I wanted to update readers on the micro-scandal surrounding the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s “Issues & Publications” database. As I noted on Monday, Google’s search engine automatically flagged that database as the victim of a malware attack: some unknown third party (probably as part of a large-scale attack on SQL databases that did not target us in particular) had taken advantage of a vulnerability in the PFF database to insert malcious scripts capable of infecting users’ computers. Google immediately and automatically flagged that database (and the PDF files within it) as potentially dangerous and shared that information through its Safe Browsing API with the StopBadware.org project, a “neighborhood watch” group that flags potentially dangerous sites.
I attempted to correct the impression of some readers that Google was deliberately censoring the PFF site because of our disagreements on the sensitive issue of net neutrality. Matt Cutts, a Google engineer, has explained this far better than I ever could.
I’m pleased to inform readers that Stopbadware.org removed our database from their blacklist yesterday: Continue reading →
Faithful readers will recall that, several months ago, I penned a 7-part “Media Metrics” series that took a hard look at the health of the media marketplace. Today, the Progress & Freedom Foundation is releasing a greatly expanded version of these essays that I have put together with my PFF colleague Grant Eskelsen. In this 100-page special report, “Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace,” we begin by noting that heated debates about the state of the media marketplace continue to rage in Washington, and opinions seem to range from grim to outright apocalyptic. As we note on pg. 1:
Many people—including a large number of legislators and regulators—argue that America’s media marketplace is in a miserable state. Some claim that citizens lack choice in media outlets and that options are just as scarce as ever. Others believe that media “localism” is dead or that many groups or niches go underserved because of a lack of true “diversity” in media. Others argue that the market is hopelessly over-concentrated in the hands of a few evil media barons who are hell-bent on force-feeding us corporate propaganda. And still others say that the quality of news and entertainment in our society has deteriorated because of a combination of all of the above. It all sounds quite troubling, but is any of it true?
After taking an objective look at the true state of America’s media marketplace, we conclude that such pessimism is unwarranted. Indeed, a careful review of the facts reveals that—contrary to what those media critics suggest—we have more media choice, more media competition, and more media diversity than ever before. Indeed, to the extent there was ever a “golden age” of media in America, we are living in it today. The media sky has never been brighter and it is getting brighter with each passing year.
Continue reading →
Declan has got it exactly right here in commenting about the antitrust circus taking place between Google and Microsoft right now as the rhetorical war between them heats up and the feds—both in Congress and at the DOJ—get more and more involved in monitoring this market:
The underlying problem is that antitrust law is so malleable that it can be bent into virtually any shape that its practitioners desire. Given nearly any set of hard-nose business practices, some economist can be hired to claim that “predatory” prices are illegally low (hurting competitors) or illegally high (hurting consumers). No wonder Lester Thurow, the former dean of MIT’s business school, concluded that “the time has come to recognize that the antitrust approach has been a failure. The costs it imposes far exceed any benefits it brings.” And no wonder that some state attorneys general are now sniffing around to see if there’s a way for them to join the antitrust hunt.
And things are only going to get worse–far, far worse–in coming months.
TLF readers may have heard that Google was craftily censoring my free-market colleagues at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Our good friend and invaluable TLF commenter Richard Bennett blogged over the weekend about how Google seemed to block access to our site when he tried to search for “net neutrality.”
This is one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen. Google is blocking net neutrality documents from the PFF’s web site, but documents in the same format that deal with other subjects are not flagged “dangerous.”
This is really outrageous, and a clear example of the problem with a monopoly gatekeeper.
This story made the rounds this morning and much of the DC Internet policy community was atwitter with allegations of censorship by Google. But as I explain in the comment I tried (unsuccessfully) to post on Richard’s blog, this is all an innocent and unfortunate misunderstanding: Continue reading →
Google has found itself stuck between a rock and a hard place in its legal battle with Viacom over the question of whether IP addresses constitute “personally identifiable information,” as
Jim pointed out yesterday
. It’s worth noting, however, that EU regulators have left Google little choice but to stake out uncharted territory in order to defend its data collection practices.
Under the European Union’s
strict privacy directive
, websites are prohibited from retaining “personal data” for more than six months. What exactly constitutes personal data is up for debate. Google, which retains IP addresses for
18 months
, has taken the position that
IP addresses don’t constitute personal data
and therefore are not subject to EU data retention limits.
That argument has placed Google in a double-bind in its legal proceedings with Viacom. In his recent ruling, Judge Stanton
specifically referenced
Google’s recent blog post which argued that IP addresses should not be considered personally identifiable information. If IP addresses aren’t private, Stanton reasoned, then what’s the harm in Google handing them over to Viacom?
Whether an IP address can identify an individual is a matter of context. Google stated recently, “Based on our own analysis, we believe that whether or not an IP address is personal data depends on how the data is being used.” That makes sense; an IP address alone is generally
not enough information
to identify an individual, absent a court order.
Yet while IP addresses are not capable of overtly identifying individuals in the same way as phone numbers and addresses, IP addresses combined with other details often make it possible to positively identify individuals with a high degree of accuracy. Anybody can run a
reverse DNS lookup
on an IP address, which usually reveals the city and state in which the user of that IP address is located, along with the service provider. The YouTube logs that Google has been ordered to produce include not just IP addresses but also usernames and specific viewing times, so it’s all but guaranteed that quite a few individuals could be
personally identified given enough man-hours of data mining
.
Continue reading →
In case you’ve been in a pre-holiday daze this week, the blogosphere has been atwitter (not to mention a-twittering) with the news that the Hon. Louis L. Stanton, the Federal district judge presiding over Viacom’s massive copyright infringement suit against YouTube has ordered Google, which owns YouTube, to turn over its viewership records (12 terabytes). Most notably, TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington has called Judge Stanton a “moron” for failing to appreciate that “handing over user names and a list of videos they’ve watched to a highly litigious copyright holder is extremely likely to result in lawsuits against those users that have watched copyrighted content on YouTube.” Whatever one thinks of the Viacom v. YouTube/Google case, Arrington’s concern is misplaced (if not hysterical) and his logic betrays his ignorance of how litigation actually works. Continue reading →
Google has begun including the “load time factor” into the quality score for ads on its AdWords program. This means that “Keywords with landing pages that load slowly may get lower Quality Scores (and thus higher minimum bids). Conversely, keywords with landing pages that load very quickly may get higher Quality Scores and lower minimum bids.”
Google provides two reasons for the change: “First, users have the best experience when they don’t have to wait a long time for landing pages to load. Interstitial pages, multiple redirects, excessively slow servers, and other things that can increase load times only keep users from getting what they want: information about your business. Second, users are more likely to abandon landing pages that load slowly, which can hurt your conversion rate [and thus lower profits for both the advertiser].”
One could easily imagine that some might complain that Google is “discriminating” against slower-to-load pages, and even hypothesize that this would introduce a systemic bias towards sites that can afford faster server throughput. True, this change makes the AdWords system non-“neutral” in ways that will benefit some advertisers over others.
But so what? Google is simply engaging in smart management of their network: Giving priority to ads that load faster introduces a strong incentive for all advertisers to speed up their pages in any manner possible. This small change in pricing structure could have broader effects on the efficiency of Internet browsing for all users–at least in terms of building home pages that load faster–particularly if other advertising platforms follow suit. Continue reading →
The Register reports that Google is developing yet another suite of free tools for broadband users–this time aimed at allowing users to monitor traffic-management/shaping conducted by their ISP.
“We’re trying to develop tools, software tools…that allow people to detect what’s happening with their broadband connections, so they can let [ISPs] know that they’re not happy with what they’re getting – that they think certain services are being tampered with,” Google senior policy director Richard Whitt said this morning during a panel discussion at Santa Clara University, an hour south of San Francisco.
The article provides a short-but-interesting history of how Google’s views on Net Neutrality have evolved in recent years and about the debate inside the company as to whether to governmental prohibition of traffic management/prioritization by enshrining some conception of Net Neutrality in law. Today, of course, the company has become perhaps the most outspoken corporate defender of Net Neutrality principles. Google senior policy director Richard Whitt shows no sign of rethinking Google’s commitment to those principles, but suggests that the monitoring tools being developed by Google might fundamentally change the calculus of the debate:
“The forces aligned against us are real. They’ve been there for decades. Their pockets are deep. Their connections are strong with those in Washington,” he said. “Maybe we can turn this into an arms race on the application software side rather a political game.”
As Verizon’s Link Hoewing observes, these tools promise to increase dramatically the transparency of network management practices. This increased transparency will provide a clearer picture of what ISPs are actually doing, something that is largely a subject of speculation today, while helping to remove the current uncertainty that fuels sometimes wild speculation about the “death of the Internet” and other calamities in a world without Net Neutrality. Psychologically, transparency may thus remove much of the need for perceived need for Net Neutrality mandates.
But, of course, as defenders of traffic prioritization argue, there
will be instances where ISPs “deviate from Net Neutrality principles” by prioritizing certain traffic to enable advanced voice and video services over more intelligent networks. (Read, for example, George Ou’s post taking issue with aspects of The Register‘s story.) Of course, some will surely point to such instances as further evidence of the perceived “need” for regulation, but the fact that these practices will be rmore readily apparent to more users than ever before will in fact provide three powerful alternative mechanisms for disciplining ISP traffic management.
Continue reading →
As Jim has mentioned, Google stands accused of violating a California law that requires a website operator to “conspicuously post” a link to its privacy policy on its “home page or first significant page after entering the Web site” with the word “Privacy” in a larger font than the rest of the page’s text.
Are we not fortunate to have state laws that make it possible for customers to actually find website privacy policies? With all the billions of documents floating out there in the dark and mysterious pipes and tubes of the so-called “Internet,” how on earth would any simple user ever find the Google privacy policy if Google were not required by law to include an obvious link to that policy on its homepage? Some modern-day da Vinci would have to invent a technology that could magically index every single webpage in existence and let users find—or “search,” to use a classic science-fiction term—for that particular webpage by typing the words “Google privacy policy” and clicking a button.
Until such fantastic Jules Verne-style technologies are developed in some distant century, it is obviouslyvital that each and every state government develop its own requirement as to how website operators—especially those that purport to offer fantastic-but-as-yet-clearly-impossible “search” services—must clutter their websites’ homepages with links to information that no user could ever possibly find on his or her own with today’s crude technology.
Of course, even if such “search engines” (to coin an unlikely phrase) actually existed, the burden on consumers of typing seventeen (17!) letters—plus two (2) spaces and perhaps even two (2) more quotation marks for a total of up to twenty-one (21!) agonizing-to-type characters—would have to be reduced dramatically through some additional innovation or Esperanto-like simplification of the English language before we could reasonably expect that average consumers might be able to find privacy policies on their own without the benefit of California’s enlightened net-paternalism. Continue reading →
[Note: You might want to first read my review of Jonathan Zittrain’s book to give this essay some context.]
Jonathan Zittrain must have been smiling as he read Leander Kahney’s excellent Wired cover story this month, “How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong.” In a sense, the article vindicates Zittrain’s thesis in The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It.
Again, in his provocative book, Zittrain argues that, for a variety of reasons, the glorious days of the generative, open Internet and general-purpose PCs are supposedly giving way to closed networks and a world of what he contemptuously calls “sterile, tethered devices.” And Apple products such as the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes serve as prime examples of the troubling world that await us. And Kahney’s article confirms that Apple is every bit as closed and insular as Zittrain suggests. Kahney nicely contrasts Apple with Google, a company that “embraces openness,” trusts “the wisdom of crowds,” and has its famous “Don’t be evil” philosophy:
It’s ironic, then, that one of the Valley’s most successful companies ignored all of these tenets. Google and Apple may have a friendly relationship — Google CEO Eric Schmidt sits on Apple’s board, after all — but by Google’s definition, Apple is irredeemably evil, behaving more like an old-fashioned industrial titan than a different-thinking business of the future. Apple operates with a level of secrecy that makes Thomas Pynchon look like Paris Hilton. It locks consumers into a proprietary ecosystem. And as for treating employees like gods? Yeah, Apple doesn’t do that either.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.