using 4G networks?

Not surprisingly, it looks like Google claim for "open access" is a sham. Google apparently got the FCC to force Verizon to accept rules that prevent it from letting Apple products use their 4G network. Google is using government regulations to harm its competitors.

In 2008, after much protest, Verizon accepted openness conditions attached to valuable spectrum being auctioned off by the FCC, and spent $4.7 billion to buy nationwide capacity that would ensure it could build a robust 4G network for the next generation of mobile devices.

But in doing so, Verizon may have screwed itself out of ever being able to offer a 4G-capable iPhone.

The problem is that the “open access” rules attached to the so-called 700 Mhz C block require the carrier to allow the use of any hardware or software that it can’t prove won’t damage the network.

The rules were inserted at the behest of Google, which was bidding for the spectrum but who some cynics contended got involved not to win but to ensure that whoever got the spectrum couldn’t hamper its business, which requires a free and robust internet.

Google’s idea was to create an open space for innovation where a person could buy any device (including one from Google) and run any app that met open standards with no interference by the carrier.

And depending upon how you interpret the rules, which Verizon fought in court before the auction, they also required that the wireless carrier only offer devices that are open and able to run any app. That interpretation would clearly rule out the iPhone, which is locked down by design, and only apps approved by Apple can be loaded onto the device without breaking the device’s warranty. . . .
Google search results easily manipulated?

Google search results easily manipulated?

So much for Google's denial that its search results can't be manipulated.

Google Inc. is penalizing Overstock.com Inc. in its search results after the retailer ran afoul of Google policies that prohibit companies from artificially boosting their ranking in the Internet giant's search engine.
Overstock's pages had recently ranked near the top of results for dozens of common searches, including "vacuum cleaners" and "laptop computers." But links to Overstock on Tuesday dropped to the fifth or sixth pages of Google results for many of those categories, greatly reducing the chances that a user would click on its links.
The incident, according to Overstock, stemmed in part from its practice of encouraging websites of colleges and universities to post links to Overstock pages so that students and faculty could receive discounts on the shopping site. Overstock said it discontinued the program on Feb. 10, before hearing from Google, but said some university webmasters have been slow to remove the links.
Internet search experts say that sites associated with educational institutions, which come with ".edu" in their Web addresses, are often considered by Google's search algorithm to be more authoritative than commercial sites. Experts say educational sites rarely link to commercial sites, so a shopping site can surge in Google rankings if an .edu page links to it. . . .


Another article is available here. Of course, Google previously denied that this had been occurring.

Google said Thursday that it had made a major change to its algorithm in an effort to improve the rankings of high-quality Web sites in its search results — and to reduce the visibility of low-quality sites. While the company did not say so explicitly, the change appears to be directed in part at so-called content farms like eHow and Answerbag, that generate articles based on popular search queries so they will rise to the top of the rankings and attract clicks.

Google has been facing criticism from some users for allowing articles that aren’t useful to appear prominently in search results. That has now changed, according to the company. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)