Group items tagged

It's often the security issue that dogs Google, Microsoft and other purveyors of personal health records (PHR): How will so much personal medical data be kept safe? A tangential question for Google, however -- one that has dogged the search giant since its Google Health offering was first made available in May 2008 -- is whether Google's search-based advertising platform creates a conflict with storing personal health data. Speaking at the Mastermind Session at Everything Channel's Healthcare Summit in San Diego in November,Google Vice President of Research and Special Initiatives Alfred Spector told health care CIOs, solution providers and other attendees that Google intended Google Health as an extension of the Google brand, and it was and would continue to be entirely separate from Google's main advertising platform. Watchdog organizations have taken Google to task over that claim, however, with one, Consumer Watchdog, even accusing Google of trying to lobby Congress to allow it to sell medical records by loosening regulatory language in the stimulus bill. "The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse," wrote Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog in a Jan. 27 open letter to Congress. "Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure's final passage, rather than allowing corporate interests to take advantage of the larger bill's urgency." Flanagan in the letter states that, "Google is said to be lobbying hard ... to weaken the ban currently in the draft measure on the sale of our private medical records." While Consumer Watchdog did not cite specific evidence of Google pushing for softer restrictions, Google responded to the group's claims on its Public Policy Blog last week. "The claim -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- is 100 percent false and unfounded," wrote Pablo Chavez, Google's Senior Policy Counsel. "Google does not sell health

Concerned that Google knows too much about you? The company provides many ways to protect your privacy online -- you just need to find them. Here are six good ones. 1. Know your privacy rights: Use the Google Privacy Center. This site includes all of Google's privacy policies, as well as privacy best practices for each of its products and services. Although the "legalese" of privacy policies can be difficult to understand, Google's Privacy Channel offers a library of short YouTube videos with practical tips on protecting your data when using Google products and services. Try the "Google Search Privacy" and "Google Privacy Tips" series. 2. Protect your content on the services you use. Some content that Google stores for you, such as photos uploaded in Picasa Web Albums, are public by default. You can protect your privacy when you upload photos by choosing the appropriate checkbox. Choices include "unlisted" (accessible only if you have the Web link, and not indexed by Web search engines) or private (viewable only by named users who must sign in). Another example: You can take a Google Chat "off the record" if you don't want the instant messaging transcript stored. In contrast, Google Latitude, which tracks your whereabouts by way of GPS-enabled cell phones, does not share your location data by default. You must authorize others to see it. Latitude stores your last known location, but not your history. 3. Turn off the suggestion feature in the Chrome browser. By default, Chrome retains a history of Web sites you've visited -- and the full text of those pages -- so it can try to guess which Web address you want as you type in the "Omnibox." You can turn the feature off by going to "Under the Hood" under Options and unchecking the "Use a suggestion service" box. You can also select other privacy options, including surfing in Chrome's "incognito" mode. 4. Turn off Web History. You may have turned on the Web History option, also called Personalized Search, when yo

"If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker. But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data. "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities." There's also the possibility of subpoenas. And hacks. But if any of this bothers you, you should be ashamed of yourself. According to Eric Schmidt. Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google. But the larger point here is that Schmidt isn't even addressing the issue at hand. Per usual. When the privacy question appears, Google likes to talk about the people asking the questions. But the problem lies elsewhere: with the millions upon millions blissfully unaware of the questions. If you're concerned about your online privacy, you can always put the kibosh on Google's tracking cookies. You can avoid signing in to Google accounts. And, yes, you can avoid using Google for anything Eric Schmidt thinks you shouldn't be doing. But most web users don't even realize Google is hoarding their data. CNBC asks Schmidt: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" But he answers by scoffing at those who don't trust Google at all. Not that you'd expect anythin

An Italian judge on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to a case in which Google (GOOG) could be held responsible for content it hosts but does not produce. The case centers on a 2006 video of four Italian youths taunting a child with Down syndrome. In the video, one of the youths incorrectly claims to be part of a small Down syndrome advocacy group called Vivi Down. The video was uploaded to the Google Video site, where it stayed for two months. Prosecutors have filed charges against five Google executives, saying they were in violation of Italian privacy laws and of contributing to the defamation of Vivi Down. At the heart of the case are two main questions: Should sites such as Google Video be held responsible for the content they host? And should such non-brick-and-mortar New Economy companies be subject to the laws in countries where they are not based? "The outcome of this will be to determine how big companies like Google should be expected to act," said Raffaele Zallone, a former chief counsel for IBM's Italian offices and the attorney representing a woman seeking damages in a secondary case tacked onto the main charges. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Italy | Google Inc | International Bus. Machines | Milan | New Economy Zallone, along with Milan prosecutors, the city's ombudsman and an attorney for Vivi Down, the advocacy group, say Google should have become aware of the offending video sooner and removed it sooner. Guglielmo Pisapia, Google's lead attorney in the case, denies any wrongdoing and says Google could not have acted differently. "Google did not produce the video, and when they received an official complaint, they removed it within five hours," said Pisapia, a former member of the Italian parliament. "If the argument is that they should have evaluated the video before it was posted, then that is a dangerous precedent." Oliviero Rossi, an author and commentator on technology issues, says unusual cases that push the limits of the law as this one does are

A consumer group accused Google of seeking provisions in the economic stimulus package that would allow it to sell patient medical data to Google Health advertisers. Perhaps patients' biggest worry about electronic medical records is that their private health data will get into the wrong hands. To get a feel for some folks' anxiety, just take a look at this from a group called Patient Privacy Rights: "CHILLING NEWS ABOUT HEALTH PRIVACY: You Have None." (Or look at one of our many posts about health data breaches.) So it's probably not a surprise that Google, which last year launched Google Health, a personal online repository, was quick to refute a charge by a different consumer group, called Consumer Watchdog, of "a rumored [Google] lobbying effort aimed at allowing the sale of electronic medical records." The group further claimed that Google is "reportedly" pushing for items in the economic stimulus bill that would allow the company to "sell patient medical information" to advertisers. Google shot back, posting an item in its public policy blog calling the claims "100 percent false and unfounded." The company added: Google does not sell health data. In fact, one of our most steadfast privacy principles is that we don't sell our users' personal data, whether it's stored in Google Health, Gmail, or in any of our products. And from a policy perspective, we oppose the sale of medical information in the health care industry. Google's ear is likely fine tuned to this issue, considering some folks in the medical community have already pointed out the company is not a type required to follow a federal patient-privacy law called HIPAA.

First quarter federal reports show Google lobbied on the electronic medical records provisions of the federal economic stimulus act, contradicting the Internet giant's earlier claims that Consumer Watchdog's report of its effort was "100 percent false." Google's report shows a total expenditure of $880,000 on lobbying during the period including on "online health-related initiatives; issues relating to online personal health records, including in connection with H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Google also contracted with an outside firm, the Podesta Group, which independently reported lobbying for Google on "health information technology" and "online privacy." King and Spalding LLP also independently reported lobbying for Google on "online health-related initiatives, including health information technology provisions in H.R. 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." After the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog reported the "rumored" lobbying in January, Google contacted a charitable foundation about withdrawing Consumer Watchdog's funding. In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt released today, Consumer Watchdog said the company owes the group an apology. Read Consumer Watchdog's letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrSchmidt042209.pdf. "It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act... What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us," wrote Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog president and John M. Simpson, consumer advocate. "There is a simple way to resolve this," the letter said. "Publicly release all the substance of Google's lobbying efforts on H.R. 1. Google knows the drill: organize the information and make it universally accessible and useful."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center formally asked the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday to investigate the privacy and security safeguards of Gmail, Google Docs and other so-called cloud computing services offered by Google to consumers. The filing points to a security breach earlier this month that may have improperly exposed the files of Google Docs users to others. It asks the F.T.C. to look into the adequacy of privacy and security safeguards of Google's services and to require Google to be accountable for breaches. It also asks the agency to force Google to make its security policies more transparent and to disclose any breaches. It also asks the F.T.C. to enjoin Google from offering cloud computing services until it establishes verifiable safeguards. The full filing is available here. Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director, said he was concerned about all cloud computing services, which encourage users to store a growing number of documents on the servers of companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others. But he said that EPIC focused on Google because it is the primary provider of cloud computing services to consumers.

GoogleApps is an upgade to the Los Angeles computer systems security? Doesn't that explain a lot?! Google Inc. this week came swinging at critics who have cited privacy and security concerns in calling on the city of Los Angeles to rethink its plan to implement the Google Apps hosted e-mail and office applications. In an interview yesterday, Matt Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise, said the angst voiced by consumer groups and others about the Los Angeles project is overstated and based on incomplete information. In fact, he contended that transitioning the applications to Google will strengthen the security of the city's data and better maintain its privacy. "From what I know of the city's operation, this is a security upgrade," Glotzbach said. "Those who may be unfamiliar with cloud computing see this as a security risk simply because it is new and because it is something different," he said. Glotzbach said he believes that at least some of the concerns raised originated from Google's competitors. Meanwhile top managers at the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency (ITA), which oversees technology implementations in the city, yesterday said the city is still committed to implementing Google Apps. The agency insisted that provisions are in place for addressing the security and privacy issues raised by critics. A spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city council will sign off on the project only after it is assured that the privacy and security concerns have been properly addressed.

Google Inc. this week came swinging at critics who have cited privacy and security concerns in calling on the city of Los Angeles to rethink its plan to implement the Google Apps hosted e-mail and office applications. In an interview yesterday, Matt Glotzbach, director of product management for Google Enterprise, said the angst voiced by consumer groups and others about the Los Angeles project is overstated and based on incomplete information. In fact, he contended that transitioning the applications to Google will strengthen the security of the city's data and better maintain its privacy. "From what I know of the city's operation, this is a security upgrade," Glotzbach said. "Those who may be unfamiliar with cloud computing see this as a security risk simply because it is new and because it is something different," he said. Glotzbach said he believes that at least some of the concerns raised originated from Google's competitors. Meanwhile top managers at the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency (ITA), which oversees technology implementations in the city, yesterday said the city is still committed to implementing Google Apps. The agency insisted that provisions are in place for addressing the security and privacy issues raised by critics. A spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city council will sign off on the project only after it is assured that the privacy and security concerns have been properly addressed.

Google has released a more detailed privacy policy for its Google Books product, a move demanded in recent weeks by several critics of its settlement with publishers and authors. The company announced the new policy in a blog post late Thursday afternoon, saying it developed the policy following conversations with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Google had previously said it was unable to release a detailed policy because the Google Books product was incomplete due to the fact that the settlement allowing its Book Search project to display certain types of books has yet to be formally approved. However, criticism of Google's lack of detailed information on the subject appears to have forced its hand. "To provide all users with a clear understanding of our practices, and in response to helpful comments about needing to be clearer about the Books product from the FTC and others, we wanted to highlight key provisions of the main Google Privacy Policy in the context of the Google Books service, as well as to describe privacy practices specific to the Google Books service," wrote Jane Horvath, general privacy counsel for Google, in a blog post.

Consumer Watchdog has sent the U.S. Justice Department a Google document presenting the best corporate arguments for why Google should not be viewed as monopolistic, along with a duplicate of the presentation marked up with comments from an expert countering the claims. The nonprofit consumer group received both documents from an anonymous industry insider. In the presentation, Google seeks to deflate increasing criticism that it is too big and powerful by spin meant to minimize the notion its search and advertising businesses are virtual monopolies. Commentary surrounding the presentation in the second document delivered to Consumer Watchdog presents information countering Google's contentions in what is described as a "Charm Offensive." "As the Justice Department examines the Google book deal and other Google enterprises it deserves to see the play book Google has prepared to deflect scrutiny and insider commentary on how many Google myths lack a basis in reality," said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court. "Google's charm and spin should not be allowed to deter anti-trust regulators from seeing the real problems with Google's dominance and setting appropriate limits to protect users."

A couple in Pittsburgh whose lawsuit claimed that Street View on Google Maps is a reckless invasion of their privacy lost their case. Aaron and Christine Boring sued the Internet search giant last April, alleging that Google "significantly disregarded (their) privacy interests" when Street View cameras captured images of their house beyond signs marked "private road." The couple claimed in their five-count lawsuit that finding their home clearly visible on Google's Street View caused them "mental suffering" and diluted their home value. They sought more than $25,000 in damages and asked that the images of their home be taken off the site and destroyed. However, the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania wasn't impressed by the suit and dismissed it (PDF) Tuesday, saying the Borings "failed to state a claim under any count." Ironically, the Borings subjected themselves to even more public exposure by filing the lawsuit, which included their home address. In addition, the Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessments included a photo of the home on its Web site. The Borings are not alone in their ire toward the Google Maps feature. As reported earlier, residents in California's Humboldt County complained that the drivers who are hired to collect the images are disregarding private property signs and driving up private roads. In January, a private Minnesota community near St. Paul, unhappy that images of its streets and homes appeared on the site, demanded Google remove the images, which the company did. However, Google claims to be legally allowed to photograph on private roads, arguing that privacy no longer exists in this age of satellite and aerial imagery. "Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the Borings' complaint Not long after the feature launched in May 2007, privacy advocates criticized Google for displaying photographs that included people's faces and car license

With all the attention Google StreetView's clash with a baby deer evoked, it can be easy to overlook the tool's crime-fighting good side. Not too long ago, StreetView was instrumental in returning a kidnapped Massachusetts girl safely to her home, and just recently, it helped a Swiss police team detect a 1.2-acre marijuana field and nab the gang responsible. As with all things Google, you have to take the bad with the good. And the good can be pretty good, as reported in the Worcester Telegram. When 9-year-old Natalie Maltais was kidnapped by her grandmother and taken to a motel in rural Virginia, Athol police were able to track her down using her cellphone and Google StreetView. The cellphone's GPS data focused on a 300-foot area in Natural Bridge, Va. Using StreetView, the Worcester cops plugged in the coordinates of the area, navigated around a bit and saw a nearby motel that looked promising. When they sent Virginia police to the site, they found the grandmother along with the girl, and returned her safely to her legal guardians. A happy ending. Similarly, the AP yesterday reported that Swiss police used Google Earth to discover the pot field and make several arrests. While working the case, the police used Google Earth to zero in on a suspect's residence, only to stumble upon the field. Although it had been camouflaged by corn planted all along its perimeter, the weed field couldn't hide from Google's Earth's piercing satellite gaze. The find led to the arrest of 16 suspects who have allegedly sold up to 7 tons of hashish and marijuana, with an annual turnover of 3 million to 10 million francs (or $2.5 million to $8.64 million) per year. So yes, while Google can be insensitive at times, especially when it comes to images uploaded by StreetView, it's also a proven force for good in the world. In other words, a tool is only as good (or bad) as the person using it. Google doesn't kill Bambis, people do.

Do you know where your friends are? If not, Google wants to help you find them. Today, Google introduced Latitude, a new opt-in feature that lets smartphone and laptop users share their location with friends and allows those friends to share their locations in return. Although not pinpoint accurate, Latitude can display your general location based on information from GPS satellites and cell towers. Latitude works on both mobile devices and personal computers. What Latitude can do Once you and your friends have opted in to Latitude, you can see your friends' Google icon displayed on Google Maps. Clicking on their icon allows you to call, email or IM them, and you can even use the directions feature on Google Maps to help you get to their location. Google says Latitude works in 27 countries and with many mobile platforms including iGoogle with your computer. The list of compatible phones are: *Android-powered devices, such as the T-Mobile G1 *iPhone and iPod touch devices (coming soon) *most color BlackBerry devices *most Windows Mobile 5.0+ devices *most Symbian S60 devices (Nokia smartphones) *many Java-enabled (J2ME) mobile phones, such as Sony Ericsson devices (coming soon)

There are plenty of rumors out in the cyberworld about the future of Twitter, a popular social networking site, and whether the company will be acquired or partner with another company. Some believe one of the suitors is Google Inc. Rumor has it, the two companies are considering collaborating on a Google real time search engine. To make it work, Google could pay cash, stock or a combination of both. Google wouldn't comment on these rumors. Nevertheless, it's an intriguing idea for a company created three years ago that has, to date, not made any money. Analysts think this would be a good marriage, according to MarketWatch. Gartner Inc. analyst Jeff Mann, for one, told the website it's a pretty good idea. "The culture and ambitions of Twitter and Google match." Not only that, there are lots of indications of growth. Twitter's content is now growing by 6 million tweets per day, and that's a win-win situation for Google, for sure.

Why Google isn't ready to be an Enterprise vendor

At the Google (NSDQ: GOOG) I/O developer conference this week, Google Inc. will host more than 80 technical sessions on all of the Google apps and platforms we've come to know -- Android, Chrome, App Engine, Web Toolkit, AJAX and others. When reviewing the Google I/O Schedule this morning, I was disappointed by what could not be easily found. The conference will run this week, May 28 to 29, in San Francisco, and Google is expecting more than 2,000 attendees. Unfortunately, a long perusal of the schedule shows plenty of tracks with Search, Scale, and Performance in the title -- but only one track with Security. What about Privacy? Well, there's no tracks highlighting data privacy, either. There is a session that covers federated identity management, Practical Standards-based Security and Identity in the Enterprise. And it looks promising, but federated authentication and authorization is more about making sure applications and people can interact securely, not that an application, itself, is inherently secure.

"A simple search query has exposed Google Voice mail messages (audio and transcript) for anyone to see and hear. As first reported here, a user entering "site:https://www.google.com/voice/fm/*" into the Google search bar discovered random voice mail messages belonging to random Google Voice accounts (see screenshot below). Clicking on each revealed not only the audio file and transcript of the call, but it also listed the callers name and phone number as it would if you were checking your own Google Voice voice mail. I was able to replicate the issue and listen to several voice mail messages, including some legitimate ones with potentially sensitive information."

Customers of CVS' pharmacy will be able to import their prescription records into a Google Health account as a result of an expanded deal between the two companies. The deal was announced Monday. An earlier deal already allowed workers whose company uses CVS Caremark to handle drug benefits to use Google Health to store their drug records. The new deal expands this to customers of CVS' network of retail pharmacies. "We now offer all of our consumers the ability to download their prescription and medication history into their Google Health Personal Health Record, whether they are CVS/pharmacy customers, CVS Caremark plan participants or visitors to our MinuteClinic locations," said CVS Caremark Executive Vice President Helena Foulkes in a statement. "By enabling patients to download their prescription information directly into their personal health record, we are helping to close the gap in today's fragmented health care system and provide a full view of a patient's health." To use the tool, the companies said, consumers need to sign up for the prescription management feature on CVS.com as well as be authenticated. With the latest deal, Google said it now believes more than 100 million Americans will have the option of viewing their drug history within Google Health. Microsoft, which is also trying to sign consumers up for its HealthVault service, announced a deal with New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday which will allow patients of that hospital system to export their records to a HealthVault account.

Google will unveil new privacy measures today that will give consumers more control over behavioral targeting. Now, when Google serves banner ads on outside publishers' sites, the ads will include links that provide more information explaining why they were served. Clicking through will lead to details about the company's behavioral advertising program, which categorizes consumers as interested in particular types of goods or services based on the sites they visited. The program is only in beta for now, but once Google signs up publishers, consumers will be able to view the categories they have been placed in--such as "interested in travel"--and also tell Google to remove them from whatever buckets they wish. Consumers also will be able to opt out of the program permanently via a browser plug-in. Or, if people want to receive ads for certain types of products, they can edit their profiles to reflect that--in effect, opting in to particular types of ads. Google's new measures come at a time when online behavioral targeting is facing increased scrutiny. Last month, two Federal Trade Commissioners warned that the online advertising industry could face new laws if it didn't take steps to self-regulate on privacy issues. Recently, Google rival Yahoo announced enhancements to its privacy policies. Among other changes, Yahoo said it would allow consumers to opt out of behavioral targeting on its own site. Google's move drew praise from the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy. "It's really a consumer empowerment tool, which is great," he said. "It's one more example of how industry is competing on the privacy issue, to the benefit of consumers--and also to the benefit of businesses."

It's never been easier to get information on the run. Smart devices such as the G1 and Apple iPhone let you put the Internet in your pocket and go - down the block or across the country. But this convenience could cost plenty in lost privacy, consumer advocates and tech analysts say. Once data have been collected and warehoused, you lose control of it forever. "The Big Brother aspect of it is troubling," says Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., former chairman of the powerful House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Mobile consumers are especially vulnerable, Markey says. Unlike PCs, cellphones tend to be used by one person exclusively. The information they telegraph - on Web browsing, lifestyle and more - tends to be "highly personalized." That's the main reason mobile data are so prized: The information is incredibly accurate. It's also why Markey and other privacy advocates say the debate about online privacy will become even more intense as advertising migrates to the mobile Web. Mobile advertising is still relatively new - G1 users, for now, get ads only through search results, for instance - but it's clearly a hot spot. The market is expected to reach $2.2 billion by 2012, from about $800 million now, according to JupiterResearch. Ultimately, it could surpass the traditional Web, now a $20 billion ad market. Yahoo, Microsoft and other ad-supported search engines collect information as Google does. But the sheer size and scope of Google's data-mining operation - the Web giant performs more than 80% of all desktop searches worldwide - makes it a uniquely pervasive presence, says Chester. Google and Yahoo, the two biggest players in search advertising, say their self-imposed privacy policies are sufficient to protect consumers, noting that they do not collect or store information in a way that can be directly tracked to an individual. Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel for Google, says Google tries to make privacy language as

Google has moved forward the debate about privacy and Internet advertising, in its typical way, with deceptively simple engineering and a willingness to impose its way on others. On Wednesday, Google became the last of the big advertising companies to start keeping track of where Internet users surf online so ads can be shown to people based on what they might be interested in buying. In its approach to ad targeting, the company is responding to calls by the Federal Trade Commission and others to be more clear with users' information and control over the information it collects. It has created a window into part of its database, so users can see that Google has deduced that they are interested in "Anime & Manga" comics, or "Alternative-Punk-Metal" music or travel to Afghanistan. (Yes, those are on its list of 600 interest categories.) It also built technology to allow your browser to remember that you don't want Google (or its DoubleClick unit) to remember anything about you. It is more robust than the opt-out system used by many companies that rely on cookies in browsers. These are technical feats that other ad companies said would be too hard.