Archive for the ‘Google’ tag
Privacy and Google: Not what you might expect
Google has revolutionized the way we access information by providing world wide knowledge and information at our fingerprints- all for free. However, there is a hidden cost of accessing this information: your privacy. Unbeknownst to many Google users, Google maintains a log of every search with IP addresses and other information that can be used to uniquely identify the user. Furthermore, Google keeps this data from 9 to 18 months before ‘anonomyzing it‘, or getting rid of data that can be used to trace searches back to individuals.
The contents of Google searches are often intensely private – people often search for information they otherwise are too ashamed of talking about with others. A search done out of curiosity could easily be misconstrued by another person. Additionally, Google’s products have the potential of capturing much more than our search queries – including email, health records, phone calls, text messages, and even your physical location. The potential for other party’s to get this information is concerning. For example, U.S. Department of Justice has subpoenaed this data in the past.
But what’s really concerning is not the potential for abuse, but rather Google’s attitude about data privacy. In a recent interview with CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place…the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time...” This attitude is sickening, and is a serious threat to data privacy. Afterall, it is Google who we entrust to protect our personal data against hackers, overzealous government prosecutors, or disgruntled company employees. Furthermore, what happens to this data if Google is acquired by another company or goes out of business?
New Zealand rethinks “3 strikes” copyright law
New Zealand copyright protesters
New Zealand’s government announced this week that their proposed “three strikes”/”graduated response” copyright law would not go into effect, and would be rewritten from the ground up.The law, which would have required ISPs to cut off internet access to users who had been accused of copyright infringement three or more times, had already been delayed from its initial effective date in February after stalled implementation negotiations and public protests caused lawmakers some concern.
Of particular note to those interested in U.S. copyright issues, Google submitted comments arguing that Internet disconnection is a disproportionate response to unproven allegations of copyright infringement. New Zealand recording industry groups had argued that the evidence of infringement they provide to ISPs is highly reliable, but Google’s comments cite to a 2006 report (summary here) that showed up to 30% of takedown notices Google received “presented an obvious question for a court”, and over half of requests to remove links appeared to be from businesses targeting competitors. Obviously, many of the takedown requests that Google fields are not from official industry groups, but given that U.S. industry group representatives have likened innocent infringers to dolphins inevitably caught in fishing drift-nets, New Zealand ISPs and consumers had good reason to be concerned.
Image credit – “Dare not write, dare not speak, dare not feel” CC by-nc Fertala
Google Book Search Settlement – What Will Google Deliver?
by Lauren Strandbergh, MTTLR Associate Editor
On October 28, 2008, Google reached a settlement with The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) after two years of negotiations.1 The agreement would resolve the class-action lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and book authors against Google, in addition to another lawsuit brought by five publishing companies as representatives of the AAP’s membership.2 Although Judge John Sprizzo has given preliminary approval, the settlement is still subject to final court approval following a June hearing, which “will determine whether the agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” 3
According to Google, the agreement would provide increased access to out-of-print books, additional ways to purchase copyrighted books online, institutional subscriptions, free access from public and university libraries in the United States, and compensation and improved control to authors and publishers.4 This last would be made possible by the Book Rights Registry, a new development that is one of the more important aspects of the settlement.5
Under the settlement agreement, Google would pay $125 million to be used to create the Book Rights Registry, cover legal fees, and resolve existing claims.6 The independent, non-profit Book Rights Registry would distribute “payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers” and “locate rightsholders, collect and maintain accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project.”7
The new Registry would be similar to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which monitors and compensates individuals in the music industry.8 As one blogger put it in a somewhat sarcastic post, Google and the Registry are bringing “the Dewey Decimal System into the digital age.”9 The Registry will keep track of books and inserts, as well as the respective authors, publishers, and other rightsholders.10
The Registry will do much more than serve as an information depository, though; it will also be responsible for contracts and payments. The settlement provides for a board of directors with equal representation of the author sub-class and publisher sub-class.11 A majority of the directors, including at least one from each sub-class, is required for the Board to act.12 This will presumably help to protect both the authors’ and publishers’ rights in their dealings with Google, and possibly other providers somewhere down the line.
Google and the Registry will determine the subscription prices.13 This basically amounts to Google proposing prices, and the Registry board approving or denying, thus acting as a check on Google.14 The settlement claims that Google and the Registry will attempt to base subscription prices on two factors: “the realization of revenue at market rates for each Book and license on behalf of Rightsholders” and “the realization of broad access to the Books by the public, including institutions of higher education.”15 These are worthy guidelines if followed. Ideally, the first goal (and the cost of corporate profit) will not make the second impossible. The legal databases provided by LexisNexis and Westlaw are examples of digital libraries that are unavailable to the masses due to high cost.
Rather than litigating the fair use question at issue in these lawsuits, Google settled for a large sum of money. This means that the legal standard is no better understood, and the price for using this material is high—$125 million in this case. Microsoft already bowed out of the competition for creating a searchable library database last spring.16 This could make it far more difficult for others interested in creating digital libraries or databases to acquire rights to the media, perhaps harming some of the smaller scale enterprises that have recently been appearing on library websites.17
What does all of this mean for the average Google user? Whether or not this settlement and the new Book Rights Registry will make a real positive difference for individuals and libraries across the country is somewhat uncertain. Search capabilities will definitely increase, which is Google’s main goal behind this expensive effort. But will people have access to content as they would at a library, or will the Google Books site simply become a mammoth bookstore, crowding out Amazon and other on-line retailers? The settlement only provides for public libraries to have one terminal where users may, one at a time, view out-of-print books and print them, for a per-page fee of course.18 This does not appear to be an exceptionally user friendly model.
Whether or not institutions will subscribe to this database and individuals purchase books will depend on multiple factors. Two of the most important may be price and ease of use. Even if an institution purchases a subscription or an individual buys a particular book, they are still restricted to printing or viewing the book on the website.19 This is rather limiting and may make sense only when discussing out-of-print materials. Hopefully Google will use some of the creativity they frequently display, and work with the Author’s Guild, and AAP to engineer a system that will be accessible to everyone.
1 Press Release, Google, Authors, Publishers, and Google Reach Landmark Settlement (Oct. 28, 2008).
2 Id.
3 Erica Sadun, Google copyright deal moves forward, Ars Technica, Nov. 19, 2008.
4 Press Release, supra note 1.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Reyhan Harmanci, Google, book trade groups settle lawsuits, S.F. Chron., Oct. 29, 2008.
9 Elie Mystal, Thank God For Good Lawyers: Google Destroys Libraries, Not The Law, Above The Law, Oct. 29, 2008.
10 Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc, No. 05-CV-8136, at 65 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.28, 2008), (hereafter “Settlement Agreement”), available at http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 42.
14 Id. at 44. The registry is allowed to propose adjustments to Google. Id. at 45.
15 Id. at 42.
16 Miguel Helft, Microsoft Will Shut Down Book Search Program, N.Y. Times, May 24, 2008.
17 Many Michigan libraries are a part of the Michigan Library Consortium, provided through OverDrive digital media services, which allows card-holders to download eBooks and Audio books to personal computers for a limited amount of time. It is similar to a standard library in that there are limited “copies” of each book available at one time and a patron must wait on a list for the next available copy if all are “checked out.” Michigan Library Consortium Home Page.
18 Settlement Agreement, supra note 10, at 60.
19 Id. at 47-48.
Google Launches Highly Anticipated Chrome Browser; the Tech Community Reacts
by Sara Skinner, MTTLR Associate editor
Google launched a beta version of its new Chrome web browser on September 2nd. Prior to launch, Google released a comic book depicting the various engineering and design decisions that went into the browser. The result of all these innovations, Google claims, is a safer, smarter, faster way to surf the internet – but industry members and community watchdogs are raising security and privacy concerns.
One issue that plagues virtually all beta-version software is security problems that don’t emerge until the software is disseminated to a large number of users. The comic documents Google’s efforts to eliminate as many security flaws as possible before launch by employing a “Chrome bot” to automatically test the browser more thoroughly. Google has also responded swiftly to address the emerging issues after launch, and released their first security update within a few days after the initial launch (although they were not forthcoming about which issues the update had addressed.)
One major source of concern for privacy advocates is the browser’s Omnibox, a multi-purpose search box/URL input field. The Omnibox helps users fine-tune their search and browse experience, but it also constantly sends information about users’ surfing and searching habits back to Google’s headquarters. About two percent of data sent back will be stored with the IP address of the computer that sent it. Users can avoid this by surfing Incognito (a privacy mode that turns off cookie storage) or by disabling the auto-suggest feature, but privacy advocates are worried about the amount of personal information being handled by Google — which the average user may not even realize is being collected.
The Terms of Service for the new browser have not been without controversy, either. When initially launched, Chrome’s terms granted Google extensive rights to user content. Google acknowledged that such restrictive terms were part of a standard boilerplate and shouldn’t have been included. The Terms of Service have since been revised and no longer grant user content rights to Google.
Some of the loudest opposition to the Chrome browser’s privacy practices is coming from privacy advocates in Europe where a user’s IP address is considered personal data. While Google has responded that its privacy data retention is governed by US law, it agreed to shorten its search bar IP retention policy to nine months. It is also working on a way to anonymize IP addresses and cookies when users search in the Google Omnibox.
Screen shot from September 14, 2008 (http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_02.html).
Sources:
Scott McCloud & The Google Chrome Team, Google Chrome, Google, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).
Stephen Shankland, Google Fixes Chrome Vulnerabilities—But Won’t Say Which, Cnet News, Sept. 8, 2008.
Explore Google Chrome Features: Incognito Mode, Google Chrome Help Center, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).
Ina Fried, EFF: We’re Concerned About Google’s Omnibox, Cnet News, Sept. 3, 2008.
Ina Fried, Be Sure to Read Chrome’s Fine Print, Cnet News, Sept. 2, 2008.
Google Tweaks Chrome License Text, BBC News, Sept. 4, 2008.
Google, Google Chrome Terms of Service, Google, (last visited Sept. 14, 2008).
Peter Fleischer, Response to the Article 29 Working Party Opinion on Data Protection Issues Related to Search Engines, Google, Sept. 8, 2008.
Kurt Opsahl, Google Cuts IP Retention to Nine Months, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sept. 9, 2008, (last visited September 14, 2008).
Ellen Nakashima, Google Promises Privacy Fixes in Its Chrome Browser, The Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2008.
Making the wireless world more web-friendly
by: Professor Susan Crawford
Visiting Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Founder, OneWebDay
Your wireless carrier (in the U.S., probably AT&T or Verizon Wireless) has a lot of control over the handset you can use and the applications that can run on that device. In fact, wireless carriers routinely ask for (and get) an enormous slice of the revenue from applications that work on their networks, and they force handset manufacturers to jump through all kinds of hoops in order to be allowed to sell devices that can connect to these networks. (You can’t, usually, buy devices except through the wireless carrier itself.)
There has been a great deal of consolidation in the wireless carrier market: twelve wireless carriers that were independent as of 1999 have combined (through merger, spinoff, or joint venture) into four large wireless carriers: AT&T, VZ, (and, far behind in terms of size) T-Mobile and Sprint. AT&T and VZ together control more than half the market and the lion’s share of new subscribers. The competitive picture isn’t great — AT&T and VZ actually charge more per minute than other, smaller carriers (like Sprint).
Until the FCC’s 1968 seminal Carterfone decision, which allowed non-AT&T equipment to be connected to the telephone network, consumers were not free to buy and use devices of their own choice for ordinary telephone communications. Carterfone led to the broad use of the modem and the fax machine, and arguably the birth of the commercial internet. But this open attachment regime has not to date applied to the wireless world, as either a legal or practical matter. The wireless carriers are in complete control.
This has had bad effects on the ecosystem of the wireless world. It’s essentially a closed system, for both applications and devices. We’ve gotten used to locked phones that cannot be switched between service providers and two year contracts with heavy penalties for early termination. Here’s the Washington Post from this past summer:
Currently, the major U.S. wireless carriers, including AT&T and Verizon Wireless, largely decide which Web sites, music-download services and search engines their customers can access on their cellphones. This is accomplished by wireless companies determining which cellphones will receive their services: AT&T, for example, is the only carrier available to users of Apple’s iPhone.
This isn’t a great situation for consumers or innovators.
Google’s paired announcements yesterday were aimed at addressing this situation in a way that will – ultimately – be very good for Google.
First, they said they were releasing a software “stack” – an open software platform called Android – that would be available under an open-source license. The idea is that anyone could adopt that platform (which includes an operating system, middleware, a user-friendly interface, and some applications) and use it on their phones or in their networks. They’ll be releasing tools for developers to use in writing for that stack, which will (they hope) spur the creation of impossibly cool applications that everyone will have to have. They’ll have big developer conferences someday for Android, just like Microsoft does, creating buzz, t-shirts, and a general sense of well-being and connectedness.
Second, they announced a large consortium of companies that will help in further developing Android and pushing it out into the world – the Open Handset Alliance. It’s significant that this group includes T-Mobile and Sprint, the smaller guys in the U.S. It’s also significant that some large handset manufacturers (but not Nokia, why?) and chipset creators are involved too. This will give these guys courage to fight the depredations of the current breaking-kneecaps wireless carrier situation in the U.S. I bet the handset manufacturers are feeling some relief. There’s strength in numbers. This is like unionizing to challenge The Man.
Yes, Om Malik is right, this is a big PR move. But the goal is to raise things up a level, to make this platform so ubiquitous and crammed with so many great applications (including Google ad-serving thingies) that the incumbents won’t be able to avoid it. Now, nothing guarantees that this platform will stay open. In fact, VZ could adopt it and close it to applications it viewed to be competing with its core services – like Skype. But the hope is that this kind of modular approach will become the norm in the wireless world.
In fact, the goal is greater than that – the goal is to make the wireless world much more like the PC world, where there is no necessary connection between transport and content and anyone can introduce the new cool thing.
This clearly helps Google. Of course it does. Why would they do it otherwise? There will be new landscapes to plaster with ads, new ways to make money out of disorder. We won’t be able to find a thing or a person we need without Google’s help.
But this initiative also leaves room for new Googles to show up in the wireless ecosystem, and to take advantage of new kinds of cheap, portable devices that are much better than what we’ve got now.
Maybe I’ll finally be able to afford a cool phone.