Tag Archives: Google

gMissile

Not content with launching their own browser in the war with MS, Google has gone nuclear with their own medium range ballistic missile, as seen here:

Image: the Boeing Company/Geoeye

Actually it’s really a Boeing Delta II. But what’s really interesting is that the Google has an exclusive deal for high resolution imaging from the new satellite (from ARS Technica):

Nowhere in Geoeye’s press material for the satellite, however, is there any mention of Google. Apart from the evidence provided by the Google logo on the side of the launch vehicle, the rest of the information on the project floating around the web comes from Reuters, which notes that the two Google founders were present to watch the launch. Apparently, the search giant has forged an agreement that will allow them, and only them, to use the images obtained from the satellite for online mapping purposes. For anything else, anyone with the money can buy the pics.

That point’s worth emphasizing, because a number of reports have gotten a bit hyperbolic about Google’s role. One report suggested that the search giant had “launched its own imaging satellite.” Others played it as completely under control of Google and the military. (Rest assured that the military will be calling the shots on all major decisions involving this satellite.)

It’s not at all clear what the imaging hardware’s extra resolution gets Google, other than sharper pictures and the possibility of filling a few specialized, niche needs. A half-meter resolution isn’t really sufficient to substitute for the street view cameras, but perhaps the company’s founders are simply satisfied by the fact that they have them, and Yahoo and Microsoft don’t.

Escrowed Privacy

With all the news about a moronic judge ordering Google to violate the privacy of millions, I think there is the need for a new term for Google’s privacy practices:

Escrowed Privacy

So rather than protecting the privacy of your video viewing habits, Google will escrow it for some period of time.  

Viacom or the NSA

Instapundit has this observation concerning the recent Viacom vs Google lawsuit and what it means  for personal privacy:

WHILE FEDERAL COURTS ARE SCRUTINIZING SURVEILLANCE OF ISLAMIC CHARITIES by the U.S. government, they’re also opening the door to massive domestic surveillance by corporations:

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The ruling comes as part of Google’s legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a “set-back to privacy rights”.

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

Who do you trust less? Viacom, or the NSA?

One of these is not like the others

If I was to spend some time searching the web on this memorial day I could use Ask.com:

 

Or perhaps Dogpile:

 

Or old reliable Yahoo:

 

On the other hand if I wanted a big old slap in the face I could try Google:

 

 Yes, Google’s bi-annual snub of the veterans and their families continues (hat tip to Instapundit).  It’s a free country, and Google has the right to insult the memory of the service men and women that have paid the ultimate price for the freedom that Google now enjoys.

And I am free to not use their services. It’s a freedom I exercise often.

What’s in a name?

Ben Laurie has some interesting thoughts here on the debate around Phorm. Ben points out some incosistencies in the story that is being pushed by Phorm and BT:

They say this, but we have to take their word for it. Obviously the fact it sits inside BT’s network is no barrier to them connecting to it. Clearly they could just look at the traffic traversing the system and know exactly what cookie 1000062 is doing. And which IP address is doing it, which doesn’t tell you who is doing it, but certainly narrows it down. Analysis of the data will almost certainly allow identification of the individual concerned, of course.

Not, of course, that taking people’s word for their privacy practices is unacceptable – it is pretty much unavoidable. What I object to is Phorm’s attempts to convince us that it is impossible for them to misbehave. Of course, it is not.

It’s not that I’m not a trusting person… no, wait, that’s exactly it.

BTW, isn’t ironic how close Phorm is to Pharm? I don’t think I would have chosen that as the name for a company with such privacy issues.

It’s all about control

There is this article on Identity 2.0 adoption. From the article:

Analyst group Kuppinger Cole and Partner analysed the 10 predominant topics and trends in identity management in 2008.

Identity 2.0 continues to receive the support and influence of industry giants, including Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and IBM.

I would point out that of this group only Yahoo actually supports OpenID on a web site, and then only as a provider. So far I am unaware of any major web destination that is supporting OpenID as relying party. The major players are all vying to control the user identity by making their web site the starting page for the OpenID sessions.

 

That’s not what I would consider Identity 2.0 adoption.

I guess Google doesn’t consider censorship evil

Here is an interesting story about a small news service that has been de-listed from Google News, apparently for being too critical of the UN. From the article:

Since 2005, he’s been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stories online almost daily.

He’s been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.

Many of Lee’s stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.

But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.

“I think they said, ‘If we can’t get this guy out of the U.N., let’s disappear him from the Internet,’” Lee said.

Absolute market share corrupts absolutely.

A caution to this tail

The OpenID folks are abuzz about Google, IBM, Microsoft, VeriSign, and Yahoo! joining the OpenID Foundation. You can read about here, here, and here. For OpenID this is indeed a great step forward.

I am going to add a note of caution, however.  Talk is cheap. Joining the OpenID Foundation means very little by itself.  It’s what these companies do next that is important. For instance will Google enable users to authenticate to Gmail from another OpenID identity provider? Will Yahoo! or Microsoft? Or will these companies only support being an identity provider.

I expect the later, although I would love to be proven wrong. Right now there are many OpenID providers and a dearth of important relying parties and that is preventing OpenID from being really useful.

Granted Privacy vs Real Privacy

When I think about privacy I like to think of it in two terms. Granted privacy and real privacy. Granted privacy is when your neighbor agrees not to look into your window. Real privacy is when you buy curtains. That’s a good way of looking at this excellent post by Vikram Kumar about the privacy of Amazon purchases. Amazon, like most large retailers, will do their best to protect their customers privacy. But this is granted privacy and there are numerous situations (some outlined in this article) in which that grant will be revoked. All the big vendors do business word-wide in many countries with different and often conflicting privacy laws. Past experiences has taught us that some vendors will cough up their customers private information merely for the privilege of business in China.

In a nut-shell, Amazon will grant you privacy so long as it doesn’t conflict with the laws or dictates of a country that they want to do business with. If you want real privacy you have to drive to the bookstore and pay cash.

On a similar subject there is this interesting article about privacy concerns on Google’s upcoming Gdrive service. Unless Google incorporates some pretty strong encryption (with user managed keys), anything you store on it will have only granted privacy. Of course in the US the government can always search your computer disk drive if the get a search warrant. The big difference is that a search warrant is harder to get than a subpoena, it usually requires a criminal investigation, and you would typically know about it.

(Mirrored from TalkBMC)

Google Relents

After years of conspicuously ignoring Veterans Day and Memorial Day, Google relented and offered up tasteful search page logo on Sunday honoring veterans. This was a very smart, if over due, move. The previous refusal to honor Veterans Day and Memorial Day was perceived as a slap in the face by many of their customers. It was silly, petty, and totally avoidable. Google just learned a lesson they should not have had to have been taught: The customer is always right.

Kudos to Google for finally doing the right thing. Hopefully they won’t drop the ball on Memorial Day.

(Mirrored from TalkBMC)

Some poppies would be nice.