google skeptic

There are bad ideas, and then there are really bad ideas:

Concerns raised as LA looks to Google Web services

LOS ANGELES (AP) – Security and privacy concerns have been raised over a multimillion-dollar proposal by Los Angeles to tap Google Inc.’s Internet-based services for government e-mail, police records and other confidential data.

At issue is the security of computerized records on everything from police investigations to potholes as the nation’s second-largest city considers dumping its in-house computer network for Google e-mail and office programs that are accessed over the Internet.

Paul Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, complained Thursday that the union had scant information on the plan or what it would mean for the safety of sensitive records, such as narcotics or gang investigations.

His worries came just one day after the online-messaging service Twitter acknowledged hackers were able to access confidential information stored with Google, which has been promoting greater use of “cloud computing” – storing data online rather than on individual computers under a company’s or government agency’s direct control.

The shift toward doing more over the Web could make it much easier for hackers to gain access to corporate or government files. No longer would someone need to try to break through layers of security firewalls. As various personal and work accounts become increasingly linked together, all one needs is a single password to access documents just like a regular employee.

In the Twitter case, a hacker got the password for an employee’s personal e-mail account – possibly by guessing, or by correctly answering a security question – and worked from there to steal confidential company documents.

Weber said the Los Angeles proposal could increase the exposure to computer hacking.

“Any time you go to a Web-based system, that puts you just a little further out than you were before,” he said. “Drug cartels would pay any sum of money to be aware of our progress on investigations.”

read the rest via Concerns raised as LA looks to Google Web services.

Stacey Higgenbotham at Gigaom decodes the latest charm offensive by Google and its pals:

Advertisers: Pay No Attention to the Data We Are Stealing

Several marketing associations supported by Google have banded together and released seven principles that they believe should govern online privacy. Are you ready for a journey to the Emerald City? Because the principles are the online advertisers’ attempts to stave off government regulation around protecting consumers’ online privacy by diverting attention to the Great and Powerful Principles rather than the data scavenging that’s going on behind the curtain. Kind of like a certain self-aggrandizing wizard.

Given that Congress has been keen to see opt-in programs, and there’s no mention of that in these principles, my hope is that regulators won’t be taken in by this, and will still fight for better disclosure of advertising practices and an opt-in program. In the meantime, let’s pull back the curtain and check out what the wizards of marketing are telling us. Below are the marketing principles taken directly from the position paper — and in italics, what they really mean:

which she does, with admirable lucidity, summing up:

I may be too cynical here, but in my experience, self-regulation doesn’t work when one side has a lot to gain and the other side is pretty ignorant about what that side is doing. I’m not going to put my toddler alone in a room with a bowl full of candy and expect her to self-regulate, just like I doubt that advertisers and Google are the best stewards of my privacy online.

read the rest via Advertisers: Pay No Attention to the Data We Are Stealing.

Google, et al., are claiming that legislation requiring advertisers to secure “opt-in” permission from consumers before they can track their travels around the web would destroy online advertising and, of course, the entire internet along with it.  Bullshit.  There would still be ads, and people looking at them and occasionally clicking on them.  What there wouldn’t be is wholesale invasion of privacy and the sale of personally identifiable information among advertising and data mining companies.  If I glance at an ad in a print magazine, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the company that placed that ad, sitting back in their offices in NYC, has no idea of who I am or where I live or what I bought last week (unless I volunteer to answer a reader questionnaire).  That’s the deal, and it’s worked just fine for several hundred years.  Anything more than that is an invasion of my privacy and not acceptable.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the name is “Halliburton”:

Growing White House ties to Google draw protest

Computerworld – When he was a senator, President Barack Obama pitched the idea of of what was widely called a “Google-enabled government” to illustrate his interest in making public data easily searchable and accessible. But the White House’s reported plan to appoint another Google Inc. executive to a top tech advisory post is, for some, carrying the idea too far.

Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s director of global public policy, is expected to be appointed U.S. deputy chief technology officer, reporting to federal CTO Aneesh Chopra. Both are new White House positions.

Two groups, the Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Watchdog, yesterday urged Obama not to appoint McLaughlin to the post. In a letter signed by Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and and John Simpson, consumer advocate at Consumer Watchdog, the groups said that McLaughlin “has been a lobbyist for the biggest digital marketing company in the world, and we believe no special-interest connected person should assume a position of vital importance to the country’s future.”

It’s the same argument they would have made had Obama appointed someone from Microsoft Corp. or Yahoo Inc. to a similar position, according to the letter.

The consumer groups also cited earlier appointments of Google executives and managers to help make the case that Google’s White House reach is too deep.

[snip]

While the appointments are obvious points of intersection between Google and the new administration, the concern raised about Google’s influence is much deeper.

For example, Google’s settlement of a lawsuit brought against it by major authors and publishers is getting scrutiny from the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission is investigating the company’s hiring practices and links to Apple.

“There are an increasing number of emerging issues that will likely pit the commercial interests of Google against the rights of American citizens, including protecting our privacy and consumer rights online,” the two groups wrote.

[more] via Growing White House ties to Google draw protest.