TPUTH — Socially Generated Newspaper for Geeks, Designers and Venture Capitalists
Socially Generated, Machine Filtered, Hand Polished, Electronic Newspaper for Geeks, Designers & Venture Capitalists
TPUTH lists as its captains of industry four stalwart icons of the modern era: Eric of Google, Bill of Microsoft, Steve of Apple and The Jesus of Lebowski. Niiice.
Pullin' the trigger till it goes *click*.
via Daring Fireball.
Behavioral Advertising Today, Privacy Issues Tomorrow?
"It appears incredibly benign," he said of the categorization that Google and Yahoo were doing. "It almost makes some people who worry about privacy look foolish, because it says, 'You like bicycles.'"
"What is not shown in this kind of thing, and possibly because Google doesn’t do this sort of thing — maybe because they don’t implement it yet — are the various kinds of psychographic, demographic activities that go on behind the screens."
Also interesting is the fact that both Yahoo and Google allow you to opt-out of categories that you've been sorted into via their ad algorithms (Not Slytherin. Not Slytherin. Not Slytherin).
I'd been to Google's new Dashboard before, but hadn't realized that, well, there's where you need to go to opt-out, if that's what you wish to do. To opt-out of Yahoo's categories, visit their Interest Manager (nice Orwellian ad-speak, no?).
via At F.T.C. Conference, Concerns About Advertising and Privacy - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com (via Prof. Tuthill).
Published In Today’s SF Chronicle
Privacy concern in Google Voice call recording
Monstrous privacy concerns loom: What information will Google collect from the calls it connects, and what will it do with that information? Google's privacy policy says it will store and maintain recorded conversations. Is it preserving the numbers called, the duration of the call and even the name and address of the person the Google Voice user called? When I call a person who uses Google Voice or he or she calls me, what control do I have over what information Google collects about me or about how Google will use that data? Apparently none.
Many thanks to Prof. Tuthill for the opportunity, collaboration and guidance. I'd never shopped an idea around to different publications -- the entire process was interesting.
Second Circuit Promotes Confusion Regarding Trademark
How much TM protection is too much?
When you use any "free" Google product (search, email, YouTube, etc.) Google displays some sponsored ads -- AdWords -- most notably on the right side of the screen. Other websites (most commonly blogs) also include these text-only ads on their websites.
AdWords is an incredibly successful program. Google's innovation has been to mine anonymous user data to narrowly target the ads, displaying only ads relevant to a user's search or the content of an email or blog post. Both Google and the site owner gain revenue from displaying the ads, the advertiser gains access to the narrow subset of consumers most likely interested in what the advertiser is promoting via the ad.
As an example if you email your friend about coaching little league baseball, and you happen to mention that you live in San Francisco, you'll likely see AdWord ads for the Giants, Major League Baseball, and maybe someone like Easton, a maker of baseball bats. Old news, right? This all makes sense. The baseball emailer isn't stuck skimming ads about perfume or a shoe sale at Neiman Marcus or low-cost flights to London -- those ads would feel irrelevant, and would be a waste of everyone's time and money.
More controversially, Google also made a practice of selling ad space based on the user's input of trademarked terms. So if I did a search for "SF Giants," the official trademark of a professional baseball team, an ad for the Giants' hated rival, the LA Dodgers, or for MLB fans against steroids might show up. Makes sense, right? Why always preach to the converted; sometimes it's most effective to spread a message to those who might be directly opposed.
More importantly, because Google was willing to sell the rights to any term to the highest bidder -- regardless of who owned the trademark -- to anyone who wanted to buy those rights, Google removed the need for them to make any decision about who should or should not be able to advertise to whom. As such, Google refrained from refusing to allow anyone to speak (so long as they were willing to pay for the ad). In so doing, they also refrained from infringing on any person's First Amendment right to speak and express themselves freely.
Problems arise because there is only a limited amount of real estate available for ads on any given web page. As such, company A's competitor, company B could, theoretically, buy up all access to A's available ad space in order to promote B's product. So while a search for A would show A's website as the first search result, all of the ad's next to that link would point to B's products... and there would be nothing that A could do to stop it.
When this started happening, a number of companies in A's situation felt that their opponents were playing dirty. Worse, they felt that Google, in selling their trademarked company or product name, was violating their right to control those words, which they owned. So, of course, they sued Google.
Trademark law, fundamentally, balances the need of a company to develop a brand and the need of consumers to know the source of a product (important when evaluating aspects such as quality or reliability) against constitutionally-protected free speech.
The first court to hear this challenge to Google's practice felt that Google was balancing free speech and trademark rights in an acceptable manner. The plaintiff appealed, and the Second Circuit this week overruled the lower court's decision. In seeking a middle-ground, however, the Second Circuit muddied the waters.
Today's ruling does not say that buying or selling a trademark as a search keyword necessarily infringes the trademark. The trademark owner still must prove that consumers are confused. The Second Circuit seemed to think that was shield enough for the likes of Google.
But this ignores the financial realities of litigation, and how those realities condition the business decisions of intermediaries. Google and advertisers who participate in the AdWords program have been targeted nationwide in a large number of lawsuits. The Second Circuit's ruling today makes it difficult for these defendants to get rid of these cases on purely legal grounds. Litigating a trademark case past this point, to summary judgement or trial, requires a substantial financial investment that most companies simply won’t want to make, even if they are confident they will win in the end. (Witness Blockshopper’s decision last month to settle with Jones Day after BlockShopper lost its motion to dismiss Jones Day’s trademark suit, even though the case was was widely ridiculed as preposterous.)
Best Of Internet April Fools 2009
Keep warm using intestines and The Force.
As has become tradition, Internet-based companies and web celebrities (webbrities?) answered Halloween's treat with April Fools tricks. Some favorites from 2009...
ISP Transparency Finally In The Works
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Thank You Google.
Says mashable:
Google today introduced Measurement Lab, a set of tools (some already working, some upcoming) for network diagnostics. . . . These tools include the Network Diagnostic Tool, which tests your connection speed and gives you a diagnosis on speed issues; Glasnost, which tests whether your ISP is blocking or throttling BitTorrent connections, and Network Path and Application Diagnosis, which helps you find problems that usually plague last-mile broadband networks.[W]hat’s important is the fact that Google is taking a stand, saying: we’re going to help you fight for net neutrality even if the ISPs don’t like it. . . . It wasn’t an easy decision to make, even for a giant like Google. If these tools were coming from another source, the ISPs would probably simply employ measures that render them useless. However, it’s much harder to block a service if Google stands behind it. On the other hand, even Google doesn’t want to anger every ISP that’s throttling network traffic in some way - and many of them are doing it. Net neutrality has just received a huge push; probably one that will ultimately turn the tide to its favor.
Happy Birthday Google!
The one website most responsible for the explosion of growth for the Internet over the last decade turns 9 today. They "do no evil", advocate for openness and transparency on the Internet, push for an interpretation of IP law that will allow for improved development and greater exploitation of future Internet tools and information aggregation, and continue to innovate, pushing their competitors to improve.
I remember the first time I used Google. I'd been a Yahoo! search user, but always felt that limited and frustrated when I attempted to search for something. At my dot-com job one day I became frustrated when unable to find an answer to a simple coding question. My co-worker, a skilled programmer by day and drummer by night, saw what I was doing and said "Worst!" - his catch phrase. "Man, why are you using Yahoo? Try Google. I just heard about it for a buddy, and I ain't goin' back."
I entered w-w-w-.-g-o-o-g-l-e-.-c-o-m into my fancy, new, IE-whoopin' Netscape browser. The logo, a search box, and a plain white background appeared on my screen. I typed in the same search I'd tried earlier. Google returned a plain, clean list of results. I clicked on the first one and had my answer. Game over.
Sure, people have concerns about the data they collect from users, but so long as they stick with their Mission, we'll all be alright. And Google will continue to improve. My birthday was yesterday. C's birthday is Sunday. Good to know that we're bookends to the endless repository of information named Google. Happy Birthday!
Fun facts about the U.S. Register of Copyrights
Marybeth Peters is our Register of Copyrights. She's served as an employee in the Office of Copyrights for over 40 years, and took over as Register in 1994.
One of her most important tasks is to head up reviews of copyright law to ensure that it continues to operate fairly in the face of ever-changing technology. She is also required by law to oversee periodic reviews of anti-circumvention rules, most notably the DMCA, to decide whether it's necessary to specify narrow exemptions.
Regarding the DMCA, Ms. Peters is not a fan of the Safe Harbor found in Section 512. This section requires that copyright holders (Viacom, for example) notify hosts of content on the Internet (YouTube, to name one) before the host must take down copyrighted content that has been posted by users. Only if the host fails to respond to these requests can the host be liable for participating in copyright infringement.
The Safe Harbor is a cornerstone of Google's argument in fighting high-profile copyright lawsuits, including one brought by Viacom, against its YouTube subsidiary.
While an expert in the arena of copyright law, Ms. Peters is a technology novice. She does not own a computer for personal use, and considers herself a Luddite.
Of the DMCA, she says:
Shouldn't you have to filter? Shouldn't you have to take reasonable steps to make sure illegal stuff that went up comes down? . . . I think there are some issues.