Blog Archives
Google’s Change in Privacy Policy: What it means to you
There is a saying that explains services made available on the internet. If it’s free, then YOU are the product. This is especially true when it comes to Google, in its effort to be the everything to everyone on the internet.
The image of "Big Brother" from the 1984 Apple Superbowl ad for MacIntosh
It seems ironic that almost 30 years ago, when Apple first marketed the MacIntosh line of computers, the commercial used an athletic heroine using a sledge hammer to destroy a film of Big Brother a la 1984. Today it seems that Technology itself has become big brother, it knows who you are, where you are and what you are doing. So it only makes sense for us to have some pause in the changes in Google’s privacy policy.
In a nutshell, Google’s new privacy policy integrates all of Googles product under one policy. Whether it is Google Maps, Youtube, the search Engine, Google Calendars etc., they all now fall under one policy. This means that Google has aggregated all of the information available on all of its products into one single system that knows everything. They can see who you are, what websites you go to, what you shop for, what ads you click on, and they keep and store that information. A word to the wise, don’t go to porn sites with the naivete that no one knows where you are going, and all you have to do is erase your browsing history. Someone out there knows who you are, where you go, and even your nasty sick little fetishes.
Google says it plans to use the information in developing its new products, so that by knowing where everyone is, they can estimate travel times on Google Maps for example. Google has also admitted very publicly that the information will be used to better target advertising across their products. This is where YOU become the product because your information is being used for targeted advertising. Remember the mall scene from “Minority Report” where Tom Cruise is walking through the mall and is bombarded with commercials targeted to him, or rather the person whose eyes he’s wearing? It is sort of like that.
Yes, I see the irony in embedding a youtube video.
The most controversial aspect is the inability to opt out, so all of you who have gmail accounts on their computers and on their smartphones, Google is not just watching, it is tracking, and there is nothing you can do about it. There is no where to hide as long as you use any Google products. Then again, you can always just use Bing.
Justin Bieber v. youtube.com and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
This is a first for this blog. I am linking to an article from TMZ.
TMZ reported on Monday that youtube.com has taken down all of videos of Canadian pop singer, Justin Bieber, aka the Biebs, aka “What’s a Bieber”?
If you don’t know who Justin Bieber is, you probably live in a hole, and you definitely do not have a tweenaged daughter.
Reportedly, youtube received a complaint from a company called iLCreation claiming to own the copyright to the videos, including the famous (or infamous) “Baby” video, which has received over 600 million hits. That’s right, it has the number of hits equal to 10% of the world’s population. From TMZ:
YouTube has a yank first, ask questions later policy when a copyright claim is made — so they simply pulled the videos off the site … until the dispute is resolved.
This is where TMZ and its lawyer head guru Harvey Levin gets it wrong. Youtube doesn’t pull the video only because of its policy. It pulls the video because they are required to BY LAW.
Once a hosting site has received takedown notice, or a copyright infringement complaint, they MUST remove the video within 24 hours, in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (DCMA), or more specifically, Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA).
The process is simple, they receive the complaint, they must take down the video. Once the video is down, they notify the person who posted the video. Only then can the person who posted the video challenge the removal. It is a classic example of shoot first and ask questions later.
This provision of DCMA is very controversial because it is always in the hosts best interest to remove the video and wait for the situation to pan out. This gives incentive for businesses to use this provision of the DCMA to target their competition by sending false copyright claims. According to PC World, as of March 2009, 57% of complaints received by google were by businesses targeting their competitors, 37% of the complaints were invalid copyright claims.
Is this really what the law was intended to do?
James Skyles
