September 2008

Why Google won’t do evil

by on September 12, 2008 · 16 comments

In response to Adam and Berin’s excellent introduction to their Googlephobia series, invaluable TLF commenter Richard Bennett succinctly sums up the rap on Google.

There’s no denying that Google has the capacity to do some pretty heinous things with all the sensitive data stored on its servers. But the relevant question isn’t whether Google could do evil, but whether it realistically will. What incentive is there for Google to do anything but keep private data as secure as humanly possible? Sure, Google could earn a nice chunk of change if it were to sell user search queries to the highest bidder. But why would Google put its entire business on the line for a comparatively insignificant short-term gain?

A major privacy breach is Google’s nightmare scenario. If anything happened to cause users to lose trust in Google, they’d go someplace else for email and search. Advertisers would follow suit, causing Google’s stock price to plummet. Google might never be able to recover from a severe privacy fiasco. Obviously, Google is well aware of its vulnerabilities on privacy, which is why Google has incredibly strong safeguards to ensure that sensitive data can’t be uncovered by a rogue product manager with an itchy trigger finger.

Then there’s the liability issue. The multi-billion dollar lawsuits that would ensue were Google to suffer a data breach or an internal leak would deal a serious financial blow to the company, especially because Google’s privacy policy is more than just a comforting statement—it’s legally binding.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 16 comments

U.N. Attacks Internet Anonymity – VeriSign Lending a Hand?

by on September 12, 2008 · 8 comments

Declan McCullagh has done some great reporting this morning on an ITU plan to trace the source of all Internet communications. Meaning: no more anonymous speech online.

The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the “IP Traceback” drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public.

Read the whole thing.

It’s particularly interesting to note the role of VeriSign in developing this surveillance capability for the ‘net. McCullagh quotes Tony Rutkowski of VeriSign stepping up to defend the plan. Rutkowski published a summary of the plan in May.

Great reporting by McCullagh. Not a great thing for VeriSign to be doing.

SHARE: 8 comments

Googlephobia: Part 5 – Google at Ten & Its Competition

by on September 11, 2008 · 0 comments

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

As we noted in our intro to this ongoing series, Google’s tenth anniversary has passed with Googlephobia reaching new heights of hysteria.

But is Google really too big and dangerous, or are people just too lazy to find other alternatives to each of the wonderful services that Google offers?  If one is truly paranoid about the firm’s supposed dominance, it doesn’t take much effort to live a Google-free life. To prove it, we set out to find alternatives to each of the services that Google provides.  After awhile, we got a little tired of compiling alternatives in each category and just provided links for the additional choices at your disposal.  It’s tough to see what the fuss is about with the cornucopia of choices at our disposal.  If you don’t like Google, then just don’t use it or any of its services.  The choice is yours.

In each case, we’ve listed Google first, even though Google may not be the market leader (e.g., Google’s relatively unknown social network Orkut).

Search Engines

Continue reading →

SHARE: 0 comments

Googlephobia: The Series

by on September 11, 2008 · 9 comments

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer as part of an ongoing series

With Google celebrating its 10th anniversary this week, many panicky pundits are using the occasion to claim that Google has become the Great “Satan” of the Internet.  Nick Carr wonders what the future holds for “The OmniGoogle.” The normally level-headed Mike Malone worries that Google is “turning into Big Brother.”  And Washington Post’s Rob Dubbin says that he can’t escape Google’s “tentacles,” even for just 24 hours.  Meanwhile, speculation abounds that the Justice Department is preparing a major antitrust lawsuit against Google concerning its advertising partnership with Yahoo! or perhaps even a broader suit concerning Google’s “dominance” of online advertising generally.

Carr quotes Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s now-famous 2003 interview:

I think people tend to exaggerate Google’s significance in both directions.  Some say Google is God.  Others say Google is Satan.  But if they think Google is too powerful, remember that with search engines, unlike other companies, all it takes is a single click to go to another search engine. People come to Google because they choose to.  We don’t trick them.

In the last five years, Google has become far more than just a search engine.  As Google’s suite of suite of complementary products continues to grow, so too does the specter of Google as an all-knowing and therefore all-powerful economic colossus.  Yet Google isn’t even close to being the sort of nefarious monopolist out to destroy user privacy at every turn, as some seem to imply—if not exclaim.  Indeed, in our view, the Net is overall a far better place because of the existence of Google and the many free services it provides consumers.

Our point is not that Google should be immune from criticism.  Indeed, healthy criticism of corporate actions plays a vital role in the free market by disciplining corporate policies and behavior—often thus providing an effective alternative to government regulation.  This is particularly important in the area of consumer privacy protection, as demonstrated by Google’s quick response to public concern about its Chrome EULA. Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

DoJ Trustbusters to Attack Google?

by on September 11, 2008 · 9 comments

C|Net’s Charles Cooper reports today that Department of Justice trustbusters are considering a comprehensive antitrust attack on Google.

Sources who have provided testimony to the government say a departmental debate revolves around whether antitrust regulators should challenge Google’s proposed revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo, or go for the whole enchilada–and haul Google into court on broader charges related to its dominance in search advertising.

C|Net’s Declan McCullagh speculated earlier this week about how Google would fare under an Obama administration:

[Obama’s] technology campaign platform pledges to “reinvigorate antitrust enforcement” and “step up review of merger activity.” He complained to the American Antitrust Institute that “the current administration has what may be the weakest record of antitrust enforcement of any administration in the last half century.” If the Bush administration’s current antitrust probe of Google, coupled with this week’s apparent threat of a federal lawsuit, amounts to a “weak” record, imagine what antitrust true believers in an Obama administration might do. (A three-way split of Google into search, applications, and display ads, anyone?)

I’m not sure whether structural separation is on Google’s near-term horizon, but Washington, D.C.’s parasite economy will make its move.

SHARE: 9 comments

Google Suggest = Keystroke Logger

by on September 11, 2008 · 128 comments

The provocative title hides some pretty good news, actually.

I had been thinking about how the “suggested searches” in the Google homepage and the Google search box in Firefox must rely on sharing your keystrokes with Google as you type them.

This is a privacy concern. Say you typed “I have herpes” in the search box but then thought better of submitting it. Google Suggest would already have sent your keystrokes along, even before you hit “I’m Feeling Lucky!” (Might have reconsidered that “lucky” feeling back in college when you – well, water under the bridge I guess . . .)

I’m pleased to see that Google recognizes this problem and is taking some steps to minimize the privacy consequences of this feature. They will anonymize the 2% of usage data they collect about this service.

Now, keep in mind that Google has been squirrely in the past about what it means to anonymize information. You can disable Google Suggest in “Preferences” by selecting the ‘Do not provide query suggestions in the search box’ checkbox.

The overall lesson is that you shouldn’t type anything on a Web form that you don’t plan on sharing. The curtain hiding your thoughts is pulled back before you click “Submit.”

SHARE: 128 comments

Forget Duopoly – Fear the Quadropoly!

by on September 10, 2008 · 6 comments

Scott Cleland has an unusually even-keeled post today (Where are the bullets and bolding, Scott?!) about how Google undermines its own policy arguments on net neutrality regulation by promoting more sources of broadband – in this case, satellite.

What has always mattered, of course, is getting more broadband platforms up and running. The debate over net neutrality regulation is a sideshow, and probably a detriment to communications progress as it casts a cloud of regulatory uncertainty over the industry. Higher costs, slower rollouts, and lower profits from uncertain regulations probably chills investment in any potential new broadband platform.

But I’m here to tell you, Scott, that even if Google helps put a couple more broadband platforms in place, the goalposts will move.

Today, I came across a letter sent by Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) asking the four major wireless providers why the price of text messaging has gone up. He says that the price has gone from 10 cents per message sent or received in 2005 to 20 cents on all four carriers.
Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Tim Wu on Obama, McCain, and “a Chicken in Every Pot”

by on September 10, 2008 · 10 comments

Writing at Slate, Tim Wu tries to make Obama out to be the real Big Government candidate on media policy, who will deliver “if not a chicken in every pot, a fiber-optic cable in every home.” By contrast, Wu implies that McCain is just another pro-big business lackey who doesn’t understand “that the media and information industries are special—that like the transportation, energy, or financial industries, they are deeply entwined with the public interest.” Wu goes on to say:

Ultimately, most of the difference in Obama’s and McCain’s media policies boils down to questions about whether the media is special and a dispute over how much to trust the private sector. Camp McCain would tend to leave the private sector alone, with faith that it will deliver to most Americans what they want and deserve. The Obama camp would probably administer a more frequent kick in the pants, in the belief that good behavior just isn’t always natural.

First, as a factual matter, Wu is just wrong about McCain being some sort of a radical hands-off, pro-market liberalizer on media policy issues. Oh, if only that were true! But for those of us who have been in DC covering telecom and media policy for many years, it is widely understood there is no nailing down John McCain on any tech, telecom or media policy issue. He’s been all over the board. While he has sponsored or supported some deregulatory initiatives on the telecom front in the past, he’s also been a supporter of other regulatory causes. His battles with broadcasters and cable, for example, are well-known. Most recently, McCain has been leading the effort to impose a la carte mandates on cable and satellite operators.
Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

Consensus FCC Reforms for the Next President

by on September 10, 2008 · 3 comments

I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in the planning and organization of several conferences this fall, including one exciting event, entitled “Consensus FCC Reforms and the Communications Agenda,” which I have organized in my capacity as Assistant Director of the Information Economy Project at George Mason University. Consensus FCC Reforms

You can read more details about the event at the Information Economy Project web site, but the basic gist is that, in spite of controversies swirling over issues such as Network Neutrality, media ownership and universal service, some policy observers believe that a range of reforms may attract bi-partisan consensus.  These opportunities may be more likely to be realized if identified prior to the November 2008 election.

We’ve been fortunate enough to have a stellar cast of participants, including two former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission – William Kennard, who served under President Clinton, and Michael Powell, who served under President George W. Bush. Theyll be speaking about substantive issues for consensus, and their discussion will be moderated by Amy Schatz, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

But we’ll also be talking about procedural issues — questions of agency structure, rules, and the day-by-day practices and operations to do much to impact the telecom polity. That panel, which features chief staffers for almost all of the recent FCC chairmen, will be moderated by me.

Here’s the full program:.

8:30 a.m.         Welcome by Thomas W. Hazlett, Professor of Law and Economics, GMU

Panel I:           Improving Procedures at the Federal Communications Commission
8:40 a.m.
Peter Pitsch, chief of staff to Dennis Patrick, FCC Chairman, 1987-1989
Robert Pepper*, former chief, Office of Plans and Policy, FCC, 1989-2005
Ken Robinson, senior legal advisor to Al Sikes, FCC Chairman, 1989-1993
Blair Levin, chief of staff to Reed Hundt, FCC Chairman, 1993-1997
Kathy Brown, chief of staff to William Kennard, FCC Chairman, 1998-2001

Moderator: Drew Clark, Assistant Director, Information Economy Project

Panel II:          A Cross-Partisan Agenda for Telecommunications Policy Reforms
9:45 a.m.
William Kennard, Chairman, FCC, 1997-2001
Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC, 2001-2005

Moderator: Amy Schatz, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

When: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 8:30 a.m. – 11 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC

Admission is free, but seating is limited. See IEP Web page: http://iep.gmu.edu.
To reserve your spot, please email Drew Clark: iep.gmu@gmail.com.

About the Information Economy Project:
The Information Economy Project at George Mason University sits at the intersection of academic research and public policy, producing peer-reviewed scholarly research, as well as hosting conferences and lectures with prominent thinkers in the Information Economy. The project brings the discipline of law and economics to telecommunications  policy. More information about the project is available at http://iep.gmu.edu.

SHARE: 3 comments

The Candidates’ Actual Legislative Priorities

by on September 10, 2008 · 2 comments

Over on the WashingtonWatch.com blog, I’ve recently concluded a review of each of the presidential candidates’ actual legislative work during the current Congress. It’s a window onto their priorities that has the advantage of being actual data, not just what they say about themselves.

Here are the posts for Senator Obama and Senator McCain, And here’s the one for Senator Biden.

SHARE: 2 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →