Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Social Media Surveillance
The attacks in Paris and Beirut have all of us looking for answers. What can we do to stop this violence?
But while people around the world are grappling with that question, government officials are instead seizing the opportunity to renew their attacks on our most basic freedoms, even though they know it won’t make us safer from attacks.
Specifically, officials in the U.S. and Europe are pushing to ban strong encryption technology. (2) They want every type of Internet security to have a “backdoor” so that governments can access literally everything. Here’s the problem: weakening encryption will actually make us all less safe. Even if you trust governments to never abuse this system and only use it in the most extreme circumstances, once a backdoor exists, it can be used by anyone who can find it, including criminals, other governments, and yes, even terrorists. (3)
Fortunately, we’ve done a mountain of work over the last year educating the public and fighting this kind of misinformation, so more people than ever before know what’s really going on. Security experts agree that putting backdoors in encryption technology and letting the government collect even more of our personal information won’t prevent attacks like the ones we saw last week.
The battle lines are being drawn, but some powerful voices have been listening and are weighing in on the side of freedom and logic. The influential New York Times editorial board just came out swinging with the headline: “Mass surveillance is not the answer to fighting terrorism.” This is exactly the message leaders need to hear right now.
The details from Paris and Beirut are still emerging. The latest evidence suggests that the attackers were using totally unencrypted SMS messages. (4) The facts haven’t stopped politicians and pundits from demonizing encryption, but the reality is that it’s still not clear exactly how this happened, or how it could have been prevented.
What is clear is that now is not the time to make hasty decisions and rush to pass laws we’ve barely read. That path has failed us time and again. (5) Now is the time for informed, thoughtful, discussion about the causes of this violence and the real solutions to address it.
Weakening the encryption that protects our hospitals, power plants, airports, and personal information isn’t going to make us safer.
Collecting a giant haystack of data about hundreds of millions of innocent people is not going to stop the next attack.
We need real answers and solutions, not politicians scrambling spin this terrible situation to grab more power.
These decisions about encryption and mass surveillance will determine the type of world our children and our children’s children will live in. We shouldn’t let them be made for us by opportunistic politicians or violent attackers.
Yours for freedom and a better world,
~ Fight for the Future
~ Fight for the Future
P.S. Here’s a link directly to the New York Times editorial. Please share it widely! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
P.P.S. This is probably the only time you’ll see us rallying behind an NYT editorial. Savor the strangeness.
1. New York Times editorial board. “Mass Surveillance is Not The Answer to Fighting Terrorism” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
2. Huffington Post. “It’s Unclear if Paris Attackers Relied on Encryption. Lawmakers are Attacking it Anyway.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
3. The Guardian. “Academics criticize NSA and GCHQ for weakening online encryption.” http://www.theguardian.com/
4. Techdirt. “After endless demonization of encryption, police find Paris attackers coordinated via unencrypted SMS” https://www.techdirt.com/
5. The Intercept. “From Paris to Boston, Terrorists Were Already Known to Authorities.” https://theintercept.com/2015/
Sunday, November 24, 2013
privacy laws
— Nov. 18, 2013 6:53 PM EST
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google is paying $17 million to 37 states and the District of Columbia to make amends for the Internet search leader's snooping on millions of people using Safari Web browsers in 2011 and 2012.
The settlement announced Monday stems from a technological loophole that enabled Google's DoubleClick advertising network to shadow unwitting Safari users, even though the browser's maker, Apple Inc., prohibited the tracking without obtaining a person's permission. By following what Safari users were doing online, DoubleClick could gain more insights about what types of ads were most likely to appeal to different Safari users.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
David Petraeus
The email accounts of Generals David Petraeus and John Allen aren’t the only ones being targeted by the feds. Google has released its bi-annual transparency report and says that the government's demands for personal data is at an all-time high.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Google patents
By Andrew Longstreth
NEW YORK | Sun Jan 6, 2013 12:29pm EST
(Reuters) - While the focus of last week's agreement between the Federal Trade Commission and Google Inc was search, the deal's restrictions on how Google uses its patents could have a broader impact on the technology industry.
Under the deal, which ended an antitrust investigation by the FTC and disappointed many critics, Google will make only minor changes to its search business.
But Google is also now limited in when it can seek injunctions against products from rival companies that use certain of its patents.
Throughout recent smartphone wars and other major patent litigation, holders of so-called standard essential patents have been accused of using them to bully competitors into paying high licensing rates or as leverage in patent disputes.
The FTC's deal with Google clarifies the uncertainty over how standard essential patents can be used, said Colleen Chien, a professor specializing in patent law at Santa Clara University School of Law in California.
The deal set out a process by which technology makers can avoid injunctions and patent holders know they are going to get compensated, Chien said. "The FTC has deflated the power of the injunction and also the incentives to not pay that have existed."
In its case against Google, the FTC claimed that Google and its subsidiary Motorola Mobility Inc had breached commitments to standard-setting bodies to license its patents on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. As part of the deal, Google agreed to drop claims for injunctive relief against competitors in certain patent disputes around the world. It also agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitrator when disputes over payment rates arise.
Throughout the FTC's investigation, Google was represented by Susan Creighton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and John Harkrider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider. The FTC retained Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
'TEMPLATE'
The FTC said Thursday that the threat of injunction by a holder of an essential patent hurts competition. The agreement with Google could be used as a "template" for other patent disputes, it said.
Unlike a court decision, the FTC's agreement with Google is not binding on other companies. But it could give leverage to defendants in disputes with essential patent holders that could be used in court.
"We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive," said Matthew Woods, an antitrust and patent attorney at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. "Defendants will seize on this and tell courts that injunctions are something the court should not even countenance."
But the agreement with Google may not be all good news for patent users, according to Jay Jurata, an antitrust partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who said that it could have unintended consequences.
The elaborate agreement allows Google to seek injunctions against companies that are unwilling to pay for a license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. But the question of when a company is considered an unwilling licensee is one that the FTC may have unwittingly allowed holders of essential patents to manipulate, said Jurata.
"They provided a road map for other standard essential patent holders to engage in opportunistic behavior to paint otherwise willing licensees as unwilling licensees," he said.
Miller of Robins Kaplan also cautioned that the FTC's deal with Google may be unique because of the company's giant size and dominance, which can attract the attention of regulators.
"There are a lot litigants who aren't going to see this agreement as restraining them, because they don't have the same portfolio as Google," Miller said.
(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eddie Evans and Maureen Bavdek)
NEW YORK | Sun Jan 6, 2013 12:29pm EST
(Reuters) - While the focus of last week's agreement between the Federal Trade Commission and Google Inc was search, the deal's restrictions on how Google uses its patents could have a broader impact on the technology industry.
Under the deal, which ended an antitrust investigation by the FTC and disappointed many critics, Google will make only minor changes to its search business.
But Google is also now limited in when it can seek injunctions against products from rival companies that use certain of its patents.
Throughout recent smartphone wars and other major patent litigation, holders of so-called standard essential patents have been accused of using them to bully competitors into paying high licensing rates or as leverage in patent disputes.
The FTC's deal with Google clarifies the uncertainty over how standard essential patents can be used, said Colleen Chien, a professor specializing in patent law at Santa Clara University School of Law in California.
The deal set out a process by which technology makers can avoid injunctions and patent holders know they are going to get compensated, Chien said. "The FTC has deflated the power of the injunction and also the incentives to not pay that have existed."
In its case against Google, the FTC claimed that Google and its subsidiary Motorola Mobility Inc had breached commitments to standard-setting bodies to license its patents on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. As part of the deal, Google agreed to drop claims for injunctive relief against competitors in certain patent disputes around the world. It also agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitrator when disputes over payment rates arise.
Throughout the FTC's investigation, Google was represented by Susan Creighton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and John Harkrider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider. The FTC retained Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
'TEMPLATE'
The FTC said Thursday that the threat of injunction by a holder of an essential patent hurts competition. The agreement with Google could be used as a "template" for other patent disputes, it said.
Unlike a court decision, the FTC's agreement with Google is not binding on other companies. But it could give leverage to defendants in disputes with essential patent holders that could be used in court.
"We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive," said Matthew Woods, an antitrust and patent attorney at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. "Defendants will seize on this and tell courts that injunctions are something the court should not even countenance."
But the agreement with Google may not be all good news for patent users, according to Jay Jurata, an antitrust partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who said that it could have unintended consequences.
The elaborate agreement allows Google to seek injunctions against companies that are unwilling to pay for a license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. But the question of when a company is considered an unwilling licensee is one that the FTC may have unwittingly allowed holders of essential patents to manipulate, said Jurata.
"They provided a road map for other standard essential patent holders to engage in opportunistic behavior to paint otherwise willing licensees as unwilling licensees," he said.
Miller of Robins Kaplan also cautioned that the FTC's deal with Google may be unique because of the company's giant size and dominance, which can attract the attention of regulators.
"There are a lot litigants who aren't going to see this agreement as restraining them, because they don't have the same portfolio as Google," Miller said.
(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eddie Evans and Maureen Bavdek)
Monday, December 31, 2012
historic unemployment
As of November, 2012, 4,707,000 Americans have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and 21 % of all U.S. children live in poverty.
The greatest calamity of the Wall Street crash is that four years later there still are over 20 million Americans without the full-time jobs they need. And 4.7 million of them have been out of work for over a half year, the most since the Great Depression. Little wonder that 21 percent of all children live in families who earn wages that total less than $23,350, the official poverty line.
How can this be happening in the richest country on Earth? The United States have the worst income and wealth distributions in the world. No wonder our political leaders bail out Wall Street instead of putting our people back to work.
Make Wall Street pay for the damage it has done. A small financial transaction on their enormous casinos would finance the jobs and education programs we truly need.
The greatest calamity of the Wall Street crash is that four years later there still are over 20 million Americans without the full-time jobs they need. And 4.7 million of them have been out of work for over a half year, the most since the Great Depression. Little wonder that 21 percent of all children live in families who earn wages that total less than $23,350, the official poverty line.
How can this be happening in the richest country on Earth? The United States have the worst income and wealth distributions in the world. No wonder our political leaders bail out Wall Street instead of putting our people back to work.
Make Wall Street pay for the damage it has done. A small financial transaction on their enormous casinos would finance the jobs and education programs we truly need.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Big Bro TV
Reuters / Steve Marcus
Think Google ad targeting is crossing the line? Verizon filed a patent for a cable television box that uses sensors to record what you’re doing and target you with specific advertisements that relate to your mood.
Think Google ad targeting is crossing the line? Verizon filed a patent for a cable television box that uses sensors to record what you’re doing and target you with specific advertisements that relate to your mood.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
an alarming trend
Google Bombarded with Requests to Suppress Information
“Google has received more than 1,000 requests from authorities to take down content from its search results or YouTube video in the last six months of 2011, the company said on Monday, denouncing what it said was an alarming trend. In its twice-yearly Transparency Report, the world’s largest web search engine said the requests were aimed at having some 12,000 items overall removed, about a quarter more than during the first half of last year.” (Reuters)(bbc) Google has revealed it removed about 640 videos from YouTube that allegedly promoted terrorism over the second half of 2011 after complaints from the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers.
The news was contained in its latest Transparency Report which discloses requests by international authorities to remove or hand over material.
The firm said it terminated five accounts linked to the suspect videos.
However, the firm said it had rejected many other state's requests for action.
Canada's Passport Office was among the organizations rebuffed. It had asked for a video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and then flushing it down the toilet be removed.
Google also refused to delete six YouTube videos that satirized Pakistan's army and senior politicians. The order had come from the government of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology.
Free speech
But Google did act in hundreds of cases, including:
- requests to block more than 100 YouTube videos in Thailand that allegedly insulted its monarchy - a crime in the country
- the removal of a YouTube video that contained hate speech that had been posted in Turkey
- the termination of four YouTube accounts responsible for videos that allegedly contained threatening and harassing content after complaints by different US law enforcement agencies.
Overall, the firm said it had received 461 court orders covering a total of 6,989 items between July and December 2011. It said it had complied with 68% of the orders.
It added that it had received a further 546 informal requests covering 4,925 items, of which it had agreed to 43% of the cases.
Google's senior policy analyst, Dorothy Chou, said the company was concerned by the amount of requests that had been linked to political speech.
"It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect - Western democracies not typically associated with censorship," she said.
"For example, in the second half of last year, Spanish regulators asked us to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and articles in newspapers referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public prosecutors.
"In Poland, we received a request from the Agency for Enterprise Development to remove links to a site that criticized it.
"We didn't comply with either of these requests."
Alibaba
(Reuters) - Alibaba Group has hired a Washington lobbying firm in a sign that the Chinese e-commerce company would be willing to make a bid for all of Yahoo Inc in the event that talks to unwind their Asian partnership fail.
Japan's Softbank Corp, which owns a 30 percent stake in Alibaba and is a partner in Yahoo Japan, is also listed as an Alibaba affiliate in the disclosure by the lobbying firm, Duberstein Group Inc.
Alibaba Group's founder, Jack Ma, said in September he was keen to buy all of Yahoo if the opportunity presented itself.
Hiring a Washington lobbying firm could help Alibaba address any U.S. political opposition to a complete takeover of Yahoo by a company from a country that controls and censors the Internet.
Chinese companies, such as telecoms giant Huawei Technologies Co, have run into opposition when they have tried to buy U.S. assets over the years.
"The national security concern is sometimes just an excuse for commercial concerns for any country, but certainly for the United States," said Mark Natkin, managing director of Beijing-based consultancy Marbridge Consulting. "I don't think there should be a big concern (for Alibaba buying Yahoo). Users may share or keep as much data as they like.
"If they subscribe to Yahoo and (they know) Yahoo is owned by a Chinese company, they are going to have to make the decision themselves," Natkin added.
Alibaba, Softbank and Yahoo have been looking to unwind their complex web of relationships. Alibaba retained Duberstein in the fall when it was discussing a proposal with private equity firms to carve up Yahoo, a source familiar with the situation said.
While they would jointly make a bid for the whole company, the idea was for the buyout firms to take over Yahoo's U.S. operations and for Alibaba and Softbank to get the Asian assets.
But a buyout of Yahoo has now been put on the backburner as the U.S. Internet company is considering a proposal to address just the Asian assets that Alibaba and Softbank want. That plan, valued at roughly $17 billion, would reduce Yahoo's 40 percent stake in Alibaba and get Yahoo out of Yahoo Japan, sources told Reuters last week.
Yahoo is exploring proposals to revamp its business in the face of competition from Internet heavyweights such as Google Inc and Facebook.
Investors have long said Yahoo's investment in Alibaba, along with its 35 percent slice of Yahoo Japan, are far and away the U.S. company's most prized assets. Yahoo has a market value of around $20 billion.
Earlier in December, Thomson Reuters publication Basis Point reported that a handful of lenders are considering committing to a $4 billion loan for Alibaba that will help it buy back part of the 40 percent stake that Yahoo owns in the company.
LOBBYING FIRM
The filing marks the first time Alibaba has registered to lobby the U.S. government, according to a search of congressional records.
The Duberstein Group is headed by Kenneth Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff under U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Its other clients include BP America Inc, Goldman Sachs & Co and Pfizer Inc.
The lobbying registration lists the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, which specializes in mergers and acquisitions, as an intermediary between Alibaba and the company's lobbying team.
The registration was received by a U.S. Senate office on Dec 23 and then posted online, but the lobbying work likely began earlier.
Under U.S. law, a lobbying firm is required to file a public disclosure within 45 days of crossing certain thresholds such as making contact with a public official. The filing for Alibaba says it is effective as of December 1.
Messages left with the Duberstein Group and Wachtell were not immediately returned on Wednesday.
(Reporting by David Ingram in Washington and Paritosh Bansal in New York, and Melanie Lee in Shanghai; Editing by Richard Chang, Steve Orlofsky and Matt Driskill)
Japan's Softbank Corp, which owns a 30 percent stake in Alibaba and is a partner in Yahoo Japan, is also listed as an Alibaba affiliate in the disclosure by the lobbying firm, Duberstein Group Inc.
Alibaba Group's founder, Jack Ma, said in September he was keen to buy all of Yahoo if the opportunity presented itself.
Hiring a Washington lobbying firm could help Alibaba address any U.S. political opposition to a complete takeover of Yahoo by a company from a country that controls and censors the Internet.
Chinese companies, such as telecoms giant Huawei Technologies Co, have run into opposition when they have tried to buy U.S. assets over the years.
"The national security concern is sometimes just an excuse for commercial concerns for any country, but certainly for the United States," said Mark Natkin, managing director of Beijing-based consultancy Marbridge Consulting. "I don't think there should be a big concern (for Alibaba buying Yahoo). Users may share or keep as much data as they like.
"If they subscribe to Yahoo and (they know) Yahoo is owned by a Chinese company, they are going to have to make the decision themselves," Natkin added.
Alibaba, Softbank and Yahoo have been looking to unwind their complex web of relationships. Alibaba retained Duberstein in the fall when it was discussing a proposal with private equity firms to carve up Yahoo, a source familiar with the situation said.
While they would jointly make a bid for the whole company, the idea was for the buyout firms to take over Yahoo's U.S. operations and for Alibaba and Softbank to get the Asian assets.
But a buyout of Yahoo has now been put on the backburner as the U.S. Internet company is considering a proposal to address just the Asian assets that Alibaba and Softbank want. That plan, valued at roughly $17 billion, would reduce Yahoo's 40 percent stake in Alibaba and get Yahoo out of Yahoo Japan, sources told Reuters last week.
Yahoo is exploring proposals to revamp its business in the face of competition from Internet heavyweights such as Google Inc and Facebook.
Investors have long said Yahoo's investment in Alibaba, along with its 35 percent slice of Yahoo Japan, are far and away the U.S. company's most prized assets. Yahoo has a market value of around $20 billion.
Earlier in December, Thomson Reuters publication Basis Point reported that a handful of lenders are considering committing to a $4 billion loan for Alibaba that will help it buy back part of the 40 percent stake that Yahoo owns in the company.
LOBBYING FIRM
The filing marks the first time Alibaba has registered to lobby the U.S. government, according to a search of congressional records.
The Duberstein Group is headed by Kenneth Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff under U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Its other clients include BP America Inc, Goldman Sachs & Co and Pfizer Inc.
The lobbying registration lists the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, which specializes in mergers and acquisitions, as an intermediary between Alibaba and the company's lobbying team.
The registration was received by a U.S. Senate office on Dec 23 and then posted online, but the lobbying work likely began earlier.
Under U.S. law, a lobbying firm is required to file a public disclosure within 45 days of crossing certain thresholds such as making contact with a public official. The filing for Alibaba says it is effective as of December 1.
Messages left with the Duberstein Group and Wachtell were not immediately returned on Wednesday.
(Reporting by David Ingram in Washington and Paritosh Bansal in New York, and Melanie Lee in Shanghai; Editing by Richard Chang, Steve Orlofsky and Matt Driskill)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)