Group items tagged

Possible opt-out for web visitors. As the article suggests if this is possible, certainly presents a challenge for marketers, as well as the value of Google Analytics!

Possible opt-out for web visitors. As the article suggests if this is possible, certainly presents a challenge for marketers, as well as the value of Google Analytics!

Possible opt-out for web visitors. As the article suggests if this is possible, certainly presents a challenge for marketers, as well as the value of Google Analytics!

Google wants to install Google Fiber in some small US cities. These Googlevilles, although experimental and in a small scale, could foreshadow some potential repercussions of the digital divide. Would you like to live in Googleville?

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

Kind of a scary headline after today's class. Not quite what it sounds though. .. Or is it? Google owns or controls content. Now Google owns more content. If you look at Benkler's definition of layers (via Lessig), both the physical layer and the content layer have been subject to ownership and freedom exists/ed mainly on the layer of logic or code. Google is just a giant content aggregator.

"Google sees 'everything'"\nLooks at cloud computing, benefits, and risks to security. Interesting point around search practices with Google "..everybody is constantly asking Google about the things they're working on. In effect, we're putting a tremendous amount of faith in Larry and Sergey and their claim that they don't do evil".

The future of search is the recent I/v with Eric Schmidt, CEO of google, which outlines a bit more than the need to change your name to avoid bad teenage pix. Schmidt talks about Google being AI, the place where search has become syntax and google can tell you what you want to do next, not what you're looking for now.

google revealed information about government agencies' requests for removing searched contents from google, Australia is the ninth.

Google has released the extent to which intruders broke into their system in January. It targeted their password system which controls access to users worldwide. This brings up the debate about the security and privacy of systems like Google that centralize personal information. However, the real issue behind this attack was that it was traced to two computers in China which then started the whole 'Google to change its policy toward China'.

Very timely for our forthcoming privacy class. Google has been wardriving. Which makes perfect sense. Useful for business and so easy to do when they're driving by. Who owns info that we put out on the street?

Google Australia will today be sent a "please explain" letter from two local privacy organisations demanding to know why the company has been collecting personal Wi-Fi network data from Australian homes alongside the images it takes with its Street View cameras. Google has taken some heat lately about its commitment to privacy after officials from 10 governments - including New Zealand, Canada and France - wrote a letter to chief executive Eric Schmidt to express their concern over data collection for Street View and the implementation of its Buzz social networking tool.

International network, local lawsuit and regulation. The Australian Government is asked to justify the business deal with Google for it's privacy issue. Since google revealed to mistakenly capture private information from it's street scanning.

A GROUP of Google's partners in China have sent an impassioned plea to the internet giant, saying their businesses are in jeopardy if Google closes its Chinese search engine, and demanding to know how they will be compensated.

The deal has been done, it's only the matter of how Googld deal with those partners and its financial problem accordingly.

Everyone's probably bookmarked this article already! Sentencing senior Google execs on the grounds of profiting from illegal acts is probably also technically correct. Google's defense is the neutrality of the internet, which is questionable as Google do adjust content to suit, for their own profit. Which layer is this issue on? Will increasing controls on content change our internet beyond recognition? Marcuse says that tolerance can not tolerate hateful speech and acts or it is no longer truly tolerant. That's quite a conundrum!

Google to launch a new advertising product called 're-marketing' allowing google to follow you around the web, serving you up content based on what you've been doing on the internet.

More on the new remarketing offer from Google. This is a good effective way to market to consumers, however companies do still need to be mindful of their audience, especially if Google are now on board, and this does get the publicity around being creepy. What is currently an effective way to advertise, could turn sour.

Google shows in this maps the requests that different governments have done to remove contents from their services, including the Australian government. A more than respectable effort on transparency.

Google says that this is very much a trial and they don't give details about the requests, mainly all 'legitimate', in the interests of maintaining debate out about internet governance. The site however is launched the same day that 10 governments officially complain to Google about privacy breaches and lack of general accountability, mainly in relation to maps and buzz. I feel there's less transparency than there is positioning!

Canada, alongside France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom have issued a warning to Google on the grounds that the company is ignoring privacy and legislation with respect to launching their products (Google Buzz). This is a clear example of when a company, may appear to attempt to protect their users (Google vs. China) while, in the company's own interest, these rules and regulations may be ignored. How much trust should we put into any company that offers services free to the public, and exactly what liberties do we give up when we sign up for that service?

The search giant has hit back at state requests (or court orders) to censor content on YouTube or in Google search by releasing a map showing the number of requests for censorship by country. Google has stated this move is "part of its continuing championing of openness of information" and insists the timing is purely coincidental regarding the complaint from 10 nations that Google releases new products without due consideration for privacy implications (as posted by Liz Gan), Reading the comments in these articles is always insightful. Someone points out that a lot of the requests may simply relate to slanderous items requested by courts to be removed (rather than evil government censorship requests).

UPDATE ON GOOGLE VS CHINA. Will redirect users to google.com.hk

GOOGLE is considering a plan to keep many of its operations in China, even though it is resigned to closing its flagship search engine over a censorship dispute with the Chinese authorities.

I reckon, google is still waiting for the time to cut in, after all it's the biggest market.