November 13th, 2009

Google hit again with Street View privacy concerns - in Switzerland

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 13, 2009 @ 7:50 AM

Categories: Canada, Copyright, Courts, Databases, European Parliament, Google, Government technology, Intellectual Property, Privacy, State & Local Govt, Switzerland

Tags: Google Inc., Switzerland, Image, Privacy Concern, Doug Hanchard

First it was Canada, then in Google’s own back yard in the U.S. and now other countries are following suit with privacy concerns over Google’s Street View image database. Switzerland has been reviewing privacy concerns about Street View for the past year.

Google had some significant challenges deploying street view images of Canadian cities and towns based based upon complaints from the Canadian Privacy Commission. Google’s solution was to blur out the images of licence plates and faces. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner (and others) and reviewed the solution and blessed it. Google thought this would be the right path for other countries. Turns out, it’s not enough. In a BBC report, a Swiss court has instructed Google to pull all images in Street View, saying that it did not make sufficiently ‘unrecognizable’ people in images published.

It’s not just images of people that also concerns the Swiss authorities - it’s where, such as hospitals, prisons and other sensitive areas. That has not been brought up in other countries as an issue - yet. Google has blurred images of licence plates and peoples faces in all the cities I checked, Vancouver, B.C. near Canada Place, New York City on Wall Street and Geneva, Switzerland.

 Loading ...

Here are three images I created using Google’s Street View service.

Vancouver, B.C.

New York City, New York

Geneva Switzerland

October 27th, 2009

Banks and auto sector got bailed out, are telecom providers next?

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 27, 2009 @ 12:45 PM

Categories: Budget, Canada, Comcast, Commerce, Congress, E-government, FCC, Google, Government technology, IT Management, International, Microsoft, Net neutrality, Personnel Management, Regulations, Telecom, UK

Tags: Innovation, Bank, Debt, Internet, Telephony, Smb/Sme, Government, Telecom & Utilities, Telecommunications, Strategy

U.S. Senator John McCain came out with statements against government interference or the creation of regulations by the FCC. Instead he came out proposing a new law to prevent law. The Senator stated that Net Neutrality would stifle profitability, innovation, commerce and that jobs would not be  created with such regulation. Telecom and Internet Service providers are not hiring and with current debt levels some are barely profitable. But for how long? The FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality rulesare probably the least of the worries that are on the horizon for the Internet. Worldwide the industry has been turned upside down and none of the industry players got bailouts like the banks or auto sector did. Debt at many of the main telecom players are at unbelievable levels;

• France Telecom: 34.7 Billion Euros
• British Telecom: 16.1 Billion Euros
• Cable & Wireless: 922 million Pounds
• Italia Telecom: 35.8 Billion Euros
• Telstra : 16.1 Billion Au
• New Zealand Telecom: 2.8 Billion NZ
• NT&T : 639 Billion Yet
• Bell Canada: 14 Billion Cdn
• Telus: 7.5 Billion Cdn
• AT&T: 60.8 Billion US
• Sprint: 21.6 Billion US
• Comcast: 30.0 Billion US

These levels are sustainable for most, providing the economy doesn’t get any worse and credit facilities do not collapse any farther. Nortel collapsed under debt, Alcatel and Lucent merged and is heavily leveraged,  leaving Cisco as the only healthy one. Job creation and innovation will have to come from companies that have little or no debt burden. Most of ones listed above have made significant cuts in employment. Government regulates providers already, and does offer some incentives, grants and loans for internet innovations, and they are in debt in the trillions of dollars already. The private sector will be the innovator and career opportunities engine for internet services and applications that create healthy profit. Companies like RIM, Microsoft, Cisco and Google have significant advantages in growth capabilities. But it will be small and medium business (SMB) sized companies that will likely be responsible, and are rarely given credit for doing so around the world. Many wonder if they can bail out the industry before government has to.

October 22nd, 2009

Net Neutrality: Why the Internet will never be free. For anything. So get used to it

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 22, 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Canada, Censorship, Commerce, Congress, Copyright, Courts, E-government, FCC, FTC, Google, Government technology, Green Dam, ICANN, Intellectual Property, International, Journalism, Justice, Microsoft, Net neutrality, Open government, Privacy, Regulations, Social networks, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, VoIP, Web browsers, Web services

Tags: Provider, Google Inc., Network, Law, Net Neutrality, Yorkton, Market Pie, Internet, Networking, Doug Hanchard

Call it Net Neutrality if you want, but it doesn’t exist, nor is it required when you already have antitrust, regulatory and other local and state, and international law in place. Choice, innovation and open access are the principles in a free enterprise competitive market, not the halls of government.

Before I start, I wish to make clear that ’Law’ is what makes our society what it is today. Without, we would have anarchy and society as we know it today would not exist. Also this is not your typical blog story, what follows is an medium depth look at the problems and challenges Net Neutrality would have on providers, users and government policy if implemented. It doesn’t ask all the questions or give solutions to every aspect in fine detail but does give the reader a general knowledge and sense of issues.

Overview - Net Neutrality - a philosophy or set of regulations?

Your government will ensure Net neutrality with whatever they believe it is. You may not like it, but it is coming. I just don’t know if the lawmakers know what they are getting themselves into. The world believes the Internet is open to everyone. Some are arguing and even demanding we need Law and the RIGHT to eliminate censorship and have choice in all its forms.  The Internet is the People’s network and everyone owns it. Thus Net Neutrality would enable and ensure innovation, freedom, choice and access. Read the rest of this entry »

October 19th, 2009

Success or failure equals government intervention

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 19, 2009 @ 12:32 PM

Categories: Antitrust, Congress, Courts, Elections, Google, Google Book Deal, Intellectual Property, International, Microsoft, Regulations, SEC, Transportation

Tags: Financial, Industry, Government, Vertical Industries, Financial Accounting, Finance, Doug Hanchard

The economy is in complete disarray and recovery efforts cost taxpayers everywhere. It will be a small fortune (a few trillion dollars) in long-term debt that governments are now incurring. Government is not at fault right? They are not the cause of economic wealth or disaster - right? What role do they really play? Turns out the answer is plenty.

Daily, the press fires out news about bailouts everywhere in the auto sector and financial marketplace, institutions that caused their own undoing are putting us in asset devaluation and debt never seen before. If you’re a successful company, don’t worry, the government sector is going to still tear your company apart. Microsoft is being micro-managed by the EU ,and the U.S. government make current financial regulators look like amateurs. What industry or company is on a government hit list?

If you’re successful, then rest on your laurels, shrug your shoulders and begin to fall flat on your face, just blame everyone else for causing the problems when the company falls apart. As a bonus, don’t worry the government will come bail you out. If you’re the biggest and most successful and financially sound, the government still wants to get into your books and tell you what your business can do and hand over some of the business to your competitors.

Why didn’t the government do that with GM? Shouldn’t they simply have handed over some of the business to Toyota, Ford and others? In a sense with Chrysler, they did and packaged up a deal and prayed that FIAT didn’t blink before they signed on the dotted line.

I wonder if Cisco is going have to worry some day that it will have to hand some of its business over to Juniper, Ciena, Brocade or other network gear companies? Read the rest of this entry »

October 19th, 2009

StatsCan reports 10.9% decline in computer and software store sales

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 19, 2009 @ 12:12 PM

Categories: Canada, Google, International, Microsoft, Mobile/wireless, Municipal broadband, Regulations, Telecom

Tags: Software, Revenue, Computer, Stats Canada, Sales Strategy, Sales Force Management, Productivity, Sales, Doug Hanchard

Stats Canada has reported 3rd quarter economic statistics indicating broad declines in most sectors in consumer spending. Computers and software showed significant declines over 10%.

While many companies are indicating that the worst is over, Canada will lag behind U.S. economic recovery. The statistics don’t show new growth for many companies like Microsoft’s new SYNC platform in Ford cars and trucks, that are now seeing increased sales. Companies like Google are not required to report any numbers to the Canadian government’s Stats Can Bureau. Google is seeing growth in Canada but are not broken out in their U.S. SEC filings. Google did break out U.K. revenues which accounted for 13% of total revenues.

Canadian government incentives in computer and software technology R&D have been significant in the past. Consumer spending in IT and not corporate evergreen upgrades are likely to be the recovery source for computer and software sales. But when?

The Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has conducted several hearings on broadband access focusing on rural communities. This has not translated into new consumer computer or software sales growth either. Bell Canada, Telus and Rogers have seen stagnant revenues in wireless sales as consumers continue to be hesitant in spending or even replacing existing phones. In fact, many are downgrading what they have. Many of the rural areas are planned service areas delivered by 3 & 4G broadband along with WiMax access points and expanded DSL and Cable services. Many of these roll outs won’t be completed until 2010. A detailed 2008 CRTC report shows continued growth in Internet access with revenues from Internet services now account for up to 15% of their bottom line.

September 21st, 2009

Justice Dept. devastates Google Books settlement, as the parties rush to the back rooms

Posted by Richard Koman @ September 21, 2009 @ 4:00 AM

Categories: Google Book Deal

Tags: Google Inc., Settlement, U.S. Department Of Justice, Proposed Settlement, Registry, Government, Vertical Industries, Litigation, Corporate Law, Free Trade

The big news from the Justice Department’s critique of the Google Books deal is that are “frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” New York Law School prof James Grimmelan told the New York Times.

This we know because DOJ’s statement to the court tells us:

The United States has been informed by the parties that they are continuing to consider possible modifications of the Proposed Settlement to address the many concerns raised by various commenters and by the United States in its discussions with the parties.

The letter is a game-changer, the one document that is sending Google and its partners into feverish negotiation, after withstanding a torrent of objections. DOJ’s letter to the court then goes on to explain why, unmodified, this deal is a loser:
Read the rest of this entry »

September 10th, 2009

Google says it would make books available to Amazon, Copyright Office says deal 'usurps' Congressional role

Posted by Richard Koman @ September 10, 2009 @ 9:05 AM

Categories: Copyright, Google Book Deal

Tags: Google Inc., Settlement, Copyright Law, U.S. Congress, Copyright Office, Amazon.com Inc., Competitior, Litigation, Business Operations, Richard Koman

Google’s David Drummond is making promises on the fly during today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. He just announced that Google would make books covered under the settlement available to competitors like Amazon or Microsoft on a reseller basis — and Google would share the majority of their revenue.

Asked by an approving Chairman John Conyers for Amazon’s reponse, Amazon’s Paul Misener explained that Amazon didn’t much cotton to the idea of having to go through Google instead of purchasing rights directly.

In his oral comments, Misener made the point that the deal is in fact exclusive (note, all quotes are real-time paraphrases, not exact):

The settlement gives Google exclusive, liability-free rights to orphan works. It goes further, it releases them from liability not just for past acts, but prospectively. Google gets everything. What does a competitor get? Nothing, except what is opted into the Registry by rights holders. Competitors are limited only to rights holders who have opted in their works. Ggets everything less some opt-outs. competitiors gets nothing plus soome opt-ins. And orphans by definition don’t make an option. They don’t opt out of the google corpus and they don’t opt in to the competitor corpus.

In her opening statement, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters argued that the settlement largely usurps Congress’s role in making copyright law. “To allow a commercial entity to sell such works without consent is an end-run around copyright law as we know it,” Peters said.

While aspects of settlement have merit, key parts are fundamentally at odds with the law. They impinge the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders. The settlement agreement creates a compulsory license and covers behavior not part of the dispute. It would alter the landscape of copyright law — which is the purview of Congress, not the courts. It would jeopardize the efforts of Congress to craft comprehensive legislation. In the view of the Copyright Office, the settlement proposed by the parties would encroach on responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally has been the domain of Congress.

In addition, Peters said, the settlement has “serious international implications” that could impact U.S. obligations in treaties with foreign governments.

September 9th, 2009

House Judiciary considers Google Books deal Thursday

Posted by Richard Koman @ September 9, 2009 @ 6:02 PM

Categories: Google Book Deal

Tags: Google Inc., Settlement, Litigation, Business Operations, Richard Koman

The debate over the Google Books settlement is finally getting some attention where it belongs - Congress. Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will bring its special brand of hot air to the debate. The full committee holds a hearing on “Competition and Commerce in Digital Books.” The speaker list seems to me a bit heavily weighted to the Google forces, but perhaps that is so the congressmen can tell the dealmakers what they think(?).

Speakers include: Google counsel David Drummond, Marc Maurer of the National Federation of the Blind, Paul Aiken of the Authors Guild; John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog and Paul Misener of Amazon; and Marybeth Peters, register of copyrights of the U.S. Copyright Office, law professor Randy Picker (who has called for the court to explicitly not immunize the parties against antitrust claims) and David Balto of the Center for American Progress (who has argued that the deal is good for consumers.)

Reuters has a report on what Google’s Drummond said in prepared testimony:

Drummond said Google was “fully compliant with copyright law,” and access to online books could revolutionize research in schools without major libraries. … “We believe anyone who wants to re-use abandoned works should have a fair, legal way to do so. In our view, the settlement helps.”

While not speaking tomorrow, the Open Book Alliance, headed by the Internet Archive and including most of Google’s competitors, sent a letter to the Committee (PDF) detailing its criticism:
Read the rest of this entry »

July 6th, 2009

DOJ confirms Google Books investigation

Posted by Richard Koman @ July 6, 2009 @ 11:20 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Google Book Deal

Tags: Google Inc., Settlement, U.S. Department Of Justice, Litigation, Business Operations, Richard Koman

Is the Justice Department actually investigating the Google Books deal?

Yes, the department confirmed to the federal judge reviewing the class action settlement. It is looking into whether the deal violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, The New York Times reports. In a letter to the judge, William Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general, said:

At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.

Is this a serious development? Oh, yeah. Antitrust lawyer Gary Reback told the Times:

This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court. It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.

The Internet Archive, which has been leading the charge against the settlement, chiefly on the grounds that it gives Google an exclusive right to publish so-called orphan works, without fear of litigation, is “heartened” by the news, Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive, said.

June 11th, 2009

Google says it loves competition

Posted by Richard Koman @ June 11, 2009 @ 11:45 PM

Categories: Antitrust, Google

Tags:

With Justice Department scrutiny over the Google Books Settlement only the the leading edge of antitrust regulators’ attention to Google, the company has launched a dog-and-pony show dedicated to combating the impression that more control is needed.

In a presentation (PDF) acquired by Consumer Watchdog, Google public affairs lead Adam Kovacevich argued that Google is anything but anticompetitive. Its success comes from “learning by doing,” the presentation says.

Google welcomes competition because it stimulates innovation, makes us all work harder, and provides users with more choice.

This follows messaging that Google’s real market is all advertising, making it not dominant at all but merely a fringe player. InfoWeek interviews Wharton business school professor Eric Clemons, who says this is pure FUD.

I consider antitrust action likely at this point. More to the point, so does Google. They have, not surprisingly, figured out the points that will be key and are already starting to address them.

Google has gone right to the heart of the matter, which is if the relevant market is all of advertising, their position is inconsequential,” Clemons said in a phone interview. “If the relevant market is Internet search, then there is a very real possibility in their minds that they can lose an antitrust lawsuit. So they’re doing a massive disinformation campaign.”