US, States Gearing For Antitrust Case Against Google: Report

Source: NDTV

May 16 2020

By AFP

The report, citing anonymous sources, said the case may also address how Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition.

Washington, United States: US federal and state antitrust enforcers are preparing a lawsuit against Google which could come this year, focusing on the tech giant's dominance of online advertising, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The report, citing anonymous sources, said the case may also address how Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition.

The US Justice Department and 50 attorneys general last year said they were looking into whether Google abused its power in the online ecosystem at the expense of rivals or consumers.

By doing so, the officials revived an antitrust probe closed in Washington several years earlier while EU and other authorities press their own cases against the California-based firm.

Last year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, coordinating the states' effort, said an investigation was underway "to determine the facts." 

Google said it was continuing discussions with authorities.

"We continue to engage with the ongoing investigations led by the Department of Justice and Attorney General Paxton, and we don't have any updates or comments on speculation," the company said in an email.

"Our focus is firmly on providing services that help consumers, support thousands of businesses, and enable increased choice and competition."

Authorities have also begun looking at Facebook and other online platforms on issues of market dominance.

Internet Giants Combine Forces Creating New Lobby to Control Capitol Hill

Πηγή: BLN

By Susanne Posel
July 31

The titans of the Internet, including Google, eBay, Amazon and Facebook, are combining forces under the blanket of a newly formed lobby group that wants to influence lawmakers on how they can manipulate the Internet, as well as how important they truly are.

In September of this year, the lobby groups called the Internet Association, will be based in Washington, DC, and headed by Michael Beckerman, former adviser of the Energy and Commerce Committee within the House of Representatives.

The Internet Association’s goal is to control the perspective of elected officials on Internet technologies, their uses and cooperation with various federal agencies. Their website claims they are “dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet.”

Beckerman explains:

The Internet isn’t just Silicon Valley anymore. The Internet has moved to Main Street. Our top priority is to ensure that elected leaders in Washington understand the profound impacts on the Internet and Internet companies on jobs, economic growth, and freedom.Through the influence of money and pressure, this lobby seeks to have an over-reaching effect on the Internet as a whole. In conjunction with major corporations in the tech industry, and by remaining focused on subversive control over the internet, the Internet Association will lead the way toward Big Brother becoming a very necessary part of our lives.

Google - Internet monster and collector of information for the National Security Agency (NSA) - announced back in March that they will use a new feature to spy on Android and smartphone customers that will allow background noise to assist Google in identifying location, and therefore track unsuspecting Americans better.

They also altered their privacy policies to better gather intelligence on Internet users. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gained greater oversight over Google’s handling of personal information as part of a settlement reached last year. Google submitted to the agreement after exposing its users email contacts when it launched a now-defunct social networking service called Buzz in 2010.

Internet services, like Skype, have begun working with law enforcement to assist in exposing political dissidents, protesters and other terrorist types identified by the FBI.

Skype has completely opened their online chats and customer information to law enforcement in an effort to conduct surveillance regardless of whether or not a warrant has been obtained.

Since Microsoft purchased Skype in 2011, their willingness to cooperate with federal surveillance initiatives has grown exponentially. Online chats are monitored under the guise of stopping hackers from controlling the Internet.

Microsoft claims to be aware of their role in spying on Americans, and is conducting such surveillance with secrecy while working with local and international law enforcement agencies.

Authorities wanted access to Skype because, they claimed, and that the encryption programs made it hard to track pre-determined terrorists groups, hackers, jihadis, drug lords. Although this is simply a ruse to gain access to Skype conversations that were previously off-limits.

Since Skype has been traditionally used by the same people the FBI claims are dangerous terrorists (those who pay in cash, have tattoos and own guns), their new owners, Microsoft, are more than willing to comply with government agencies to spy on their customers in the name of safety.

Lauren Weinstien, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, explains:

The issue is, to what extent are our communications being purpose-built to make surveillance easy? When you make it easy to do, law enforcement is going to want to use it more and more. If you build it, they will come.’Mark Gillett, Skype chief development officer, has vehemently denied that they were making their program more surveillance based to assist federal and local agencies in spying on citizens. However they have been making their bandwidth connections stronger so that information can be transferred more readily, as well as proxy interceptions and file transfers.

Skype operates every communication in conjunction with outside agency surveillance requests. Those once-encrypted calls are now open to interpretation by law enforcement.

Facebook has been used by the US government to track of the world’s terrorist and terrorism, according to Rose Gottemoeller, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

An ordinary citizen becoming more involved is a great benefit to the US government in their mission to use the false flag of terrorism to sway public opinion. Gottemoeller says using social media as a crowd-sourcing tool is an effective in helping the U.S. and other governments “understand what’s going on with a nuclear facility in a certain country, for example, or what’s going on with the production of chemicals at a chemical plant.”

Gottemoeller envisions utilizing social media users as an effective way to keep atomic bombs out of the hands of terrorists, as well as the control of governments and regimes.

The manipulation of the Internet will only get worse as time goes on; politicians remain cooperative to the powers-that-be, and the people continue to support the technologies that enslave us all. Silently, Big Brother looms over our shoulders, listening, watching and judging us at every turn.

The technology we have grown dependent on will be the chains that bind us to the control grid.

Google expected to cough measly $22.5m for Safari privacy gaffe

Πηγή: The Register
By Kelly Fiveash
July 10 2012

Google is reportedly set to cough up a piddly penalty payment of $22.5m to the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to settle its sneaky bypassing of the default privacy settings of Apple's Safari browser.

It was revealed by the Wall Street Journal in February this year that Google, Vibrant Media Inc, WPP PLC's Media Innovation Group LLC and Gannett Co's PointRoll Inc used code that "tricked" Safari into allowing users to have their online browsing habits tracked.

Apple's browser blocks most tracking by default with exceptions for websites that, for example, require interaction from a user – such as the filling in of an online form. Google claimed at the time that it had "mischaraterised" the code used by the ad companies.

Google later disabled the code, which installed a temporary cookie on the phones or computers of Safari users; the search biz's developers had embedded code into some of its ads that fooled the Apple browser into thinking that a form was being submitted to Google.

The WSJ is now reporting that Mountain View is close to settling with the FTC with a fine said to be the biggest of all time handed down by the regulator to a corporation.

Google offered up a withering statement to The Register that appeared to indicate that it had already accepted defeat.

We cannot comment on any specifics. However we do set the highest standards of privacy and security for our users. The FTC is focused on a 2009 help centre page published more than two years before our consent decree, and a year before Apple changed its cookie-handling policy. We have now changed that page and taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information, from Apple’s browsers.

The consent decree in question is the one the internet giant signed with the FTC in October last year, when Google agreed to be much more up front about its data-handling methods with its customers.

After Google's Buzz privacy howler in 2010, the company is now subjected to biennial audits for the next 20 years.

Google, as part of that agreement, avoided being fined and did not have to admit that its biz practices had been unlawful. However, if that decree has been violated, then the FTC was always clear that a fine would be slapped on Google.

The penalty is calculated based on $16,000 per violation per day and the number of iPad, iPhone and Mac users affected by Google's Safari privacy blunder could run into millions of customers.

However, as noted by the WSJ, Google racks up sales of over $20m roughly every five hours.

Perhaps Google just wants to pay the reported $22.5m fine and get on with fighting competition officials on the other side of the Atlantic. In Brussels, Belgium, the company is still fighting off "abuse of dominance" claims over its share of the search market in Europe.

The company's chairman, Eric Schmidt, sent a letter to the European Commission containing a "proposal" that Google claimed addressed the four areas of concern expressed earlier this year by Euro antitrust commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

The commissioner's office told El Reg this morning that competition officials were still perusing the contents of the letter, which has not been made public by Google.

Meanwhile, Google is undergoing a separate antitrust investigation in the US over claims the company unfairly manipulated results on its search engine to favour its own business.

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Sergey Brin says he and Google co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create their search giant if the internet was dominated by Facebook. 

Πηγή: The Guardian
By Ian Katz
April 15 2012

The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In an interview with the Guardian, Brin warned there were "very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world". "I am more worried than I have been in the past," he said. "It's scary."

The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.

The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behindGoogle's partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns aboutcensorship and cyber-attacks. He said five years ago he did not believeChina or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle," he said.

He said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, but warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and balkanising the web.

"There's a lot to be lost," he said. "For example, all the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers. You can't search it."

Brin's criticism of Facebook is likely to be controversial, with the social network approaching an estimated $100bn (£64bn) flotation. Google's upstart rival has seen explosive growth: it has signed up half of Americans with computer access and more than 800 million members worldwide.

Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. "You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive," he said. "The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation."

He criticised Facebook for not making it easy for users to switch their data to other services. "Facebook has been sucking down Gmail contacts for many years," he said.

Brin's comments come on the first day of a week-long Guardian investigation of the intensifying battle for control of the internet being fought across the globe between governments, companies, military strategists, activists and hackers.

From the attempts made by Hollywood to push through legislation allowing pirate websites to be shut down, to the British government's plans to monitor social media and web use, the ethos of openness championed by the pioneers of the internet and worldwide web is being challenged on a number of fronts.

In China, which now has more internet users than any other country, the government recently introduced new "real identity" rules in a bid to tame the boisterous microblogging scene. In Russia, there are powerful calls to rein in a blogosphere blamed for fomenting a wave of anti-Vladimir Putin protests. It has been reported that Iran is planning to introduce a sealed "national internet" from this summer.

Ricken Patel, co-founder of Avaaz, the 14 million-strong online activist network which has been providing communication equipment and training to Syrian activists, echoed Brin's warning: "We've seen a massive attack on the freedom of the web. Governments are realising the power of this medium to organise people and they are trying to clamp down across the world, not just in places like China and North Korea; we're seeing bills in the United States, in Italy, all across the world."

Writing in the Guardian on Monday, outspoken Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei says the Chinese government's attempts to control the internet will ultimately be doomed to failure. "In the long run," he says, "they must understand it's not possible for them to control the internet unless they shut it off – and they can't live with the consequences of that."

Amid mounting concern over the militarisation of the internet and claims – denied by Beijing – that China has mounted numerous cyber-attacks on US military and corporate targets, he said it would be hugely difficult for any government to defend its online "territory".

"If you compare the internet to the physical world, there really aren't any walls between countries," he said. "If Canada wanted to send tanks into the US there is nothing stopping them and it's the same on the internet. It's hopeless to try to control the internet."

He reserved his harshest words for the entertainment industry, which he said was "shooting itself in the foot, or maybe worse than in the foot" by lobbying for legislation to block sites offering pirate material.

He said the Sopa and Pipa bills championed by the film and music industries would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.

"I haven't tried it for many years but when you go on a pirate website, you choose what you like; it downloads to the device of your choice and it will just work – and then when you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy," he said.

Brin acknowledged that some people were anxious about the amount of their data that was now in the reach of US authorities because it sits on Google's servers. He said the company was periodically forced to hand over data and sometimes prevented by legal restrictions from even notifying users that it had done so.

He said: "We push back a lot; we are able to turn down a lot of these requests. We do everything possible to protect the data. If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great … We're doing it as well as can be done."

Breakingviews: Google’s aristocracy

Πηγή: Reuters
April 13 2012

Jeffrey Goldfarb and Breakingviews columnists discuss Google's new class of shares and the harm they do.

Google will know more about you than your partner

Under fire: Google's new privacy policy comes into effect on March 1

Πηγή: MailOnline
By TED THORNHILL
March 3 2012

• Now users will be bombarded with ads related to their online searches
• Critics say company will amass 'cauldron of data' on users
• Company says products will be 'beautifully simple and intuitive'

Google has been savaged by critics after revealing plans to link user data across its email, video, social-networking and other services.

In a move denounced by some as a massive invasion of privacy, the changes will piece together information from Gmail to YouTube to the Google Plus social network.

For example, if you spend an hour signed in to a Google account searching the Web for skateboards, the next time you log into YouTube, you might get recommendations for videos featuring Tony Hawk, along with ads for his merchandise and the nearest place to buy them.

However, this could also apply to searches relating to sensitive topics such as meetings in your calendar.

Privacy problems are particularly pertinent to those who share a Google account with other members of their family.




Google sees the changes as making its products easier to use by sharing a privacy policy - and information - across everything from Gmail accounts to YouTube while users are signed in

Cecilia Kang, of the Washington Post, described collation of vast tracts of information as a ‘massive cauldron of data.’

‘Privacy advocates say Google's changes betray users who are not accustomed to having their information shared across different Web sites.’ she said.

‘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.’

Technology site Gizmodo said that the change was the end of Google’s ‘don’t be evil motto.

The site’s Mat Honan wrote: ‘It means that things you could do in relative anonymity today, will be explicitly associated with your name, your face, your phone number.

'If you use Google's services, you have to agree to this new privacy policy. It is an explicit reversal of its previous policies.’

Larry Dignan, meanwhile, writing on ZDnet.com, described the new policy as ‘Big Brother-ish’.

He wrote: ‘Google will know more about you than your wife does. Everything across your screens will be integrated and tracked.

‘Google noted that it collects information you provide, data from your usage, device information and location. Unique applications are also noted.



Sites such as Gizmodo were quick to lampoon Google's founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page and the site's former slogan, 'Don't be evil'


Even Google's own Plus network was filled with complaints about the new changes

‘Sure you can use Google’s dashboard and ad manager to cut things out, but this policy feels Big Brother-ish.’

The changes, due on March 1, are a massive overhaul of Google’s privacy policy which the company claims will create a ‘beautifully simple and intuitive’ user experience.

More than 70 different company policies are being streamlined into one main privacy policy and about a dozen others.



Commenters on Twitter were concerned by the changes - with some saying that the policies were similar to Facebook's

Separate policies will continue to govern products including Google's Chrome Web browser and its Wallet service for electronic payments.

Google’s last attempt to link information across its services triggered a wave of privacy complaint which helped kill the its Buzz social networking service.

The company hopes to avoid similar legal hurdles with its new policy.

"If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries - or tailor your search results - based on the interests you've expressed in Google (Plus), Gmail and YouTube,’ the company says on a new overview page for its privacy policies.

‘We'll better understand (what) you're searching for and get you those results faster.’

Currently, users of Google products have to agree to a new set of privacy policy and terms of services almost every time they sign up for a new service.

After the new policy comes into effect, if you’re signed in, you’ll be treated as a single user across all of Google’s products.

‘If you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services,’ Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, Alma Whitten wrote in blog post.

‘In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.’

Google pointed out that cookies and 'identifiers' will not be tagged to sensitive categories, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation or health.

It also emphasised that the new privacy policy will not force users to become Google Plus account holders and that it will still be possible to search Google without signing in, or to sign in and then elect to search anonymously.

The changes follow the shutdown of Buzz last month. After its introduction less than two years ago, the social networking tool was ridiculed for exposing users' most-emailed contacts to other participants by default, inadvertently revealing some users' ongoing contact with ex-spouses and competitors.

Google has since made Plus the focal point of its challenge to Facebook's social network.

In the first seven months since its debut, Plus has attracted more than 90 million users, according to Google.

To promote Plus, Google recently began including recommendations about people and companies with Plus accounts in its search results.

That change has provoked an outcry from critics who say Google is abusing its dominance in Internet search to drive more traffic to its own services.

Google and the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement last year that forbids Google from misrepresenting how it uses personal information and from sharing an individual's data without prior approval.

Google also agreed to biennial privacy audits for the next two decades.

Google said it talked to regulators about the upcoming privacy changes, which it will apply worldwide. An FTC spokeswoman declined to comment on the changes or say whether the agency was consulted.
Some critics saw Google as trying to beat regulators to the punch by setting a precedent before the FTC unveils its own framework for protecting online privacy.


Defence: Google argues that its new policy will give users 'a more intuitive experience'

Jeff Chester, executive director of the privacy group Center for Digital Democracy, said Google hopes ‘that by creating a one-stop shop for privacy policy it will deflect regulatory action.’

Vivian Reding, the European Commissioner for Justice, welcomed Google's announcement: 'Google was quick. Google made the first in the step of more privacy rules. I can only applaud more companies to try to move in the right direction.'

Google, Facebook and other popular Internet services all want to learn as much as possible about their users so they can sell more advertising at higher rates to marketers looking to target people interested in specific products, such as golf clubs or skinny jeans.

Google says users who opt to see personalised ads are 37 percent more likely to respond to an ad than people who opt out of targeting.

The changes follow a rare letdown in revenue growth at Google's lucrative advertising network.

Google's fourth-quarter earnings report last week showed the company's average revenue per click fell 8 percent from the previous year, despite robust growth in online shopping at the holidays.

Google shares, which have fallen 9 percent since the report, closed Tuesday at $580.93, down $4.59 for the day.

Ryan Calo, director for privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, said Google is trying to make its policy privacy transparent instead of bogging users down with pages of legalese; the new privacy policies run about 10,000 words, down from 68,000.

But he said the company must ensure that the ways it uses data help users without revealing sensitive information.

‘If it creeps people out, then they need to be aware of that,’ he said

Google's Privacy Invasion: It's Your Fault

Πηγή: Information Week Security
By Thomas Claburn

Feb 20 2012

If we really wanted privacy, we would turn off JavaScript, block ads, and browse in privacy mode through an anonymous proxy. But we would rather have free services.

Google stepped in it, again. The company was caught bypassing the privacy settings of those using Apple's Safari Web browser, which unlike other major browsers blocks third-party cookies by default. Google, like just about every other online company, relies on cookie files to improve ad relevancy, to identify users, and to deliver online services.

The Wall Street Journal, which Friday broke the story as part of its ongoing investigation into online privacy, reports that Google, along with at least three other advertising companies--Vibrant Media, WPP PLC's Media Innovation Group, and Gannett's PointRoll--"exploited a loophole in the browser's privacy settings" to place a cookie file on OS X and iOS devices such as iPhones using Safari.
The incident has prompted Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group critical of Google's privacy practices, to call for intervention from the Federal Trade Commission. Another consumer advocacy group, the American Consumer Institute, said, "Google’s willful disregard for the privacy choices of consumers and the privacy policies of Apple is a new low even for Google."

Google insists the Wall Street Journal report "mischaracterizes what happened and why." The company says it "used known Safari functionality to provide features that signed-in Google users had enabled" and that it did not collect personal information.

[ Google has been under fire for its planned privacy policy change. Read Google Rejects EU Request On Privacy Policy Consolidation. ]

Google hasn't helped its case by ceasing to use the HTML code that overrode Safari's default behavior. That looks like an admission of guilt. But let's step back for a moment and examine the situation.

The American Consumer Institute's contention Google willfully disregarded "the privacy choices of consumers and the privacy policies of Apple" isn't accurate.

Google disregarded the privacy choices of Apple, which chooses to block third-party cookies by default in its browser. And Google has nothing to do with Apple's privacy policies, which describe how Apple handles customer data.

Google argues that it manipulated Safari to resolve contradictory browser settings. Safari blocks third-party cookies by default. At the same time, Apple has implemented exceptions to Safari's third-party cookie blocking to allow social features like the +1 button to function.

Rachel Whetstone, SVP of communications and public policy, said in a statement that Google deployed its workaround code "to enable features for signed-in Google users on Safari who had opted to see personalized ads and other content--such as the ability to '+1' things that interest them."

The fact that other Google cookies got set, Google insists, was accidental. "The Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser," Whetstone explained. "We didn't anticipate that this would happen, and we have now started removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers. It's important to stress that, just as on other browsers, these advertising cookies do not collect personal information."

Were it not for the fact that Google's advertising cookie opt-out help page stated explicitly that Safari's default setting was the functional equivalent of opting out, Google's explanation might suffice.

But rewind now to the July 2011 release of OS X Lion. With Lion came Safari 5.1, which included for the first time third-party cookie blocking by default.

Could Apple's decision to block third-party cookies by default have been influenced by its competition with Google, a company that depends on advertising and cookies?

John Battelle, who runs advertising company Federated Media and has written about Google for years, suggests as much in a thoughtful blog post. "Might it be possible that Apple is using data as its weapon, dressed up in the PR friendly clothing of 'privacy protection' for users?" he asks.

Indeed, it's possible.

But Apple is too clever to be caught taking direct action to hinder its competition without plausible deniability. The company has recognized that justifying its actions by claiming security, privacy, or user experience benefits will make almost any change acceptable.

Apple's refusal to support Flash on iOS devices represents an example of this. Its claims about security and performance issues affecting Flash on mobile devices were fair enough. But by shunning Flash, Apple achieved a business benefit: It crippled a competing development platform.

Apple's Gatekeeper in its forthcoming OS X Mountain Lion offers another example. Apple's next Mac operating system will block the installation of apps from third-party developers without an Apple Developer ID by default. This is perfectly justifiable on the grounds of security (even if it undermines Apple's previous assertions that malware isn't a problem on the Mac). But it will also serve to reinforce Apple's control of the OS X software sales channel.

Apple's decision to block third-party cookies by default has extra cover: The RFCs that define how browsers should handle cookies indicate that third-party cookies should be blocked by default. The major browser makers have not followed this recommendation, choosing instead to rely on P3P, an automated mechanism for communicating privacy preferences that's generally seen as a compromise between privacy ideals and business needs.

If we accept Google's explanation that this was an accident at face value, and assume that Apple too is blameless and only wants the best for its users, what are we left with? Is the Wall Street Journal too hard on Google because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, thinks Google steals content, and perhaps goes easy on Apple to secure better access to exclusives? Are consumer advocacy groups focused on Google because Google bashing makes headlines, which help with fundraising?

No, let's put the blame where it belongs, on us, the users of the Internet. We rely on free services like Gmail while insisting on "privacy," a term that we probably can't even define to our collective satisfaction. We accept terms of service contracts and privacy policies that explain in excessive detail how we will not get privacy, how our information will be used, and then we object.

So instead of privacy, let's talk about control. You do have some of that, still. Make some choices about how your information will be used--because it will be used--instead of accepting default settings.

If you object to the way Google does business, use ad-blocking software. This is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation recommends, at least until Google implements Do Not Track in Chrome. Perhaps everyone will follow this advice, Google will collapse, and then we can all just go back to fee-for-service computing. How does a $0.25 per search and $99 for an Android 5.0 upgrade sound?

Here's to hoping that Google offers a paid membership option that disables all information collection and advertising across all its services. Then we will finally be able to see what the absence of privacy is worth.

Lawmakers target Google over privacy laws

Πηγή: Foxnews
Feb 18 2012

WASHINGTON – Three congressmen on Friday called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google Inc., after The Wall Street Journal reported that the Internet giant was bypassing privacy settings of people who used Apple Inc.'s Web browser on phones and computers.

The lawmakers—Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), Joe Barton (R., Texas) and Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.)—want to know if Google's behavior "constitutes a violation" of a privacy settlement Google and the Federal Trade Commission signed last year. Breaches of the settlement could bring fines of as much as $16,000 per violation per day.

"The FTC is aware of the situation," an agency spokeswoman said. At least two consumer groups also asked the FTC to investigate Google's behavior, which allowed the company to track Web-browsing habits of people using Safari browser software even if they intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked.

At the heart of the complaints is the fact that, until recently, a page on Google's site told Safari users they could rely on the browser's settings to prevent tracking by Google. Among other things, the FTC settlement barred the company from misrepresenting its privacy practices to users.

"Google falsely told Safari users that they could control the collection of data…when in fact Google was circumventing the preference," wrote John Simpson, the privacy-project director with the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog. Another advocacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also made similar charges.

Google said it has stopped its practices and deleted the associated tracking files, after being contacted by the Journal. "We are taking immediate steps to address their concerns," a Google spokesman said of the congressmen's letter.

"We are happy to answer any questions regulators and others may have," the Google spokesman said.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he planned to look into Google's behavior and whether it worked "to circumvent consumer choice."

Google's privacy practices have come under increasing scrutiny in recent months, as it and other technology companies have expanded social-networking and information-sharing services. The companies offer many of those products to people for free and receive income from online advertisements that are customized and targeted based on users' information.

The FTC's settlement with Google came after an investigation into the company's now-defunct Buzz social network. The FTC alleged that Google used "deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers" when it launched Buzz. Google had initially made some Buzz users' contacts automatically visible to others.

Google's latest practices also involve social networking. The company says the technology that resulted in the tracking was intended to help it place social-networking buttons on ads. People could use these buttons to indicate they liked the ad and share that with friends on the Google+ network.

To enable that feature, Google used computer code that bypassed Safari's privacy settings. Safari is the only browser that has a default setting blocking advertisers and other tracking companies from placing small files called "cookies" on users' computers. After Google bypassed the settings, the company's massive advertising network was able to track many users as they browse the Web.

"Google's practices could have a wide, sweeping impact because Safari is a major Web browser used by millions of Americans," the lawmakers said in their letter to the FTC. Safari is the standard browser on Apple's iPhone and iPad devices, as well as on Mac computers.

Google sued by Safari user over privacy flap

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Phil Milford and Jef Feeley
Feb 18 2102

Google Inc. officials were sued for violating users’ privacy rights on Apple Inc.’s Safari Web browser by bypassing computer settings designed to block monitoring of consumers’ online activity.

Google, the world’s biggest Internet-search company, has been dodging privacy settings in Safari, which serves as the primary Web browser on Apple’s iPhone and iPad products, lawyers for an Illinois man who uses the Safari browser said in a lawsuit filed today in federal court in Delaware.

“Google’s willful and knowing actions violated” federal wiretapping laws and other computer-related statutes, attorneys for Matthew Soble said in the complaint.

Google has drawn regulatory scrutiny and pressure from consumer advocates for the way it handles personal information. Last year, it agreed to settle claims with the Federal Trade Commission that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policies when it introduced its Buzz social- networking service in 2010.

Chris Gaither, a spokesman for Mountain View, California- based Google, said in an e-mail that the company declined to comment on the suit’s allegations.

Researchers at Stanford University said today Google programmers developed codes that allowed them to avoid privacy settings created by their rivals at Cupertino, California-based Apple.

Privacy Circumvented?

The settings were designed to block cookies, or small pieces of code, that can be used to follow users’ activities on the Web. The Wall Street Journal reported Google’s actions in bypassing the privacy settings earlier this week.

Soble is seeking class-action status for his suit, which was filed on behalf of individuals “whose default privacy settings on the web browser software produced by Apple, known as Safari, were knowingly circumvented by Google,” according to the suit.

Google’s actions also prompted Consumer Watchdog to send a letter to the FTC today demanding action against the Internet- search provider.

“Safari users with the browser set to block third-party cookies thought they were not being tracked,” John Simpson, privacy project director of Consumer Watchdog, said in the letter. “Nonetheless, because of an element invisible to the user, but designed to mimic a form, DoubleClick was able to set tracking cookies in an obvious violation of the set preference.”

Lawmaker Attention

The allegations that Google bypassed Apple’s privacy settings to gather information on user’s Web browsing habits also have drawn attention from lawmakers.

“I fully intend to look into this matter and determine the extent to which the practice was used by Google and other third parties to circumvent consumer choice,” West Virginia Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement.

“We are taking immediate steps to address concerns, and we are happy to answer any questions regulators and others may have,” Google’s Gaither said in an e-mailed response.

The case is Matthew Soble v. Google Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Google to pay users to browse the web (and watch what they're doing)

Πηγή: Foxnews
Feb 10 2012

Google is facing criticism over plans to pay Internet users to browse the web -- while the search engine monitors their every click.

The new Google Screenwise program will pay its volunteer "panellists" as much as $25 in Amazon gift cards -- a $5 voucher for signing up and more depending on how long they stay on board. Anyone signing up will have to download a browser extension, allowing Google to track their movements online in even more detail than they already do.

Participants have to be over age 13 and anyone younger than 18 will need parental consent.

Technology website Search Engine Land said the timing of the move was unusual given the negative response Google has had over upcoming changes to its privacy policy.

Google is planning to introduce new privacy rules from March 1, which would allow the search engine to share information about users between services such as Gmail and YouTube.

"Even though this Screenwise program is completely opt-in, some critics are bound to question why Google needs more data about web searchers and the websites they visit," the website said.

The Screenwise Panel web page says the firm has been "overwhelmed" with interest and urges visitors to come back later.

It says: "What we learn from you, and others like you, will help us improve Google products and services and make a better online experience for everyone."

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can’t opt out

Google announced a new privacy policy and terms of service on Jan. 24. Here’s a look at some of the Google products that will be affected by the policy change.

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Cecilia Kang
Jan 24 2012

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.

The changes comes as Google is facing stiff competition and recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings expectations. Apple, perhaps its primary rival, is expected to announce strong earnings Tuesday.

Google’s changes are appeared squarely aimed at Apple and Facebook, which have been successful in keeping people in their ecosystem of products. Google, which makes money by selling ads tailored to its users, is hoping to do the same by offering a Web experience tailored to personal tastes.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy, product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

After March 1, a user who has recently watched YouTube videos of the Washington Wizards might suddenly see basketball ticket ads appear in his or her Gmail accounts.

That person may also be reminded of a business trip to Washington on Google Calendar and asked whether he or she wants to notify friends who live in the area, information Google would cull from online contacts or its social network Google+.

Privacy advocates say Google’s changes betray users who are not accustomed to having their information shared across different Web sites.

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 recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

Privacy advocates in recent weeks filed a separate complaint that Google deceived consumers by using information from its new social network Google+ in general search results.

Some worry about security. Gmail users, including some White House staff, last year were targeted by hackers who were able to breach the company’s e-mail accounts.

Google on Tuesday described its new business plan as changes in its privacy policy and terms of service for all its services except for Google Wallet, its Chrome browser and Google Books.

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.

FAQ: What kind of data can Google collect and integrate? How will this affect me?
By Hayley Tsukayama

What is Google doing?: In a nutshell, Google is taking information from almost all of your Google services — including Gmail, Picasa, YouTube and search — and integrating the data so that they can learn more about you. (Information from Google Books, Google Wallet and Google Chrome will not be integrated, partly for legal reasons.)

What kind of information are they collecting and integrating?:

Almost anything that’s already in the Google ecosystem: calendar appointments, location data, search preferences, contacts, personal habits based on Gmail chatter, device information and search queries, to name a few.

Can they do that?: Not under the company’s current privacy policies, but Google is introducing a new, unified policy that you can’t opt-out of.

Why is Google doing this?: Google says it will be able to do a lot more “cool things” when it combines information across products. There’s “so much more that Google can do to help you” if you share your information with them.

Give me an example.: From Whitten’s blog post: Google will be able to “provide reminders that you’re going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what traffic is like that day.”

Interesting. Tell me more: Also from Whitten: Google will be able to “ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends’ names, are accurate because you’ve typed them before.”

When do the changes take effect?: March 1.

Can I opt-out?: No.

So what do I do if I don’t like the policy?: You can close your account. Google has provided information on how to take all of your personal information off of Google by closing your Google Account, which would erase your Gmail, Google+ and other accounts.

But I have a lot of data saved on Gmail/Picasa/etc...: Google says it is committed to “data liberation” and that it will allow you to take your information elsewhere if you want to. The company said it would provide directions on how to do this in the help sections for its various services.

I don’t have a Google Account, but use Google search. Am I affected?: No. The new policy only applies to people who have a Google Account linked to services such as Gmail, Picasa or YouTube and are signed in.

What if I have account but am not signed in?: Google can only integrate your information if you are signed in. For example, if you’re signed in to your Gmail account on one tab, and then decide to look up a clip on YouTube on another tab without signing out of your e-mail, the data will be integrated. If you sign out or look up a YouTube clip on a different browser, the data won’t be integrated.

I have an Android phone. How does this affect me?: Because you have to sign in to your Google account to do anything except for browse the Web and make phone calls, Google will be able to track practically anything you do on your phone.

What about if I have an iPhone/Blackberry/Windows 8 phone?: Google’s new privacy policy doesn’t get into the specifics of what it can collect on different platforms and whether this changes if you download a Google app or if you access Gmail, for instance, on your phone’s browser or competitor’s app. But it does say that if you sign into Google services, Google will be able to collect information about your device and usage.

Can you be more specific about the type of information Google will be able to collect on mobile devices?

The privacy policy allows the company to collect a great deal of data: Your device hardware model, operating system version, unique device identifiers and mobile network information. Google says it may associate your device identifiers or phone number with your Google Account. Details of how you use the service, such as search queries. Telephony log information like time and date of calls, duration of calls. IP addresses. Cookies that may “uniquely identify your browser or your Google Account.”

What do privacy advocates have to say about the new policy?: Check back in with us a little later and we’ll let you know. 

Google X: Secret CIA-like lab of the future?

Πηγή: RT
Nov 15 2011

The search giant’s vision of the future is being put to the test in a top-secret lab somewhere in the US Bay Area. The facility is giving shareholders the jitters by drawing resources into far out projects, which could pay out tenfold in the future.

Little is known about the clandestine Google X lab, reports The New York Times. It has a list of 100 far-shot projects, with a dozen experts discussing their potential. The majority are far from ready for the public to see, although at least one is to be revealed by the year’s end, the newspaper says.

Among the dream ideas are driverless cars, which the company first tested on public roads last year. The project dates back to a 2005 competition and could integrate well with Google’s ad program for local businesses: passengers would be shown info on shops, restaurants and other places to hang out, as the artificial intelligence driver carries them on their way.

Another mind-boggling scheme involves connecting home appliances to the internet and integrating them into a user-controlled network. This “Web of things”, as Google calls it, would allow refrigerators to order fresh supplies of groceries all by themselves as they run low on stock, and kitchen plates to Tweet what was on the menu for dinner.

Google X’s robotic department is home to world-leading experts on robotronics and artificial intelligence gurus like Sebastian Thrun. The company eyes the machines as personal assistants taking on routine office jobs or as a replacement for humans – remember Surrogate, the movie starring Bruce Willis?

The lab also aims for the stars with a space elevator project. A great engineering challenge, which requires materials yet to be discovered, the space lift would radically cut the cost of taking cargo into orbit and open up the skies to private investors. The idea is a long-time dream of Google founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Their enthusiasm may not find understanding with all shareholders, who would rather see Google’s revenues spent on more down-to-earth things. Proponents however argue only a fraction of the company’s hefty resources are spent on Google X.

“There are a few small, speculative projects happening at any one time, but we are very careful stewards of shareholders’ money,” Page told analysts. “We are not betting the farm on these.”

But for X fans, who knows? The truth could be out there.

Facebook, Google oppose US online piracy bills

Πηγή: Hindu Business Line
Nov 16 2011

Internet heavyweights Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo! have joined ranks to oppose legislation in the US Congress intended to crack down on online piracy.

In a joint letter, the firms yesterday said they “support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign ‘rogue’ Web sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting.”

“Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding US Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of websites,” they said in the letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees.

“We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our nation’s cyber-security,” the Internet giants said.

The separate bills introduced in the House and the Senate would give the US authorities more tools to crack down on “rogue” Web sites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

The Stop Online Piracy Act has received some bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is the House version of a bill introduced in the Senate in May known as the Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or Protect IP Act.

The legislation has received the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups.

In addition to Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo!, the other companies signing the letter were AOL, eBay, LinkedIn, Mozilla and Zynga.

Wiretapped Democracy

During the recent turmoil of the Arab Spring West countries heavily criticized the authoritarian regimes of the African continent for the repression of human rights underlying their support to the freedom of assembly and expression, which apply also on the Internet. Meanwhile in USA prepared a bill titled "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" with witch Internet becomes a National Asset, a government agency management is created while  the US President is granted with powers to seize control of and even shut down the Internet with devastating results on the rest of the world. On top of this the UK Prime Minister Cameron coping with the recent London riots suggested that maybe the rioters should be banned from using social media. But how looks in fact the situation on freedom and privacy in the so called developed countries? Lets have a look.


Strange deaths

It seems that the economic crises in Europe is not the only reason for people to commit suicide. People that involve into wiretapping cases have a similar trend. Adamo Bove - head of security at Telecom Italia, the country's largest telecommunications firm - back in 2006 who at the direction of Milan prosecutors, he'd used mobile phone records to trace how a "Special Removal Unit" composed of CIA and SISMI (the Italian CIA) agents abducted Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, and flew him to Cairo where he was tortured and the year before of his counterpart Costas Tsalikidis, a software engineer for Vodaphone in Greece that had just discovered a highly sophisticated bug embedded in the company's mobile network, both found dead allegedly committing suicide. The bug was used to transmit the eavesdropping on the prime minister's (backing the Plan Pythia I) and other top officials' cell phone calls, including civil rights activists, the head of Greece's "Stop the War" coalition, journalists and Arab businessmen based in Athens, all in real time via four antennae located near the U.S. embassy in Athens, according to an 11-month Greek government investigation.

One similar case comes from the Wall Street. Mr. Karpel a trader that had agreed in 2008 to cooperate with federal authorities, and for about a year he taped conversations with fellow traders. Two days after federal prosecutors played for a jury a secretly recorded telephone conversation in a Manhattan courtroom, Karpel, one of those traders, hanged himself in his Fifth Avenue office although was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Recently, Mr. Sean Hoare so allegedly did commit suicide, being the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff concerning the News International phone hacking scandal. Well, before someone complains that these specific cases are rather outsiders as not connected to the public privacy - which is not correct - some recent facts point to the opposite direction.

Surveillance and Interceptions for everyone

For three years in thirty countries, Google's Street View cars collected data, including the content of personal emails, from wireless routers located in private homes and businesses. Several countries, including the U.K., Germany, Spain, and Canada, have conducted similar investigations and determined that Google violated their privacy laws.
While on July the Facebook's executive Randi Zuckerberg declared that "anonymity on the Internet has to go away" echoing the voice of a former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who previously called for "true transparency and no anonymity" on the Web, the death certificate of the whistleblowers is signed as they lose one of their most essential tools. Anonymity's real value is rooted in helping the powerless to challenge the powerful as the case of WikiLeaks exemplifies. In Congress last month, when a House committee moved forward a proposal forcing Internet service providers to keep logs of all online activity by their users. Clearly, if it ultimately becomes law, this legislation would undermine not just anonymity in public spaces, but privacy in general. Should it succeed, we may achieve transparency, but at far too high a cost.

Talking about privacy and Internet security here is a fictional scene "directed" by an expert of the field:

"An American executive is in France for a series of trade negotiations. After a day of meetings, she logs in to her corporate webmail account using her company - provided laptop and the hotel wireless network. Relying on the training she received from her company's IT department, she makes certain to look for the SSL encryption lock icon in her web browser, and only after determining that the connection is secure does she enter her login credentials and then begin to upload materials to be shared with her colleagues. However, unknown to the executive, the French government has engaged in a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack, and is able to covertly intercept the executive's SSL encrypted connections. Agents from the state security apparatus leak details of her communications to the French company with whom she is negotiating, who use the information to gain an upper hand in the negotiations. While this scenario is fictitious, the vulnerability is not".

Beyond these in US there is an elation of Industrial Espionage and Electronic Surveillance as the State Department estimates that there are over 700,000 eavesdropping devices sold each year reporting that over 6,500 incidents of industrial espionage occur in the United States each year with an average economic impact of $1.25 million.

The present step against privacy in the web has the name of mandatory Internet surveillance - or mandatory data retention - a bill that will force ISPs to surrender personal details about customers to law enforcement without a warrant. This bill is at the center of controversy already in Canada backed by the conservatives as the government has been trying to modernize its surveillance and wiretapping laws for years now, to take into account the growth of cellphone and Internet communications. These requirements compel ISPs and telcos to create large databases of information about who communicates with whom via Internet or phone, the duration of the exchange, and the users’ location. These regime require that your IP address be collected and retained for every step you make online. Privacy risks increase as these databases become vulnerable to theft and accidental disclosure. Meanwhile, service providers have to dealt with the expense of storing and maintaining these large databases.

Mandatory Data Retention

The EU Data Retention Directive, adopted by the European Union in 2006 (for the background facts click here), is the most prominent example of a mandatory data retention framework (for a detailed analysis click here). The highly controversial Directive compels all ISPs and telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to retain a subscriber's incoming and outgoing phone numbers, IP addresses, location data, and other key telecom and Internet traffic data for a period of 6 months to 2 years, for all European citizens, including those not suspected or convicted of any crime. The Directive has been opposed by lawmakers in the European Parliament who argue that it fosters a surveillance society and undermines fundamental rights. The European Data Protection Supervisor named the Directive as "the most privacy invasive instrument ever adopted by the EU in terms of scale and the number of people it affects."

Despite that the the Bundestag's legal experts of the Working Group on Data Retention on April published an opinion stating that "it is impossible to rephrase the Directive in such a way that it would ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights", a number of countries have already transposed the Directive into national legislation including Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein(see page 127), Malta (see also), the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, and the United Kingdom along with some non European Union countries such as Serbia and Iceland.
Other countries fight against it like Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece (I sense that the pending change of Constitution will bear surprises), and Romania.

The Dutch Senate on April approved a long-anticipated shortening of mandatory retention periods for internet data to six months, it published its correspondence with the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice on the Data Retention Directive evaluation by the European Commission. The Senate criticized the report for "too easily sidestepping" several Constitutional Court cases across the European Union, in which implementation laws were ruled unconstitutional or the principle of blanket data retention itself was deemed in breach of the ECHR.

It is worth noting that on May the European Commission rushed into an agreement with US concerning the exchange of PNR (Passenger Name Record) data on individuals and circulated the final agreement prior to formally submitting to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament for their agreement. The European Commission's Legal Service coming later advised that the PNR is "not compatible with fundamental rights".

In USA according to the newly released 2010 Wiretap Report, federal and state courts approved that wiretaps reached a new all - time high. increased by a 34%. It must be noted that in the data are not included interceptions regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or interceptions approved by the President outside the exclusive authority of the federal wiretap law and the FISA).

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, on July the House passed a bill that contains a mandatory data retention provision that would require your Internet service providers to retain 12 months' worth of personal information - while the National Sheriffs Association strongly supported the bill asking for a 18 months period - that could be used to identify what web sites you visit and what content you post online. The bill was re-written to also include the enforced retention of customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers and bank account numbers. This came as a result of the calls of the DOJ back in January when Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said that data retention was crucial to fighting Internet crimes, especially online child pornography. In response to questions, he added  that up to two years of data retention "would be a useful starting point," which echoes what FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2008.

The internet and telecom providers can handle the additional open-ended costs of mandatory data retention, since those costs will be transferred to the consumers. It will be the same as a new hidden tax. Smaller businesses, and start-ups may not be able to bear the added costs, thus reducing innovation, and killing competition with the big internet companies. Many organizations are actively opposing the bill claiming that it will devastate human society and U.S. Society as whole. By the same time the chief lawyer of the National Security Agency testifying to a Senate hearing stated that he believes the agency has the authority to track Americans via cell phones.

With the fiscal deficit plague infecting the whole West it is very possible that social unrest is on the top list of future events. In this upcoming time of crises the West governments will be called to prove that they are not authoritarian powers, that they listen and serve the population's demands and finally that they are credible and accountable entities enhancing the democratic liberties at the expense of their own political careers. Don't hold your breath...