November 16, 2009

Revised Google Book Settlement Addresses Rightsholders Issues

The Google Book Settlement has finally been revised. There are two main changes that have been made: how the settlement pertains to other countries and unclaimed works.

Here's Google's official statements on those two issues:

International Scope:

As revised, the settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada. After hearing feedback from foreign rightsholders, the plaintiffs decided to narrow the class to include only these countries, which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices. British, Australian, and Canadian rightsholders are joining the case as named plaintiffs and will also be represented on the Board of the Book Rights Registry.

Unclaimed works:

The amended settlement agreement requires the Book Rights Registry to search for rightsholders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf. The settlement now also specifies that a portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may, after five years, be used to locate rightsholders, but will no longer be used for the Registry's general operations or redistributed to other rightsholders. The Registry may ask the court after 10 years to distribute these funds to nonprofits benefiting rightsholders and the reading public, and may provide abandoned funds to the appropriate government authority in compliance with state property laws. The Registry will now also include a Court-approved fiduciary who will represent rightsholders of unclaimed books, act to protect their interests, and license their works to third parties, to the extent permitted by law.

Google also took the opportunity of the revision to emphasize and reassure on other points of concern. They reiterated that the settlement didn't prevent books from being sold at other retailers such as Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Additionally, they will have agreements with libraries to provide access to Google Books.

Rightsholders also have the ability to limit what Google previews in book search results. You may have noticed this if you've ever accessed a book from Google Books. You're happily reading along and then you get a notice that pages or chapters are missing. This is because the author wants you to buy the book and Google is complying with that reasonable request. If an author wants to make a book available for free or under Creative Commons licenses, they are free to do that as well.

Overall, the agreement is largely intact, with the exception to those two big changes mentioned above.

What to you think of the Google Books settlement revision? Will this be the final version or will they have to go back to the drawing board again? Let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 29, 2009

Google Sends Another Letter to the FCC Explaining Voice

Google has provided additional information to the FCC's regarding Google Voice. You might remember that Google already responded to FCC's questions about Google Voice and why a mobile app for it was rejected for the iPhone.

This time, Google Voice is responding to concerns raised by AT&T about restricting calls to select area codes, something telecommunications carriers are prohibited by law from doing.

In the most recent letter to the FCC, Google said they're not a telecommunications carrier because their service is not open to the public and it's free. Indeed, Google Voice is available by invitation only and is free - for the most part. Still, the public can request Google Voice invitations and they must pay for international calls. Google says, though, that international calls only make up 4% of calls placed through Google Voice.

Instead, Google calls itself an information provider:

Google Voice constitutes an "information service" under the federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 153(20), because it offers users "a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, [and] transforming" information of the user's choosing. The Google Voice number is a personal number for managing the user's connectivity in one place, and it is not associated with an underlying telephone access service.

Google maintains that Voice as a web-based application, but stresses it's not VOIP.

Google Voice is a Web-based software application. It is a single, integrated unified messaging and call management offering that is completely distinct from the user's existing telephone access lines/services.

Google's strongest argument is that you can't simply sign up to Voice as a telecommunications provider. Instead, Google Voice is used to manage the telecommunications services you're already signed up to.

Importantly, prospective users of Google Voice must subscribe to one or more traditional telecommunications services to be eligible to create a Google Voice account. The Google Voice system will require that a unique US telephone number be verified before an account will become active.

What truly looks to be the problem is that Google Voice is a combination of information and telecommunications services, which doesn't fit existing (and now outdated) descriptions of providers as set by the FCC and Congress. Ironically, both AT&T and Google probably have similar goals here: to bring government regulation up to date with how technology has progressed.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 22, 2009

FCC Votes to Pursue Genachowski's Proposed Net Neutrality Rules

This morning, the Federal Communications Commission voted to consider Chariman Julius Genachowski's proposed net neutrality rules. This means the two rules will be opened for public comment before finalized through an FCC vote.

Genachowski publicly announced his new rules at a speech last month at the Brookings Institution. They are:

Preventing Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management.
Ensuring that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

Google has long been a proponent of Net Neutrality. Reacting on the Official Google Public Policy blog, Google's Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote:

There's been a lot of noise out there, but let's review what's at stake: The Internet was built and has thrived as an open platform, where individuals and entrepreneurs -- not network owners -- can connect and interact, choose marketplace winners and losers, and create new services and content on a level playing field. No one seems to disagree with that fundamental proposition. This new proceeding is aimed at opening a national dialogue on how best to protect that unique environment. For our part, we fully support the adoption of "rules of the road" to ensure that the broadband on-ramps to the Net remain open and robust.

But not everyone sees the need to fix what's not broken. Per a Washington Post editorial:

Mr. Genachowski claims to have seen "breaks and cracks" in the Internet that threaten to change the "fundamental architecture of openness." He and other proponents of federal involvement cite a handful of cases they say prove that, left to their own devices, ISPs such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T will choke the free flow of information and technology. One example alluded to by the chairman: Comcast's blocking an application by BitTorrent that would allow peer-to-peer video sharing. Yet that conflict was ultimately resolved by the two companies -- without FCC intervention -- after Comcast's alleged bad behavior was exposed by a blogger.

The Post also pointed out that net neutrality amounts to controlling networks that private companies have built:

Aptly dubbed an "immodest proposal" by the Free State Foundation's Randolph J. May, the FCC would prohibit ISPs from "discriminating against" different applications. Mr. Genachowski explains it this way: ISPs "cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes." In short, ISPs, which have poured billions of dollars into building infrastructure, would have little control -- if any -- over the kinds of information and technology flowing through their pipes.

The Post ended their editorial by questioning how much the ISPs will innovate if they are burdened with additional regulation.

Incidentally, Google has what should be an obvious stake in net neutrality regulation. The use of their search engine and various other products depends on internet users being able to access their services on the networks they're using.

Of course, plans for tiered Internet pricing are not very popular, rejected by consumers. And, like the Post pointed out, companies often reverse course whenever they're tempted to go in that direction because the public outcry isn't worth it.

It's a hot debate and if you play nice, you can have it in the comments below.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 20, 2009

Advertising Association Urges DOJ to Approve Microsoft-Yahoo! Search Deal

The American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) has written an open letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, urging them to approve the Microsoft-Yahoo! search deal. Announced at the end of July, the deal has Microsoft and Yahoo! partnering up on search in order to create what will become the number 2 search service in the United States.

In the letter (PDF), Nancy Hill, President and CEO of the AAAA, wrote:

These benefits are too important to wait for. As leading members of the advertising and marketing services industry, we urge the Department of Justice to bring its antitrust review to a speedy conclusion. This proposal enhances competition, and should be allowed to take effect as soon as possible.

CEOs of four ad agencies added their John Hancocks to the letter:

Maurice Levy, chairman and CEO of Publicis Groupe
Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP
Michael Roth, chairman and CEO of Interpubic Group
John Wren, president and CEO of Omnicom Group

Analysts have predicted the regulatory approval process would be lengthy. But with the changes in the advertising industry over the past few years in addition to the current global economic uncertainty, it's no surprise that agencies are seeking a quick resolution in this matter.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 10, 2009

Wake Up! - The FTC is screwing with bloggers

If you are a blogger in the US your life is about to change big-time.

You have just entered the Twilight Zone...

New FTC guidelines (read full version) described in the official press release state:

1 - "the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."

and

2 - the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement - or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media."

My reading of this is very disturbing.

Here is a possible scenario:

You - a "social media" "celebrity" "blogger" (this is anyone who has more than a few followers on Twitter or some number of subscribers to their blog RSS feed) reviews a book, product, or service - making it an "endorsement"
You got a copy of the book to review, or got a free trial of the product, or a free trial of the service
You did not mention the freebie in your blog post
If someone does not like your blog posting you can be sued

To try to regulate bloggers as if they were professional journalists or compensated endorsements is asinine (incidentally - these guidelines do not apply to professional journalists!) The FTC is trying a land-grab into Internet regulation so they can extend their bureaucratic tentacles and justify their continued existence and funding. All of this is being done under the slogan of their official tagline "Protecting America's Consumers". This of course begs the questions - "from whom?"

This is a screwy world we live in, but the whole premise of blogging on the Internet is predicated on the notion that anyone can have frank and open discussions about any topic of their choosing. Most bloggers do not get paid and do not make any money directly or indirectly from their blogging efforts. They try to build their reputation and disseminate information that their followers may find useful. They never claim to be "objective" and often hold very strong, peculiar, and very personal opinions.

It has always been "buyer beware" on the Internet. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that we should carefully consider the source and reputation of any information that we encounter online. We certainly don't need a chilling effect on the whole online conversation from a huge government agency.

It is ironic that this is happening under the direction of a man who was elected with the strong support of the Internet community and specifically active social media leaders. Unfortunately typical liberal-leaning tendencies are also to regulate people's lives via the government in order to protect them against unscrupulous big-business practices.

Don't get me wrong - frankly I don't care if the assault on individual liberties comes from the left or right (the four FTC commissioners who voted unanimously for the new guideline were all appointed by Bush). But I do care when big brother injects themselves into normal Internet discourse this heavy-handedly.

Fight this unconstitutional over-reach - these are simply regulations from unelected bureaucrats within the executive branch.

Let's make our voices heard and protect the First Amendment and our ability to have unfettered discourse without fear of lawsuits online.

BTW - no one paid me to "endorse" this position on the new FTC regulations - I guess that my butt is now legally covered (at least for this blog post).

Posted by Tim Ash at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

October 9, 2009

Bipartisan Group Calls for FCC Probe into Google Voice Restricted Calls

Recently, AT&T openly criticized Google for blocking calls on its Voice product. Long-distance carriers such as AT&T are prohibited by law from restricting calls to higher-cost areas. Google responded by saying that Voice is an internet-based application and therefore exempt from the law.

Now, a group of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are asking FCC to investigate Google Voice's call restrictions. The FCC is already probing the rejection of a Google Voice application for Apple's iPhone, which is only available through AT&T. Thus far, Apple has informed the FCC that it has not officially rejected the Google Voice app, while Google has said that the app was indeed rejected by the powers that be in Cupertino. AT&T was not cited at fault by either party.

This week, AT&T announced that it would allow VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) applications to work over its data network.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 5, 2009

FTC Sets New Guidelines for Blogger Endorsements and Word-of-Mouth Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued new regulations regarding blogger endorsements and word-of-mouth marketing campaigns. If a blogger is paid to do a review - either through money or product/service - said blogger must reveal said payment.

Ever been annoyed by posts in message boards that ended up being written by a company employee? The new guidelines crack down on such behavior as well.

The word-of-mouth guidelines don't just extend to employees. They involve anyone who has signed up for a word-of-mouth marketing program, such as a Street Team.

To be clear, bloggers can post paid endorsements and people can post in message boards and join street teams or similar efforts. But if there is a relationship between marketer and company, it must be disclosed. If you don't, get ready to pony up $11,000 when you're caught.

How it must be disclosed was not defined by the FTC. But, if you're a blogger, I recommend something like "Acme video game company sent me a free copy of this hot new game and here is my review."

Consumers like it when they know the relationship you have with the product you're pushing. If I had to guess, I'd say transparency begets loyalty.

However, the new guidelines opened up a can of grey areas the FTC needed to tackle. One such scenario is a blogger who already writes glowing reviews of Acme Video Game company. If all of a sudden, the blogger receives a free copy of a new video game and writes a review of the game, s/he needs to disclose the receipt of the game from Acme.

Another funky area of the new guidelines is the issue of liability if/when/should these regulations be enforced. If you're an advertiser engaged in digital public relations, reaching out to bloggers or word-of-mouthers, you could be liable if the endorsers make false or misleading claims about your product/service.

The FTC said that they would consider reasonable effort on the part of the advertiser to keep the endorsers in line. But then they offered up this scenario:

A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser's products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion's ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger's endorsement.

The blogger is also liable (in addition to any liability gained if the relationship was not disclosed). But the FTC says advertisers need to provide training and then keep a close eye on the ramblings of bloggers and other endorsers.

The guidelines should serve as a warning for companies hiring interns and other young people to head up your social media efforts. The FTC isn't really proposing anything here that isn't already frowned upon by the general public.

Sponsored blog posts are pretty easy to detect and kill reader loyalty. Many companies have had to repair damaged reputations after they engaged in blogging or forum posting efforts pretending to be random people when a PR effort was really transpiring.

Social media has always been best implemented under these guidelines unspoken rules. Use today's news as a means of lining up your core social media values with how consumers truly wish to interact with your company.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

September 24, 2009

FCC to Meet October 22, 2009 Over Proposed Net Neutrality Principles

The FCC will meet on Thursday, October 22, 2009 regarding the addition of two new net neutrality principles outlined by Chairman Julius Genachowski this past Monday.

Experts expect the measure to pass 3-2 with Genachowski's vote joined by the two other Democrats on the Commission. The vote would issue the rules for public comment.

The new rules involve preventing internet providers from restricting access to sites. This is something carriers have considered in order to manage traffic on their networks.

Those who stand to lose the most are telecommunications companies who would see increased competition from the likes of Skype and Google Voice, because they would be forced to allow the programs to operate on their networks.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 21, 2009

FCC Chairman Pushes for Net Neutrality

Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech at The Brookings Institution outlining two new principles in his support for net neutrality, adding to the four the FCC previously embraced under the chairmanship of Michael Powell.

The new two are:

Preventing Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management.
Ensuring that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

The previous four principles are:

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

"The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity. It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America," said Chairman Genachowski. "It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet."

Google, a proponent of net neutrality, wasted no time in supporting the Chairman. Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist took to the Google Public Policy blog to voice his support. He wrote:

If consumers had a wide choice of broadband service providers, preserving an open Internet might not be such a critical issue. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have few (if any) choices in selecting a provider. As a result, these providers are in a position to influence whether and how consumers and producers can use the on-ramps to the Internet -- and we've already seen several examples of discriminatory actions or threats that impair openness.

Based on Cerf's statement, wouldn't it make more sense to simply increase competition, which is currently hindered by regulation? Carriers who fight for customers are less likely to restrict access to websites, which has been tested by cable companies offering tiered Internet plans. These plans, of course, are not very popular with consumers, who do indeed want access to an open internet, thus making competition a viable tool in the pursuit of said open internet.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

September 18, 2009

Google Says Apple Indeed Rejected Their Voice and Latitude Applications

In the ongoing saga that is why Google Voice doesn't have an app in the iTunes app store, Google's perspective has been published publicly on the FCC website (pdf). Originally, portions of the letter were to remain confidential, but after Freedom of Information Act filings, it has been made public.

With the publishing, we're learning that Google told the FCC that Apple did indeed reject the Google Voice and Google Latitude applications. Apple has maintained that they did not reject the apps.

The reason for the Google Voice app rejection was that the app duplicated core dialer functionality of the iPhone.

The Google Latitude app was rejected for three reasons

1. It could replace the preloaded Maps application on the iPhone 2. It would create confusion since Maps was a native app on the iPhone (isn't this like #1?) 3. It would offer new features not present on the Maps application (oh, the horror!)

Google said there was no communication with AT&T on the matter. There were a series of phone calls, in-person meetings and emails between Google Senior VP of Engineering and Research Alan Eustace and Apple Senior VP of World Product Marketing Phil Schiller.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

August 28, 2009

Proposed Bill to Give White House Authority to Control Internet in Emergency

A proposed Bill in the U.S. Senate would give the White House control of the internet in the case of emergency. The bill, S.773 introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Olympia Snow (R-ME) is pretty vague, which is alarming to internet companies and civil rights groups alike.

According to CNET, the bill would allow the White House to declare cybersecurity emergencies. It also allows the government to choose which internet companies they deem "critical." These companies would then be subject to regulations surrounding hiring employees, information that would need to be disclosed and when the government could take over their network.

What do you think of this bill? Let us know by leaving a comment.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

August 27, 2009

Italian Regulators' Investigation Against Google Essentially Proves Google Right

Italian regulators are investigating Google over complaints from newspaper publishers. The complaint is that Google bans newspapers from all of Google if a newspaper chooses to opt-out of Google News.

Google's Italian offices were searched by financial police, according to Bloomberg.

It seems that Italian newspaper publishers who are putting forth the complaint are shooting themselves in the foot (with apologies to Plaxico Burress).

On the one hand, they say it's a copyright violation to be found in Google News. On the other hand, they're complaining that they aren't found at all in Google.

So let me get this straight. A link in Google News is copyright violation. A link in Google web search results is not? I think you just proved the other side right, Italian newspaper publishers and regulators.

In this case, it's likely wise to "follow the money." Newspapers need advertising revenue to their websites, but if they're not getting as much traffic now that they've opted-out of Google News, advertising revenues have probably dropped. Instead of actually working on their business and recognizing the value of inclusion in Google News results, they simply want to make Google pay legally and likely financially as well.

Hopefully, regulators will wise up and realize the jig is up.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 20, 2009

The Online Newspaper Paywall: You Can Build It, But They Won't Come

If history repeats itself then the newspaper industry is like a freakin' hamster wheel. When papers first hit the web, many had their content locked up tight behind paywalls. I remember because I worked in politics at the time and I hated coming up against that #&$^#& wall when I did research.

Gleefully, over time that wall came down. But now the print editions of newspapers are coming down with the wall and the industry is F-R-E-A-K-I-N-G out. One by one, newspaper execs are calling for the bricklayers to come back to work.

Of course, that will only work if all newspapers go the paywall route. If the New York Times goes back to premium content, who cares? I can still get what I want from the Washington Post. Sure, I have to hand over my email, but they don't bug me, so who cares? So, it's all for one and one for all in order for paywall to make its comeback.

Small problem. If the newspapers get together and all agree to implement a paywall, that would be a whopper of an antitrust violation.

And that's okay with Columbia Journalism Review's David Simon. An antitrust violation is perfectly acceptable if you look at the big picture: saving journalism. In his mind, the only true journalism is with existing, traditional media companies.

He thinks papers should become like the cable industry. And don't you just love the cable industry? All those options and choices? The price wars? The quick expansion of technology to rural areas? Yeah, they don't exist. It's quite monopolistic.

But thanks, Mr. Simon. Thanks for reminding me that I already pay extra for the news. I get CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. I get the business channels and sports channels. Why should I shell out even more for papers....to get the same news?

Even if it wasn't an antitrust violation, there's no way that news bloggers and the new brand of citizen journalists (who publish online) are going to abandon their business models, which is based on advertising. That means people will still be able to get their news for free.

With that scenario, the only thing that would support the paywall would be if companies and the government made a pac with the newspapers to not allow bloggers and citizen journalists to attend pressers or receive press releases.

It's hard to see how the current administration, which is doing quite a bit of antitrust investigation, would support any ounce of this. Plus, since bloggers and new media were so crucial to Obama's election, which was won by reaching out to community after community after community, it would certainly be a slap in the face to them, which is unlikely.

And you better hope that unlikelihood stays in place. Because the papers are talking. They'll deny it, but they are. If When the papers make a pact, they will then become the news (antitrust violations are always news). But do you think they'll report on themselves? Without bias? Not a chance. Why do you think the Columbia Journalism Review is promoting paywalls to save journalism?

Go ahead, newsies. Build the paywall. Think of yourselves so highly that news can't exist outside the Times or Post. But don't be surprised if you find yourself tearing it down faster than you can say bankruptcy.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

July 13, 2009

Is TechCrunch Calling For Search Regulations or Running Test of Social Media, Link Building?

Okay, TechCrunch publishes an anonymous article calling for the regulation of SEO and SEM aimed squarely at the monopoly that is Google.

The hue and cry is being heard around the world, mainly through comments being posted on Twitter. But is the article really just a way for TechCrunch to do a test of Twitter traffic and its impact on link building, and ultimately on Google's search algorithm?

Our industry has weighed in on this article as if it were another installment of Dave Pasternak's annual controversial traffic generators. But what is it saying and what will this article achieve?

As many of the comments on the article have stated, an anonymous post about transparency is an oxymoron -- you can't tell the search engines to be open when writing without accrediting the author. This is not some revolutionary tract aimed at overthrowing the British, written anonymously for fear of being shot. Even Google does not retaliate against those that criticize them -- I have not been shot, and I give them grief all the time.

There are two paths to look at involving this article: the information it contains, and the motivation behind TechCrunch publishing it.

Let's look at the information first. Using anecdotes of countries and companies controlling access is really distracting -- at first I did not know if this was discussing Google's different country based search or the company as a whole. Google is a multinational conglomerate -- a huge corporation that operates in every country on the planet because of its internet existence.

Google is not the only search engine -- but they are the big dog when it comes to being a gatekeeper of where and how people find information online. We recommended them, we helped make them the most popular source of information on the web. And now we are bitching about it because they were smart enough to monetize it and we are now at the mercy of any change they decide to make.

Yes, we really can't go anywhere else -- they have the searchers we're trying to reach. But you can't complain when a company does its job too well. Asking for someone to come in and regulate it now is like wanting to take your ball back because you are not getting everyone to pass it to you during a game.

Funny how I do not see the industry shouting from the roof tops that Bing or Wolfram/Alpha is a great search engine that makes searching easier or more accurate. The only way the market share will shift is if people evangelize other search engines -- and that means a lot of people.

I have suffered through the changes just like everyone else, and could add several to the list in the article. But sadly, yet realistically, we have to adapt to these changes.

Countries can stop you from entering based on any rules they want. Companies have the right to refuse service, change their prices, the layout of their stores, what products they offer and promote etc. etc. etc. At least that is the case in democratic, free countries.

Getting the government to force Google to show everything will -- as the comments to the article express in the majority -- allow the people with deep pockets to just grab even more of the prime positions.

Do the big spenders at AdWords get preferential treatment? Yes -- and I know that from personal experience. When I was spending over a million dollars a month with AdWords, I got all kinds of help -- including advice on SEO.

Mr. Anonymous, you really lost me at this statement. "It's now conventional wisdom that search engine optimization, representing the organic result sets on any search query, is more voodoo than science."

Sounds exactly like Dave Pasternak. And when it was bandied about two years ago there were some great replies. Barry Schwartz's counter was good, as was Aaron Shear's reply about C execs thinking SEO was voodoo.

So beyond the basic complaint that many of us have about Google's position as gatekeeper of information, let's look at the second point.

What has motivated this article's publication at TechCrunch?

Apart from the huge amount of traffic it is now getting through Twitter and everywhere else, could it be a test of social media traffic? Or is it a clever way to grab links?

TechCrunch has lost a lot of its traffic from search engines, if you can believe Alexa numbers.

Since 2008, it appears TechCrunch has lost almost 50% of its search traffic numbers. Have the algorithm changes finally impacted them, and this is a case of sour grapes? (I am sure that will get some reaction).

Interestingly, TechCrunch does not seem to have been impacted if you look at pageviews. Quite the contrary: they have increased even while getting less search traffic.

So where is all this new traffic coming from? I wonder why this was not added to the post? How to grow numbers despite dropping search traffic would be a much more interesting piece. But that one may not get the huge spike in traffic this one is getting right now.

Michael Arrington is a sharp guy. Like Guy Kawasaki and Jason Calacanis, he recognizes the power of Twitter and has jumped on it as a new source of large amounts of traffic.

So what are we to infer from all this? I don't have a definitive answer, but I'm hoping TechCrunch is running a test of social media, and Twitter in particular. I hope that I will soon see the definitive article on the power of retweets and the global wave of viral social marketing.

I really am hoping this was not a ploy to garner a huge number of links. Either way, you are getting them Michael, and I will watch closely how those search numbers over at Alexa are influenced. Could there be a huge jump in the next few months and get you back where you were a year ago?

Now that would be a clever play. Increased traffic from Twitter -- no doubt getting huge followers today -- and a return to the larger numbers from search would be one hell of a trick. Almost worthy of a Voodoo priest!

Posted by Frank Watson at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

June 24, 2009

Your Data or Your Money: Is a Proposed Opt-In Privacy Bill Really Good for Consumers?

Congress is preparing an opt-in privacy bill for online advertisers, according to Peter Kafka. The effort is led by Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia.

This means publishers couldn't serve up behavioral ads unless getting permission first from the consumer. Right now, most consumers can opt-out, though most probably don't give it a thought as they browse the web.

Though details on the bill are vague, Kafka rightly points out that most advertisers and/or publishers could work around the new regulations by offering incentives to those who opt-in.

Another option would be offering an ad-free version of a site for a premium. It's no secret that many in the media world are hoping to push online publishing in that direction. From charging for online newspaper access to charging for Hulu, media execs are looking for non-advertising ways to fund their sites and networks.

They could sweeten the deal by making the opt-in process completely miserable. You'll probably have to hand over your email address and then get tons of junk email in order to access content for free. I already experience this for one local newspaper, but imagine if there were new regulations as an excuse!

If you think the web is a bit messy right now, just wait until you have to opt-in all the time. The intentions of the bill may be to protect the consumer, but it more likely will create ultimatums: agree to advertising, pay for content or miss out altogether.

That's just my opinion. What's yours? Sound off in the comments.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 5, 2009

Former Google Recruiter Confesses Hiring Restrictions, While Yahoo! Aggressively Recruits

Yesterday, we reported on a new antitrust investigation targeting Silicon Valley tech companies regarding possible agreements to not hire away each other's talent. Now, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting that a former Google recruiter is fessing up to having a 'Do Not Touch' list of companies they were not to go after for talent. Two companies on the list? Genentech and Yahoo!

Yahoo!, on the other hand, has no such list according to a former recruiter for the company. Instead, recruiters were rewarded for wooing talent from competitors.

Simply having a list would not be automatically indicative of anticompetitive hiring practices. It could simply be an initiative by a company to prevent upsetting business partners. A 'Do Not Touch' list would be in violation of antitrust law if it were agreed to by companies. It's the collaboration where the offense occurs.

Officially, the companies being investigated and the Department of Justice remain largely mum on the issue, at most confirming that an investigation is, in fact, happening.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 5, 2009

FTC Looks Into Google/Apple Ties for Antitrust Concerns

Google is really having a hard time escaping antitrust concerns. Last year, it was the nonexclusive search advertising deal with Yahoo. Last week, it was the nonexclusive book settlement. Now, it's the relationship it has with Apple.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genetech CEO Arthur Levinson both sit on the boards of Google and Apple. Schmidt has to leave the room when Apple talks iPhone because of Google's competing Android mobile platform.

At issue is Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which has a provision against "interlocking directorates." Under the Act, it's only a problem if the two companies in more than 2% of either companies' sales.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 29, 2009

Another DOJ Antitrust Investigation for Google, This Time for Book Search Settlement

Months after Google pulled out of a search ad deal with Yahoo! due to a Department of Justice antitrust investigation, the search engine is facing a similar battle - this time with its Book Search settlement.

You may remember that Google reached an agreement with Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) last October. The deal would resolve a long-standing class-action lawsuit brought by the group. A court still needs to approve the deal, and a hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2009 (rescheduled from June 11).

Critics fear that the agreement would give Google an exclusive license to profit from millions of books, including orphan books where the authors cannot be contacted or whose rights are unknown.

However, on Google's site set up to address questions and inquiries regarding the settlement (Googlebooksettlement.com), Google says its rights are non-exclusive.

An inquiry doesn't mean that the DOJ will nix the settlement. But the DOJ does share some of the aforementioned concerns of critics, despite Google's assurance that the deal is non-exclusive.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 10, 2009

FTC's Proposed Social Media Marketing Regulations Target Bloggers

If the Federal Trade Commission has its way, bloggers and social network users will soon be liable for their reviews of businesses and products. New regulations would allow them to be sued for anything they write that would be false.

Supposedly, these new regulations would be restricted to "pay-per-post" content, but I'm sure lawyers will find a way to target all content. (Hint: they already do. These regulations would help, yes, the lawyers!)

The FTC should go back to elementary school. That's when kids learn that opinions are not true or false - only facts are. They even have homework assignments about it.

When you see a celebrity endorse a consumer brand in traditional advertising, does anyone really believe that celebrity uses the brand? Or do we know think that they use some high-end brand that 0.000001% of America can afford?

Is the FTC suddenly going to be tailing Padma Lakshmi to see if she really does eat Hardee's Western Bacon Thickburgers on a stoop in New York City? Especially since there isn't a Hardee's in New York City? (Oh you thought that was Chicago? It's not. There are no Hardee's there either.) (Apologies to Chris Applebaum.)

And here's the clincher. Are they going to punish politicians for all of their false advertising? Both the promises that never get fulfilled and the attacks that stretch the truth?

For a government agency full of people staffed by politicians, going after bloggers for truthiness is like the pot calling the kettle black. That's just my opinion. What's yours? Leave a comment below, if you dare. The FTC may allow you to get sued for it later.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

March 16, 2009

Utah Search Bill Pulled from Senate Vote, Postponed Until 2010

The Senate sponsor of the latest Utah search bill, Curtis Bramble, pulled the it from being voted on by last Thursday's deadline, according to Clickz. After passing the House by a slim margin, the bill had to be voted on by last Thursday, which was the last day of the Utah legislature's 45 day general session this year.

Senator Bramble says the bill needs more debate and consideration. The next chance the bill will have is in 2010, when the legislature convenes again.

If passed, the law would prohibit advertisers from bidding on trademarked terms when targeting Utah consumers.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 13, 2009

FTC Updates Online Behavioral Ad Policy; Google Approves

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has updated their online behavioral ad policy. The report, which maintains a self-regulatory stance, got a unanimous vote with some concerns voiced by Commissioners Jon Leibowitz and Pamela Jones Harbour.

“This staff report, while commendable, focuses too narrowly,” Harbour said. “Threats to consumer privacy abound, both online and offline, and behavioral advertising represents just one aspect of a multifaceted privacy conundrum surrounding data collection and use. I would prefer that the Commission take a more comprehensive approach to privacy, and evaluate behavioral advertising within that broader context.”

“Industry needs to do a better job of meaningful, rigorous self-regulation, or it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our Commission,” Leibowitz said. “Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can – and will – effectively protect consumers’ privacy in a dynamic online marketplace.”

In response, Google agreed with the report as well as with Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz.

Writing on the Google Public Policy blog, Senior Policy Counsel Pablo Chavez said, "We agree with the statements of Commissioners Liebowitz and Harbour that individual companies and industry generally can and should do more to protect user privacy. Google will continue to engage in efforts to develop strong self-regulatory principles and will will continue to advocate for comprehensive federal privacy legislation."

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 15, 2009

Obama Aide: Broadband Portion of Stimulus Package for Timely Needs, Not Overall Goals

An aide of President-elect Barack Obama is clarifying what can be expected from the broadband portion of the stimulus bill currently being constructed in Congress, according to Reuters. Blair Levin, a former FCC employee under Clinton, is insisting that the bill will address timely broadband needs that can create jobs, instead of being used to implement the overall goals of the incoming administration.

That doesn't mean the Obama technology agenda is out the window. It simply means the stimulus bill is not what is going to make it happen.

Many groups are vying for a piece of the stimulus pie. A public interest group known as Free Press is calling for $44 billion of the $800 billion bill to be used to expand high-speed internet.

Consumer groups want more competition, which they feel will help the United States catch up with European and Asian countries that are currently leading in Internet speed and widespread adaptation.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 13, 2009

Obama to Nominate Former IAC Executive as FCC Chairman

President-elect Barack Obama is planning to nominate former IAC executive Julius Genachowski as FCC Chairman, according to the Wall Street Journal. IAC is the parent company of Ask.com.

Before his stint at IAC, Genachowski was Chief Counsel to Chairman Reed Hundt of the Federal Communications Commission under the Clinton administration. He is a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at the Harvard Law School and most recently co-founded DC-based venture capital firm, LaunchBox Digital.

Genachowski has sat on the boards of Expedia, Hotels.com and Ticketmaster. He currently serves on the boards of Beliefnet, The Motley Fool and Website Pros.

If approved by Congress, Genachowski will face a number of challenges including national broadband, white space spectrum issues, and the changeover to digital television.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 12, 2009

FCC Takes White Spaces Initiative Global

Now that the FCC has unanimously agreed to use white spaces for unlicensed use in the United States, they're expanding the campaign to an international initiative. Dubbed the "White Spaces Fellowship and Training Initiative," the FCC can now share insights with international regulators.

Google has been one of the most vocal supporters of opening up as much spectrum as possible. Their motivation is an obvious one: They want it to be open for their mobile initiatives with the Android operating system.

Google has not been extremely effective in promoting some of their other efforts in Washington, such as a search advertising deal with Yahoo.

But their support of the open spectrum is one area where they've seen some headway. It will be interesting to see how future efforts fare with a new administration in the White House and during a tough economy.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 15, 2008

Google, Lessig Defend Net Neutrality Positions (Mis) Stated in Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal has caused quite a stir by publishing a story saying that leading proponents of net neutrality have been softening on their positions. Few blogs fell for the embellishment and Google and Lawrence Lessig have defended their not-so-shifty positions.

Google's Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, took to the company's public policy blog to clarify:

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

Lessig, a professor of internet law at Stanford and keynote speaker at last week's SES Chicago, explained how the Journal got his position correct, but the idea that his position new is wrong: I distinguish between "zero price regulations" (such as Markey's bill (which I say I am against)) and what I called "zero discriminatory surcharge rules" (which I say I am for). The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm. The regulation I call for is a "MFN" requirement -- that everyone has the right to the rates of the most favored nation.

This is precisely the position that the Journal breathlessly attributes to me today. It represents no change -- no "softening" no "shift" in my views.

When it comes to net neutrality, no matter what side of the issue you tend to take, one thing is for sure: journalists and PR people who misunderstand how the internet works are only adding to the confusion.

Google also seems to be learning little from its recent failure in Washington, which cost them a search advertising deal with Yahoo!. Unless they learn to be proactive instead of reactive, they're going to consistently lose to more experienced players. Then again, being against regulation for search advertising and for regulation regarding net neutrality is a delicate stance to balance.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

November 14, 2008

Senator Dorgan Prepares Net Neutrality Bill

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is planning to introduce a net neutrality bill in January, according to Reuters. President-elect Barack Obama has said he supports net neutrality, though it is not yet clear whether he backs Dorgan's bill.

The bill would prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking web content. Net neutrality supporters say some ISPs have blocked content because of concerns over the amount of bandwidth used by customers. Others have slowed downloading activities for the same reason.

Internet service provider AT&T told Reuters it would be crazy to block content because the customers would just jump ship to an ISP that doesn't. Blocking content would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed, the bill would pit ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless and cable companies against content providers such as Google and Microsoft.

Yes, in Washington, enemies make the strangest bedfellows.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 31, 2008

SEW Experts: Porn and Gambling: Canaries in the SEM Coal Mine?

Many advances in marketing on the Web are the result of spending by the profitable and competitive porn and gambling industries. In today's SEM Crossfire column, "Porn and Gambling: Canaries in the SEM Coal Mine?," Frank Watson and Chris Boggs explore recent lawsuits in both industries that might help us again, by pointing out some specific areas for marketers to keep an eye on.

» Full story

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 9, 2008

Google, Microsoft and Facebook to Testify to U.S. Senate about Online Ad Privacy

The Senate Commerce Committee is today holding a hearing about online advertising privacy. Scheduled to testify are:

Jane Horvath, Google Senior Privacy Counsel
Mike Hintze, Microsoft Associate General Counsel, Legal & Corporate Affairs
Chris Kelly, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer

For Google's part, Horvath says she'll be focusing on the following:

First, Google supports the passage of a comprehensive federal privacy law that would enhance consumer trust and protections; establish a uniform framework for privacy; and put penalties in place to punish and dissuade bad actors;
Second, we have participated in the Federal Trade Commission's effortsto develop principles relating to online privacy and behavioral advertising, and our hope is that revised principles will be adopted widely by the online advertising industry;
Third, we believe that the private sector and government should provide more education for consumers about what kinds of personal information are collected by websites, how such data is used, and what steps they can take to better protect their privacy. Too often, web site operators view their online privacy policy as the beginning and end of their privacy obligations;
And finally, we believe that industry should provide greater labeling of online display ads -- as we currently do with text ads -- and give consumers mechanisms to opt out of behaviorally targeted advertising.

The hearing begins at 10am in SR - 253.

Google has been vocal about their dedication to privacy this week. They've thrown up a privacy link on their minimalist home page and addressed the concerns related to a ruling requiring them to hand over YouTube user logs.

But Google's insistence on their privacy policy has generally not been enough for lawmakers, especially in election years. Several states have taken on the online advertising privacy issue, most recently in New York and Connecticut.

Facebook has not been as successful in protecting user privacy. Last year, the social network came under fire for its Beacon ads, which used user data without their permission.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 18, 2008

We May Not Need Standards But FTC, FCC Want To Gives Us Regulations

While the standards debate rages on, our industry is fast coming under the influence of government regulations. This week has seen discussions about behavioral marketing at the FTC and the FCC weighing in on ISPs filtering sites.

The behavioral regulations being looked at by the FTC had Google, Yahoo and Microsoft commenting from different angles.

Google wanting to make sure their method of selecting ads was not rolled into the mix stated "our AdWords program allows us to provide ads on Google.com in response to search queries… . We believe this type of advertising should not be considered behavioral advertising, even if such analysis takes into consideration previous search queries." (from Alan Davidson, Senior Policy Counsel and Head of U.S. Policy, Google, Inc.).

Yahoo's VP Global Public Policy David Hantman stated: "The information they will receive when they click through for more information will include an explanation of how customization works, how they can participate in the NAI opt-out, and a link to our privacy policy where they can find more comprehensive information"

While Microsoft provided a list of ways to possibly address the issue: Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Advertising - Opt-in Consent; Personally Identifiable Information Advertising - Propsective Use: Opt-out Choice; Retroactive Use: Opt-in Consent; Behavioral Advertising — Opt-out Choice; Multi-Site Advertising - Pass-through Notice; Online Advertising - Prominent Notice, Security, Data Retention.

Posted by Frank Watson at 3:04 PM | Permalink

March 21, 2008

Election Year Brings New Efforts to Regulate Search Engine Data Collection

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has introduced a bill aimed at regulating the way search engines collect private data of its users. Similarly, in Connecticut, the General Law Committee of the State Assembly has a bill that seeks to tighten data collection rules on companies that serve ads on sites they do not own.

State laws attempting to restrict data collection are nothing new. Both Alaska and Utah have laws on the books preventing adware from serving up targeted ads based on the behavior of searches, specifically on trademarked keywords. And California State Senator Liz Figueroa tried to stop Google from placing targeted ads in Gmail based on email content.

Eric Goldman, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law, said that states don't really have the authority to pass these laws because they involve interstate commerce. Instead, the federal government should have jurisdiction over these matters.

"My experience is that state legislators usually ignore any dormant commerce clause defects in their laws and let the courts strike down the laws; after all, I'm guessing no politician was ever voted out for passing a law that courts later declared unconstitutional."

Privacy expert Alan Chapell, of Chapell & Associates, said that state bills that are passed still have an effect on consumers nationwide. He cited California SB 1386, which requires companies to inform California citizens when a data security breach has occurred. Chapell points out that if citizens of another state find out about a breach affecting California citizens, they're naturally going to worry about their own data.

But the kind of data search engines collect is not necessarily personal information such as addresses and telephone numbers. Search engines are primarily interested in what people are searching for, and providing them with ads and search results according to historical searches. Because consumers and even politicians don't truly understand how search engines work, many of these state bills are "attempts by lawmakers to get their name in the news," according to Chapell.

Assemblyman Brodsky is up for re-election this year. Meanwhile, companies are lobbying Brodsky to preserve their best interests.

According to the New York Times, Microsoft supports - and seeks to expand - the New York bill, drafted by State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. The bill would force search engines to get permission from users before displaying ads targeted towards their search behavior.

Microsoft's intentions seem all too clear, with recent declarations by Steve Ballmer to catch Google in the search game. Yahoo sees things differently, and sent lobbyists to meet with Brodsky, apparently to express their opposition. There are obvious implications for how this will affect any merger of the two.

The software giant's ambition fails to address the question at the root of internet privacy battles: "Who owns the data?" While there are no clear answers, one thing is certain. Many a politician and businessman will attempt to climb their career ladders waging a battle in these murky waters.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:00 AM | Permalink

December 31, 2007

Network Neutrality

Back at SES Chicago, one of the keynote speakers, David Isenberg focused his presentation on the issue of Network Neutrality. One of the more interesting aspects of his presentation was how little those of us in the industry think about this issue.

Yet, if the telcos succeed in violating network neutrality, it will blow up the web experience as we know it. The consumer will no longer be in control on the web, and an era of innovation will be sorely impacted. Can you imagine Facebook being successful if the bandwidth to access it is controlled by a telco that is offering a competing service? Or, the telco will not give the service enough bandwidth to work properly unless they pay additional fees?

Additionally, in the current web environment, the consumer has virtually unlimited choice. The biggest challenge that the consumer faces is sifting through all the choices, but with choice, comes power. In a world where the consumer is loaded with power, the companies that want their business must truly compete for it. If the choice starts to become limited, then the power of the consumer will fade with it.

Greg Jarboe of SEO-PR and I spoke with Mr. Isenberg after his keynote. One thing that we all agreed upon was that the current telco companies are not well adapted to capitalizing on the web as it is, and they view the current web environment as a threat to their continued growth.

Worse still, these companies have large war chests, and the people they are working on selling their story to are the members of congress. Unfortunately, many of those in our congress are not particularly web savvy, so they may not understand the web as it exists today, and how critical that is to the innovation and growth that we are experiencing, and to consumer control (and therefore consumer rights).

Hopefully, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others have their eye on the ball on this one.

Posted by at 9:29 AM | Permalink

October 11, 2007

Will Accessibility Become Mandatory?

While more search marketers are becoming aware of usability and accessibility concerns, the numbers are still very small. In today's SearchDay, "Don't Ignore Accessibility," we explore how a class-action lawsuit filed in California has the potential to change that, and require Web sites to comply with accessibility laws.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 3:33 PM | Permalink

September 7, 2007

Uncle Sam Says: Thumbs Down on Net Neutrality

Yesterday, the Department Of Justice (DOJ) issued comments rejecting any Net Neutrality proposals. They are clearly siding with keeping an open economy, where the broadband providers are not controlled or regulated in any manner. DOJ says this viewpoint ultimately helps the consumers, who may then elect their preferred level of service.

Yet other consumer proponents say that's what Neutrality does too, by enabling equal access to all online services. When Congress floated Neutrality legislation earlier this year, the main point was to keep services consistent and open. Also it didn't burden the online content providers and publishers, who might be affected by additional toll-roads.

Who's right? As consumers, our broadband fees finance light and heavy users alike. It's nicer to get what you pay for, and vice versa. However, it's going to be hard to convince me that anyone saves money in a tiered environment. We all seem to have opportunities to pay higher tiered fees instead, much like cable or satellite bills.

If paid tiers were introduced, then they would negatively impact organic and paid search outcomes. First, searchers could find a range of gated or restricted search results, depending on access levels. Second, publishers with heavy-bandwidth requirements could experience large dips in traffic and paid search revenues. Finally, some of the larger advertisers might end up adjusting their buys, further hitting the paid search economy.

I wish the Net Neutrality debate boiled down to something this simple: free economy or free access. However, it's really about many different lobbies at this point, and I don't believe that legislation or regulation is going to progress quickly. Though the DOJ filing does prove there are high stakes here.

Posted by at 3:13 AM | Permalink

May 11, 2007

Search-Related Legal Updates

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, on his Technology and Marketing Law blog, has updates on several search-related laws or lawsuits this week.

Broad Matching Doesn't Violate Injunction – In the Rhino Sports v. Sport Court case in Arizona, the courts have gotten broad matching right for once, Goldman says. Rhino Sports agreed in 2002 to a permanent injunction from using "sport court" in commerce, and last year, Sport Court saw that Rhino Sports' ad was showing up in a search for "sport court." The judge correctly pointed out that Rhino Sports was using Google's Broad Match, and was not targeting the term "sport court," and so was not in contempt of the order.
Utah Trademark Protection Act Updates – It seems Utah's legislators will hold off on implementing the state's Keyword Protection Act "for at least a couple of months." That's probably the best plan, since the law is both unenforceable and would not achieve the desired results.
Another NY Court Says Keyword Triggering Isn't TM Use in Commerce – In the Site Pro-1 v. Better Metal case, a court has determined that keyword triggering and metatag usage isn't a trademark use in commerce, so it's ok for companies to bid on others' trademarked terms. The legal debate's not over, since other courts have ruled the other way, but this is one more vote on the side of sanity.
Social Networking Sites and the Law – In preparation for an undergrad event looking at laws that pertain to social networking, Goldman has put together a brief summary of the legal issues involved. Two of the biggest issues are people creating fake profiles of others, and sexual predators on social networking sites.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:09 PM | Permalink

January 30, 2007

Apple To Pay Bloggers Court Costs

In 2004 Apple started legal proceedings against bloggers who carried information about their 'Asteroid' project. In 2005 the courts ruled that bloggers did not have the same freedoms afforded print journalists in regards to the identity of confidental sources.

Well it is now 2007 and the courts have said Apple must reimburse the legal fees of the bloggers they took to court.

Americans and others using the web should be afforded the same freedoms everyone else enjoys. To do otherwise would suggest the web should be treated differently.....

Posted by Frank Watson at 5:07 PM | Permalink

January 16, 2007

Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Search depends on net neutrality. As a searcher, you already know how it feels to be blocked from results. Who hasn't performed a search where you clicked to some blocked or paid access page? Now imagine that on a larger scale, and search becomes an exercise in ultimate frustration.

Publishers play an active role in search accessibility. While this is taken for granted by publishers, all organic and paid listings link to page content they truly control. Without neutrality, it's possible that URLs could be filtered or treated differently based on still-undefined rules set by broadband providers.

The Big Engines are ready to fight. In July 2006, Google warned U.S. legislators that if broadband providers abused net neutrality principles, it would consider anti-trust actions. Google's position is still posted today, and we're pretty sure it has not changed.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; The Neutrality Debate; Neutrality and Consumer Fees

Posted by at 3:15 AM | Permalink

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns

Congress has brought back net neutrality legislation, as described by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in this You Tube video.

The legislation states that all content, applications and services must be freely accessible through broadband providers. Also it requires cable and telecom providers to offer broadband access as a standalone service, not only bundled with voice or video.

The year-end merger of AT&T/BellSouth was approved with a net neutrality concession, agreeing to freely accessible content for the next 2.5 years.

There are two political sites worth checking out. Supporters advocate a level playing field on Save The Internet. Dissenters say regulation stifles innovation at Hands Off the Internet.

Also read straighter reporting from The New York Times, Broadcasting & Cable, and CNET.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Neutrality Debate; Neutrality and Consumer Fees; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by at 2:18 AM | Permalink

January 15, 2007

Neutrality and Consumer Fees

Today, most consumers pay for open internet access through broadband providers. Without net neutrality, will consumers pay more to access specific types of content or tiers of sites? In the future, will consumers be able to buy broadband alone and at reasonable rates?

Perhaps there is an opportunity for more affordable broadband access. The free municipal wireless providers are promising, and have a built-in advertising stream that users see when they sign in. So there might be other consumer options down the road.

However, net neutrality is not about free internet access. According to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, "If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; The Neutrality Debate; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by at 6:35 AM | Permalink

The Neutrality Debate

There's frothy debate taking place about regulation and its impact on broadband providers and web publishers.

Lawrence Lessig has an interesting take on regulation, saying those who oppose neutrality regulation should also oppose regulation for the last mile.

In a recent Wired column, Lessig asks: "Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?"

Whether regulation or market forces drive things, we see real publisher challenges ahead without net neutrality.

If neutrality vanished, web publishers might have to "pay to play." This is an old cable industry term, used when cable networks (aka publishers) made payments to access cable systems (aka providers).

If faced with additional costs, publishers would start finding other places to scale back. It's not a big leap to say they'd examine their discretionary marketing spends -- and that impacts the whole search industry.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; Neutrality and Consumer Fees; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by at 6:35 AM | Permalink

November 7, 2006

Australia's Proposed Copyright Rules Would Make Search Engines Impossible, Warns Google

AFP reports that Google has warned Australia that if they pass certain a new copyright law that it will set the country back to "the pre-Internet era." Google's senior counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, "If such advanced permission was required [to index pages], the internet would promptly grind to a halt." I believe the issue here is that Australia wants Google to get copyright owners to opt in to having their content indexed, archived and cached, as opposed to opting out via a robots.txt file. Australia is not alone here; Belgium newspapers are fighting Google over similar copyright issues. This all just amazes me, seriously.

Postscript From Danny: See also my Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers piece that goes into great depth about how this is effectively already the law in Belgium, due to a court ruling there. The appeal on that case will happen later this month, but the threat alone also already caused Micrsoft to back out of some indexing.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:29 AM | Permalink

October 30, 2006

Google Appeals Federal Judge's Orkut Ruling

The International Herald Tribune reports that Google has appealed a federal judge's order to hand over the IP address information to Brazilian authorities. Google claims the "federal civil court did not have the proper authority" for such information. But Google spokesperson, Debbie Frost said Google will help Brazilian authorities identify individuals accused of illegal activities on Google's social networking platform, Orkut. This history goes way back, just start from here and keep clicking those links back to the previous stories. This amazes me that it is still going on since early this year.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:13 AM | Permalink

Google "In Bed" With The CIA?

Threadwatch spots a disgrunt article named Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA. Robert David Steele, a former CIA agent, "confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with “the agency." Steele said, “I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I'm hoping they'll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off." Scary, very scary.

Postscript: Statement from Google on this, "The statements related to Google are completely untrue."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:36 AM | Permalink

October 23, 2006

Google's NetPAC Begins Donating Money

Mercury News reports that Google's NetPAC has begun handing out small $1,000 donations to three different Republicans. Google has given to Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Deborah Pryce of Ohio and Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Google also gave two donations to Democrats, Rep. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:15 AM | Permalink

October 10, 2006

Court Issues Notice To Google For Allegedly Spreading Hate In India Via Orkut

The Times of India reports that Google is in hot water over Orkut once again, this time for allegedly spreading hatred for India. The article says, "The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to issue notice to Google for the alleged spread of hatred about India by its social network service Orkut." The problem is over a "We Hate India" community in Orkut that posted a picture a burning Indian flag.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

October 3, 2006

Get 20 Years For Meta Tag Abuse

Via Google Blogoscoped, Meta tag abusers face 20 years in prison from The Register covers how a new law in the US might land some people using meta tags in trouble, if they are trying to mislead children.

Specifically, the law says "whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years."

Meta tag controls were added to the Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth (SAFETY) Act. Now we all know, meta tags have almost no impact on the rankings of a page, but anyone putting those types of keywords in their meta tags most likely are trying to do it with the intent of improving their rankings for those keywords.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

September 28, 2006

Google Not To Deliver Orkut Data To Brazil Authorities

Google won't hand data to Brazil judge from the Associated Press reports that Google will not be meeting the deadline to provide Brazilian authorities with the data they requested on specific Orkut users. This comes after Google saying they will hand over the data to Brazil. So the question is, will Google be fined $23,000 per day by the Brazilian judge until they comply? Google has promised to issue a court explanation as to why they cannot provide the data Brazil requested. The AP article also quotes Debbie Frost of Google saying, "We have and will continue to provide Brazilian authorities with information on users who abuse the Orkut service, if their requests are reasonable and follow an appropriate legal process."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:55 AM | Permalink

September 19, 2006

Google's Political Action Committee: Google NetPAC

Via Threadwatch, Google will flex political muscles PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board from the San Francisco Chronicle covers how Google has created its own Political Action Committee named Google NetPAC to to support candidates backing "an open and free internet." Google has some small footprints in Washington already, hiring a lobbying firm in the past to help push public policy in the direction Google wants it to go.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:43 AM | Permalink

September 18, 2006

Belgian Court Orders Google To Remove Content From Google News & Cache

Reuters reports the big news of the day that Google has been ordered by a Belgian court to remove all articles, photographs and graphics from French-speaking newspapers. Copiepresse issued the complaint and won the court ruling on September 5th. Not only does this require Google to remove content from Google News, the court order requires removing the content from the Google cache. ChillingEffects.org has a link to the full court order.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:23 AM | Permalink

September 4, 2006

Google Says They Will Give Brazil Orkut Data

The Washington Post reports that Google will give over the Orkut data of specific users including; IP addresses with time and date stamps that can help trace a specific user and registration information including names and e-mail addresses. This comes after Brazil gave Google 15 days to comply or else be fined $23,000 per day.

Why turn over data to Brazil when Google famous resisted the US government earlier this year for a data request? Reports the Post:

"What they're asking for is not billions of pages," said Nicole Wong, Google associate general counsel. "In most cases, it's relatively discrete -- small and narrow."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:16 AM | Permalink

September 1, 2006

Google Has 15 Days To Provide Data To Brazil Or Be Fined $23,000 Per Day

AFP reports that Brazil has given Google Brazil 15 days to turn over the data on the Orkut users they have been asking for. If Google Brazil does not comply, they will be fining them $23,000 per day. Google has said that they would work with Brazil to shut down Orkut some communities but according to the court filing in Sao Paulo yesterday, those requirements have been 'unsatisfactorily met.'

We have a good historical round down of this whole Google & Orkut & Brazil issue here. Business Week also has a nice write up on the issues named Google's Brazil Headache, highlighting why Google is saying they'll comply if only the requests were sent to Google in the US, rather than Google Brazil.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:20 AM | Permalink

August 22, 2006

Brazil To Close Google Brazil's Offices Over Orkut Issues?

A post in our SEW Forums and a report from Xinhau says that Brazil's federal prosecution service is moving to close Google's operations in Brazil. So far, there is no other news about this that we've seen. An injunction is apparently being requested ordering the release of information from Orkut, with a threat for closure of Google's Sao Paulo office if they don't comply.

Postscript From Danny: Reuters has a story up now here: Google refuses to hand over data to Brazilian authorities. It covers that prosecutors want permission to file a civil lawsuit against Google, with a $61 million fine and the threat of closure if it fails to comply with the information request.

Postscript From Barry: For an historical line up of these events over time, see the links below:

- Aug. 16, 2006 :: Orkut Causing Trouble In Brazil Again - Jul. 21, 2005 :: Drug Pushers Using Orkut Arrested In Brazil - May. 25, 2006 :: Google Works With Brazil To Shut Down Orkut Communities - May. 18, 2006 :: Google Faces Criminal Charges For Child Porn & Racial Material - May. 3, 2006 :: Google & Brazil Fight Over Orkut User Data Rights - Mar. 10, 2006 :: Brazil Asks Google To Help Orkut To Stop Organizing Organized Crime - Mar. 9, 2006 :: Al-Qaeda Likes Orkut

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 5:21 PM | Permalink

August 17, 2006

Human Rights Group & UK House of Commons Demand Google, Yahoo, & Microsoft To Stop Censorship

Earlier this week, GameShout.com published an article reporting that Human Rights Watch group in New York told Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to be upfront with their users about the censorship and stand up to the political pressure China places on them. The quote says it all pretty strongly, "It was ironic that companies whose existence depends on freedom of information and expression have taken on the role of censor, even in cases where the Chinese government makes no specific demands for them to do so." The Inquirer soon after reported that the committee in the UK House of Commons has slammed Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for "collaborating with Chinese authorities to censor and police the Internet."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:44 AM | Permalink

August 16, 2006

Orkut Causing Trouble In Brazil Again

Komfie Manalo reports that Brazil has threatened to bring Google to court over their social networking application, Orkut, again. Yesterday, the Federal Prosecution Service of Brazil, said Google refused "to cooperate with authorities about user information" on Orkut. Google said in the past that they would work with Brazilian officials to shut down Orkut communities that were participating and helping criminals traffic drugs and distribute pedophilia. Google says they have cooperated with Brazilian authorities, stating, they have "provided information to eight investigations, and kept secret information regarding 60 other cases since June."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 2:33 PM | Permalink

August 15, 2006

EFF Asks FTC To Limit How Long AOL Can Store Search Records

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate AOL's release of search records last week and prevent the company from storing search data for longer than two weeks.

The formal complaint (PDF) asks for the FTC to:

order AOL to refrain from collecting or storing logs of its users' search activity except where necessary incident to the rendition of AOL's services or the protection of AOL rights and property, and to refrain in any case from storing logs of its users' search activity in personally identifiable form or for more than fourteen (14) days;

The EFF also wants all those whose searches were revealed through the data to be notified by AOL, which sounds like a good idea and something you'd think AOL would already want to do. Other things are requested, such as one year's worth of credit monitoring to protect against identity theft. That seems far-fetched, but I suppose you never know.

Coinciding with the complaint, the Wall Street Journal has a debate between the EFF and an internet lobbying group NetCoalition that apparently represents Yahoo and Google, among others.

The debate, Should Web Search Data Be Stored?, is free to anyone to view. It's well worth a read, if only to read that the US Department Of Justice is apparently arguing that access to search records might not require a search warrant, as the EFF says the Electronic Communication Privacy Act requires.

Overall, I'm much more on the side of the EFF in the debate. Some highlights from it and my remarks about them.

NetCoalition: Search queries are stored and used by Internet companies for internal purposes.

Me: Search queries have been shared by various companies in different ways with third parties over the years. More important, even if these are stored for internal purposes, there's no guarantee that they'll be perfectly protected. Leaks, accidental or intentional, do happen.

NetCoalition: There are good, legitimate reasons why an Internet company would use historical search queries for internal uses. For example, search query information can be used in research and development to make improvements to search technology, to better tailor and make more efficient users' online requests. Companies also analyze historical query information to detect and protect against click fraud -- an activity that involves faking clicks on Web advertisements to drive up costs.

Me: Excellent points, but the major search engines are going to have to step up now with better proof that there's no way data can be tied back with an individual, even when made "anonymous" in the way AOL has shown doesn't work. Click fraud refunds typically aren't given for activity longer than 60 days, so that provides a time horizon for how long data might be associated with actual users/IP activity.

NetCoalition: Search queries are essentially "directory assistance" requests from users to companies that help them find locations on the Internet. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is meant to protect communications between and among users -- not to protect requests from customers for directions on the Internet.

Me: Wow, I think the search engines need a new lobbying group that understands search better. Searches can be directory assistance and much more than that. Search engines are confidents, trusted friends that we effectively tell secrets to in order to get advice. They aren't about getting location. They are about getting information.

NetCoalition: The Video Privacy Protection Act is a bad analogy. Internet companies do not match up the user's personal information (e.g., name, address and phone number) with search queries the way a video rental record would.

Me: Except they do. If you're logged in to a search engine, then any personal information you've provided is associated with your search query in some way.

EFF: The public needs to know the facts about how their data is being stored and used before they can make informed decisions as consumers as to whether and how to use a particular search engine, and to make informed decisions as citizens as to whether and how Congress needs to update the law. I think the best route would be hearings in Congress to get to the bottom of the issue.

Me: I think the best route would be for the search engines themselves to act in conjunction with privacy groups right now to get protections and standards in place. But if they can't act, then hopefully laws covering the entire search spectrum -- from ISP to search engine -- will be enacted.

NetCoalition: Search queries are not being linked to users' personal information and shared for marketing purposes.

Me: Except they are. Showing ads in response to a query, while long-standing and generally accepted, is a marketing purpose. Showing ads based on search profiles, such as the New York Times wrote about today, is a more extreme example.

EFF: My organization also strongly opposes proposals by the DOJ and Congresswoman DeGette that would force companies to store this kind of sensitive data for government use. That's like asking the post office to keep copies of our mail, or phone companies to keep recordings of our phone calls, just in case investigators might find it useful. The bottom line is that Americans deserve the same privacy protections online that they've always had offline, and that includes the ability to be able to speak and consume speech freely and privately, without fear that their deepest secrets might be shared with the government or published to the world. Yet when search engines accumulate this kind of data, such disclosures are bound to happen, as this week's news has demonstrated.

Me: Well said!

Postscript: I'd sent some questions over to the EFF and just got answers back from EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston. Here they are:

Q. Why just AOL? Why aren't you asking for all search engines to be limited? I did see that you want federal laws to expand to cover them, but what happened with AOL could happen with the others as well.

A. Why aren't we asking the FTC to investigate and take action against other search engines? Because we can't, just like we can't go to court and demand that Google pay for AOL's mistake. The FTC isn't a suggestion box. We had a specific complaint about AOL--we think this disclosure violated their policy and therefore constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice--and we filed that complaint with the FTC. If other companies engaged in similar disclosures, we'd file similar complaints.

If you are familiar with our work, you know that we've been complaining about the logging practices of search engines as a category for a long while. In fact, I'm usually the one trying to explain to Google-hungry journalists that your Yahoos and AOLs and MSNs and other multi-service portals pose most if not all of the same privacy threats, so it's funny to be accused of singling out one of them for some sort of special mistreatment. We're merely reacting to a specific incident that happened to involve AOL rather than Google or Yahoo or MSN.

We want strong, clear legal rules that cover all the search engines; we want all the search engines to limit retention.

Q. Why just the search engines? Many ISPs are recording the same data but aren't being limited on data retention. It's actually more worrisome to me in that many ISPs are happily selling this data to third parties.

Again, if you are familiar with our work, you know that we are generally concerned about data retention by all stripes of online service providers (see, e.g., our white paper on best practices for online service providers, http://www.eff.org/osp/). So, in short, we share your worry. But again, we are reacting to a specific incident concerning a search engine, so our discussion right now is focused on search engines.

BTW, if you are specifically aware of any ISP that routinely collects the searches its users submit to other search engines, we'd love to hear more about it. I think that without very clear consent from the customer, that would be an unauthorized interception of your communications, and therefore a felony.

Q. How long does the EFF retain search data? You've got a search box. People do sensitive searches on your sites. I want to ensure AOL isn't being held to a higher standard than the EFF itself meets.

We don't retain search terms. Of course, since we use Google, Google does undoubtedly retain them. But we proxy everyone's requests so that their IP addresses and cookies are not transmitted to Google, therefore individual search terms are only identifiable to EFF visitors as a population and not personally or uniquely. In fact, we call this out on our site: if you click on the link next to our search box that says "about EFF's search," you'll see a pop-up that says "EFF uses Google for search functionality on www.eff.org. To protect your privacy, EFF proxies search requests to Google with a special CGI script on our server, thus hiding your IP address and your Google cookie (if any) from Google's servers."

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:02 AM | Permalink

July 27, 2006

French Court Preventing Greenpeace France From Displaying Crop Data On Google Maps

BoingBoing spotted an interesting case where a French court ordered Greenpeace France to remove a site using the Google Maps tool to display "locations of commercial, genetically engineered corn fields in France." Greenpeace France overlaid an X in the spot of those corn fields. They have removed the site, but plan on appealing the order. "Greenpeace argues the online maps should not be censored because an EU law requires the French government to make the crop site information public anyway," Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing writes.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:36 AM | Permalink

July 26, 2006

New US Child Protection Law Might Make Webmasters Second Guess What They Write

Via Threadwatch, Congress spanks naughty sex sites from News.com covers how the US is likely to gain a new law making it illegal to send people to porn by using misleading text.

From the bill:

2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

(b) MINORS.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

Hmm -- and source code means meta data? Body copy? Both:

the term ‘source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.

And what's obscene or harmful to minors? I didn't find that defined in the copy (PDF file) of the bill News.com is pointing at. Section 2252B covers the part about minors, and that's here.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the term “material that is harmful to minors” means any communication, consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its context—

(1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;

(2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term “sex” means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial [1] contact with a person's genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

The News.com article goes into more depth on how a lack of clarity could mean that a porn site showing things like Barbie dolls having sex could potentially fall into trouble.

As a parent, I certainly appreciate an effort to protect my children and those of others. But I also get worried about laws that potentially are overly broad. What's "obscene" isn't well defined, for example, from what I can see. We'll see how it goes.

FYI, even without this law, the US government has already been able to stop sites that are misleading. FTC Steps In To Stop Spamming covers how in 1999, the US Federal Trade Commission did exactly this in a case of a porn site trying to mislead people to it.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:24 PM | Permalink

July 20, 2006

Amnesty International Asking Users To Pressure Google, Yahoo & Microsoft Over China Policies

BBC News reports that Amnesty International is urging users of Google, Yahoo and MSN in the UK to email the search engines opposing the way each operates in China. Amnesty International says that the search engines are aiding the censorship. The search engines say that Chinese users are more well off then they were prior. More on the Amnesty campaign can be found here from the organization.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:24 AM | Permalink

July 6, 2006

Myanmar Enables Access To Google After Blocking Gmail & GTalk

Mizzima News reports that Myanmar (also known as Burma) has opened up access to Google again, after blocking it about a week ago. Reportedly Myanmar blocked Google and Gmail/GTalk because they want to control the revenues earned from the state-controlled telephone companies. Myanmar has been known to block web-based email accounts because they want to only allow state-controlled email usage.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:18 AM | Permalink

July 5, 2006

Google Warns U.S. Legislators On Anti-Trust Complaints Over Net Neutrality

The Washington Post reports that Google has warned the United States, that if telecoms abuse net neutrality principles it backs, through a new law that might go through, it could consider an anti-trust action. If you want all the details, check out the Washington Post.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:46 AM | Permalink

June 30, 2006

Myanmar Government Blocks Google & GMail?

The Times of India reports that Myanmar government has blocked Internet users from reaching Google.com and Gmail. They claim users trying to reach Google and Gmail for the past week have been received "Access Denied" responses. Myanmar's largest ISP, Bagan Cybertech, confirmed the issue that the sites were "inaccessible but declined to comment further."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:58 AM | Permalink

June 26, 2006

Google To Also Lobby In Europe

Pandia covers that Google is looking to hire a "senior European government affairs and public policy leader," to lobby in Europe. Google has hired a lobbying firm in the states a few months back. More details on the story at Pandia.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:37 AM | Permalink

June 23, 2006

Child Porn Suit Dropped Against Google

The Associated Press reports that the suit brought against Google for profiting on child pornography has been dropped. Jeffrey Toback, of the Nassau County Legislature, filed the suit in early May. Toback said he dropped the suit because "Google has offered to sit down and discuss the issues. They didn't want to do that while litigation was pending, so we're taking them up on their offer."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

June 16, 2006

Yahoo China Highest Censorship Enforcing

Wired News reports that Yahoo China is the strictest at censoring out politically sensitive results when compared to Google China and MSN China. Reporters Without Borders, an advocacy group, conducted tests by querying ten "politically-sensitive keywords" including press freedom or human rights." Editors & Publisher adds the group found Yahoo's censorship was shocking, for example, as when a keyword search on "subversive" brought back 97% pro-Beijing results. More from Reporters Without Borders is here, explaining how six keywords were tested and the first ten results analyzed.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:17 AM | Permalink

June 15, 2006

Google Relaunches US Government Search, Now With Personalized Home Page

Google launched its search engine for US government information, informally known as Google Uncle Sam, many years ago. It's been running since at least 1999. But now the service has received an update giving it a personalized home page and formal branding as Google US Government Search.

By default, the new home page shows the weather in Washington DC (outlook: political infighting, with mudslinging later in the week) and headlines from the US White House, top government stories out of Google News (though a concocted query string), Washington Post headlines, headlines from the American Forces Information Services and headlines from Government Executive magazine.

As before, you can search and have results come back just from US government web sites, along with state and local government sites in the United States. Google's help page explains more. Try net neutrality on Google US government search, and you'll see how compared to a regular Google search, listings disappear from Wikipedia, political groups supporting net neutrality, news organizations reporting on the issue and other sources. Instead, it's just information published on government web servers in the US. And that's a good thing, for those who just want to home in on official government materials.

There's at least one glitch. The search result pages still show the old red, white & blue Google American Flag-styled logo on the government search site, and clicking on the logo takes you back to regular Google rather than the government search home page.

Already have a personalized home page? One nice thing is that you can personalize the US government search page independently of your other page. However, searches on the US government search site do flow into your main search history, if you have the feature enabled.

The relaunch comes on the heels of Google political moves last week. Google tried a last-minute lobbying attempt for net neutrality by cofounder Sergey Brin and an effort to rally Google users to lobby for net neutrality plus harvest their names for future political pushes.

It's hard not to see the updated US government search service as a way to attract government workers and insiders to a place where Google can influence them. Google ultimately controls the personalized home page and can choose to insert material on it any time it wants. That's a powerful tool if many people involved with the government start tuning into the page.

Certainly giving the Washington Post an exclusive on breaking the news helps fuel the idea that Google's doing a push along these lines. The Post is the only media outlet to have been prebriefed on the release, that I can tell. That helps ensure the story gets good play, plus causes competing print media outlets to give the story a second day of coverage doing catch-up stories. Of course, the Post also gets prime space on the new site, as well. That probably won't please some competing political news publications, though anyone can add anything to that page manually.

By the way, to add material, look for the Add Content link in the top left-hand side of the page. Opening that allows you to add the URL of any publication producing an RSS feed with content, or you can also search for matching sites of interest. Google also looks to have added a new Government category of recommended selections, which offer a range of official sources. See also the help page for more on personalization.

Google to Launch Government Search Site is the Washington Post's story on the launch, with Google quotes on seeking to serve government employees and average citizens better with it. The story also list competing government search engines, including the official one at FirstGov.gov. That's powered by Microsoft. We covered this recently here: New Firstgov.gov Search Database Goes Live.

By the way, let's clear up some URL confusion:

http://usgov.google.com is the main URL for the new site.
http://www.google.com/ig/usgov also works. It's where the official URL redirects people to.
http://www.google.com/unclesam is the address of the old service, which is still live and works just like the new service, but without the personalized components. You also find it still listed on Google's special searches page. I expect Google will eventually redirect this URL to the new service when they realize it's still live.

Looking for more about government search engines? See the Search Types: Government category of our Search Topics section, available to Search Engine Watch members.

Postscript: Google now has a press release on the launch up here, though it is fairly sparse. The Google Blog also has a short post here. And Google tells me the Washington Post was the only major daily/wire outlet prebriefed, though some small government trade publications also got info.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:35 AM | Permalink

June 14, 2006

Japan To Build Own Search Engine With 30 Japanese Companies & Government Help

The Mainichi Daily show that Japan is going to be building out their own search engine after conducting a focus group on the idea. Thirty organizations in Japan and the University of Tokyo will be working to develop the Japanese based search engine. Part of the group includes big brands such as Hitachi, Fujitsu and Nippon. The Japanese government plans on providing a subsidy for the project. Why? "Many people in Japan fear that the domination of the three firms will prevent Japanese companies from entering the market." The European Union, led by France, is doing something very similar.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:40 AM | Permalink

New York State Sends Warning On Google Video Service

ResourceShelf notes a Red Herring article about the New York State Consumer Protection Board (CPB) warning parents about Google Video. The warning discussed that Google Video enables children to "easily access and view videos with sexual themes and off-color material" all for free. ResourceShelf also notes that the only video service mentioned in this warning is Google Video, not YouTube or Yahoo Video.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:18 AM | Permalink

June 8, 2006

Google Calls On Users To Lobby For Net Neutrality

Google cofounder Sergey Brin might not have been able to lobby all the US senators he wanted earlier this week to stop a bill that threatens net neutrality. But Google still has a big stick to wave -- its users. The Debate over Net Neutrality on the Official Google Blog urges Google users to call their representatives and ask that the bill be stopped (it's up for a vote this week).

The blog points to an open letter Eric Schmidt has written to Google users, bulletpointing three action steps -- call, sign online petitions and sign-up for a new Google Policy Alert list. That list is notable. It will give Google the ability to mobile users for future policy fights -- assuming they jump in on it, of course.

The really big gun has yet to be rolled out. There's nothing I see on the Google home page about the call to action. C'mon Google, if you're that serious about it, put something out where your users will actually see it, on the home page.

Searches on net neutrality don't bring up any Google house ads that target those in the US. They do bring up ads for the two online petitions Google is promoting: ItsOurNet and SaveTheInternet.com. No idea if these are free or discounted ads -- I'll check on this and postscript if this turns out to be the case. I suspect not.

Unofficially, Microsoft calling for action. At least Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble is, in his Key network neutrality bill up for vote tomorrow.

Postscript: Net neutrality failed in a US House Of Representatives vote yesterday, sadly.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:01 AM | Permalink

June 7, 2006

Brin Can't Get Some Senate Meetings On Last-Minute DC Trip; Admits Needing Better Organization

It wasn't only China that Google cofounder Sergey Brin was talking about in Washington DC yesterday. The purpose of his trip primarily was to lobby for net neutrality, to prevent phone companies for charging web sites for better access to them by web surfers. However, Google Is A Tourist In D.C., Brin Finds from the Washington Post covers how being super-powerful in search doesn't equal getting congressional members to drop everything for your visit.

Several meetings Brin wanted to have with US senators couldn't happen at the last minute, leaving him to admit the visit "wasn't very well organized."

Those senators, by the way, have now had their official sites banned on Google. And when they complain, they'll find themselves directed to the standard Google feedback form to make reinclusion requests.

Remember, senators, as we covered yesterday, Google's already gotten a former Alaskan governor back in office despite not being elected.

Back in seriousness, Gary Price has also posted a rundown on Google lobbying attempts from 2003 through 2005. Meanwhile, Reuters has a look at the net neutrality issue Google's pushing here.

Postscript

Just to be clear, it was a joke about senators finding their web sites banned. Google issued no such bans. As for the Alaska governor reference, this story explains more how this is something that's happened accidentally due to the way Google and other search engines craft descriptions

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:29 AM | Permalink

June 5, 2006

UK Journalists Boycott Yahoo Services

America's Network reports that journalists in the UK are set to boycott Yahoo's services and products. The boycott is in protest of how Yahoo has handled some matters in China, such as allegations that the yahoo sent information about journalists to the Chinese authorities.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:17 AM | Permalink

May 29, 2006

Political Actions By Google In Washington Seen As Naive

Threatening everything from net neutrality to regulating companies with operations in China, tech companies must take their cause to Washington. The LA Times details lessons learned by Microsoft over its antitrust woes and characterizes Google has having taken serious missteps by irritating Republicans in power with its employees modestly contributing nearly entirely to Democrats and under staffing its DC operations. Google countered that they are "not a partisan presence in Washington," and "recently announced the hiring of Bush White House aide Jamie Brown for a senior position." The general sense is that Google will take lessons learned from Microsoft and will continue to develop its lobbying efforts which began in earnest late last year.

Posted by Detlev Johnson at 9:50 AM | Permalink

May 25, 2006

Google Works With Brazil To Shut Down Orkut Communities

The Associated Press reports that Google has finally agreed to pull the plug on some communities within Orkut, Google's social networking software. Google has specifically agreed to shut down any community that violates Orkut's terms of service. This includes "any illegal or unauthorized purpose" such as;

+ Drug Pushers Using Orkut Arrested In Brazil + Brazil Asks Google To Help Orkut To Stop Organizing Organized Crime + Google & Brazil Fight Over Orkut User Data Rights + Google Faces Criminal Charges For Child Porn & Racial Material

About time I guess.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:24 AM | Permalink

May 15, 2006

Snap.com's New User Interface & Adds New Features

Snap.com has released a new user interface for its search results page. As you begin typing your query, it does the whole Google Suggest, LookAhead, AllTheWeb LiveSearch auto complete suggested query thing. Then you submit your query and the interface snaps (literally) into a two column view. On the left are the search results and on the right is a preview of the landing page of the result selected on the left. This is a more, in your face approach to Ask.com's Binoculars, that allows you to mouse over to see a site preview. For the full release, download the PDF document.

Postscript From Danny: See also Upstart search engine blurs the lines of advertising from the Associated Press, which covers issues raised over whether Snap is doing proper disclosure of paid listings. Meanwhile, Overture Founder Starts Pay-Per-Action System from the San Jose Mercury news covers the move to a cost-per-action payment system for ads.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:27 AM | Permalink

May 12, 2006

IE7 Default Search Given Approval By DOJ

Hot News! After all the debate the Department of Justice has approved IE7 to default to MSN Search. The news report says that Microsoft's search feature "respects users' and OEM's [original equipment manufacturers] default choices and is easily changed." Is that the end of that debate? I doubt it.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 4:40 PM | Permalink

Microsoft Fires Back at Google Over IE7 Complaint

News.com reports that Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, feels Google is asking for special treatment with the whole controversy on IE7 defaulting the search to MSN Search. Ballmer explains that if you configured IE to use Yahoo search, then when you upgrade to IE7, Yahoo will remain as the default. Only when you get a new computer, will the default search be MSN Search. Also, if you want to change that, the first option in the list is Ask.com, since the search engines are sorted alphabetically. More food for thought off Danny's last comment on this.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:34 AM | Permalink

5% Of Search Results Lead To "Dangerous Sites"

Andy Beal reports on a Wall Street Journal article that claims 9% of paid search ads lead to "dangerous sites." Three-percent of organic results lead to risky sites, in comparison to the PPC ads. So on average, the article shows that "roughly 5% of the search results on average were risky sites." The SiteAdvisor study estimates a searcher will click to an "unsafe site from a search engine once every 15 days." Risky sites are defined as sites that can "infect consumers' personal computers or expose them to nuisances such as spam email."

Postscript by Detlev Johnson: You can find additional information at BBC with respect to natural listings that lead to risky sites. As much as 4-6% of search results in natural listings are categorized as risky, while sites in the sponsored listings can be 2-4 times as numerous.

The sheer volume of clicks this can account for is scary - 285 million per month. Search engines are known to try limiting their users from accessing risky sites through their search engines; at least as much as they combat spam. Their efforts will need to continue and be ongoing similarly to fighting search engine spam.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:16 AM | Permalink

May 5, 2006

Google Sued For Allegedly Profiting On Child Porn

The LA Times & ABC News reports that Google is being sued by Nassau County Legislator, Jeffrey Toback (in Long Island, New York) for allegedly profiting on child pornography. The lawsuit "is a proactive step to keep children safe," Toback said and that the suit is not seeking monetary damages, it just wants Google to be more proactive on blocking out illegal pornography from both the paid and organic results.

It is important to note that only Google is being sued here, and not Yahoo, MSN or Ask.com. Also, Matt Cutts is famed at Google for writing the "safe search filter" at Google, I believe. Past coverage of pornography issues at the search engines include;

+ Google Removes Child Porn Post & Reports To FBI + Yahoo Sued Over Child Porn On Yahoo Groups

There is also many more stories on spam and porn issues out there in the blogosphere with Google.

Postscript: Eric Goldman from Marquette University Law School informed me that Yahoo went through the same thing and they won a motion to dismiss. He also says that the "lawsuit is almost certainly preempted by 47 USC 230."

Postscript: Eric has posted several updates including a link to the complaint (PDF) where he concludes that "this lawsuit is just a publicity stunt, and a pathetic one at that. Among other evidence of cluelessness, the complaint uses a wacky definition of "child pornography."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:43 AM | Permalink

May 2, 2006

Google Worried About Microsoft's Browser Advantage? What Advantage?

I was off yesterday (it was a holiday in England), so I merrily missed the fireworks over Google's objections to Microsoft's plans for search in Internet Explorer 7. Nevertheless, a few calls from reporters penetrated my holiday bubble, and I added a brief note with my thoughts below Barry's post about the news. But today, I wanted to more formally revisit the issue. In short, I find Google's concerns pretty overblown, somewhat hypocritical and most important, worry over something that's not likely going to hurt them.

I am nauseatingly exhausted by idea that Microsoft will conjure up some magical method of yanking people into its MSN Windows Live Whatever You Want To Call It search service via the Windows operating system or the Internet Explorer browser. Microsoft has failed for years to be successful in this, which is why it's amazing anyone would still believe it.

In the longer version of this post for Search Engine Watch members, I revisit the tired facts in more depth:

How search has been integrated into Windows and Internet Explorer since 1996 but failed to help Microsoft.
How even when MSN Search was made the default choice by 2001, Google still rose in traffic share.
How putting the search box into the "chrome" of the browser doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft will have a major win this time.
How search via toolbars still remain the minority of the way searches happen.

Meanwhile, skip past the business aspects. What about the consumer issue of choice? The New York Times writes of Google's preferred solution:

The best way to handle the search box, Google asserts, would be to give users a choice when they first start up Internet Explorer 7. It says that could be done by asking the user to either type in the name of their favorite search engine or choose from a handful of the most popular services, using a simple drop-down menu next to the search box. The Firefox and Opera browsers come with Google set as the default, but Ms. Mayer said Google would support unfettered choice on those as well.

Sure, I can get behind the "give people a choice from the beginning" idea. But if Google wants Microsoft to do that, then Google should make it happen right now in Firefox, which pretty much is Google's surrogate browser. If this is the best way for a browser to behave, then Google should be putting its weight on Firefox to make it happen. And Google should also ensure it does the same with Dell, where it has a partnership that I believe makes it the default search engine on new Dell computers.

It would be much easier to back Google's suggestions for IE7 if it was already doing this with its own partnerships. That's especially so given this latest article comes two months after the Wall Street Journal gave big play to Google's concerns with IE7. Back in February, the Journal wrote:

In December, for these and other reasons, Google refused to sign an agreement with Microsoft relating to the new browser's search capabilities. Microsoft left Google off the list of alternative search services. A month later, Microsoft notified Google it would be included on the list with or without a signed agreement, according to people familiar with the matter. Microsoft says after a review of its legal position, it realized it could include Google without a formal pact.

So Google's been concerned about choice for months. Nevertheless, it has failed to make any changes in Firefox, as I wrote after reviewing the Wall Street Journal article:

It's an odd argument, given that Google has not demanded that Firefox make consumers do similar choices in that browser. A partnership deal makes Google the default in Firefox, except for Asian-language versions where Yahoo cut its own deals.

In the end, I find it almost amazing that Google feels it needs to drop hints to the US Justice Department and the EU that it perhaps needs protection. In the search space, it's Google that remains the major player that many people feel may need to have a counter to. A list of the most popular search engines? Since those are largely US-dominated companies, I suspect the EU would want to change the playing field not to stop Microsoft but to hinder both Google and Microsoft. Is that a box Google really wants to open?

Finally, some second-day stories, that I've reviewed after writing the article above:

Google supports choice...except on FireFox and Opera from Microsoft's Don Dodge raising the same issue I covered above, that Google has hardly demonstrated a support of choice in the way it demands of Microsoft.
Google's Double Standard from Yahoo's Jeremy Zawodny, again looking at Google's failure to support choice.
Google cries foul, but for what? from Ed Bott provides nice screenshots on how changing providers in IE7 is about the same as changing in Firefox with one exception - MSN Search is NOT an option in Firefox while Google IS an option in IE7. How about Google putting some pressure on Firefox to let Microsoft in the door. It is one of the web's major search engines. It ought to be on that list.
Google and choice from Nick Carr has the interesting suggestion that if Google's for choice, shouldn't the Google home page -- which gets far more users than any browser toolbar -- let users make a search choice? The idea gave me a chuckle, but I wouldn't agree. If you go to Google, you wanted Google. I don't buy into the idea you went there because you thought Google was just a synonym for search.
Microsoft and Google Set to Wage Arms Race from the New York Times follows on yesterday's article to look at the idea that in the war between Google and Microsoft (and Yahoo, but they don't get a mention), Google's hardly a scrappy underdog. In fact, it has people worried about it perhaps being a monopoly or too powerful. That's something that's been going on since 2002, as my Google: Can The Marcia Brady Of Search Stay Sweet? article from back then covers in more depth.

Want to comment or discuss? Visit our Search Engine Watch Forums thread, Google Objects To Microsoft's IE7 Search Default Plans.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:09 AM | Permalink

May 1, 2006

Microsoft's IE 7 Serve Unfair Advantage Over Google & Yahoo?

Everyone is pointing to a NY Times article that claims Google is complaining to the Justice Department and the European Commission about Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 7. IE7 has set the default browser search engine to MSN Search, Google feels this puts Microsoft at an unfair advantage. Marissa Mayer is quoted as saying; "The market favors open choice for search, and companies should compete for users based on the quality of their search services." She adds, "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose." Microsoft replied to this saying that Google is correct, IE7 sets MSN Search as the default, but changing that setting is incredibly easy and can be done at any time.

The article also says "Microsoft insists it has no intention of deploying its browser as a weapon in the search wars." I have always thought Microsoft would use its browser as an asset in wining the search war. I even claimed that relevancy wouldn't play a part in which search engine gains the most market share in the future. Let me be clear, Danny Sullivan disagrees with me on this point. And this weekend, recent information showed that Danny may be right and I may be wrong. But if Google is that worried about IE7 and Microsoft, than maybe I will be right? Time will tell and I hope Danny follows up on this entry with his own thoughts.

Postscript From Danny: Just briefly, I've written before (and here and here) that despite having a browser tie-in for years, Microsoft has failed to maintain search marketshare. IE7 and Vista, in my view, will hardly be the killer tool in beating Google and Yahoo for Microsoft.

In some related articles, see Google Testing Software Distribution With Dell, Plus Details On IE7 Search Battle, which summarizes a Wall Street Journal article earlier this year on the ongoing fight/issues with search and Internet Explorer. The article itself is here: Pressuring Microsoft, PC Makers Team Up With Its Software Rivals. Also see Google-MSN Fight In Internet Explorer 7; Yahoo Pokes At Google In Firefox.

Postscript 2 From Danny: I've now posted some extended comments here: Google Worried About Microsoft's Browser Advantage? What Advantage?

Want to comment or discuss? Visit our Search Engine Watch Forums thread, Google Objects To Microsoft's IE7 Search Default Plans.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:29 AM | Permalink

March 17, 2006

Google Hires Lobbying Firm

Google has hired PodestaMattoon, a lobbying firm that has the son of U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, Joshua Hastert, as a member of the firm. The firm will lobby on Google's behalf on the politics of China, privacy, government regulation and more. More information at SFGate.com.

PostScript: Here is a new nice take, from Kate Phillips, on Google becoming less of an outsider and more of an insider.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:24 AM | Permalink

February 16, 2006

Statements To US Congressional Hearing On Chinese Internet Censorship

Gary Price has an excellent listing of prepared statements of testimony before United States House of Representatives from yesterday. We even have Google blogging on its own Testimony. Some of the many statements in Gary's post include; Mr. Michael Callahan of Yahoo, Mr. Jack Krumholtz of Microsoft, Mr. Elliot Schrage of Google, and Mr. Mark Chandler of Cisco.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:26 AM | Permalink

January 26, 2006

askSam Now Offering Searchable Databases (Free) Containing U.S. Copyright Law, The DMCA, and Every State of the Union Address Back to 1790

On what is a growing number of occasions we've beeb highlighting the good and very useful work that Phil Schnyder and his team at askSam are doing by are providing free searchable and browsable (online or download and use offline) to classic books, government and legal documents, speeches, and more utilizing askSam database software.

Today, we've learned that ask Sam has just released three new databases (what they call eBooks) that might be of interest to some of you, especially those with an interest in copyright issues.

First, U.S. Copyright Law (title 17 of the US Code) "Search and analyze the full text of the Copyright Law of the United States of America & related laws contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of 'original works of authorship,' including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works."

Second, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) "Search and analyze the full text of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Passed in 1998, the DMCA is a bill designed to bring the Copyright Law up to date with digital media."

Third, State of the Union Addresses of the American Presidents "Search and analyze the full-text of all State of the Union Addresses from 1790-2005."

A complete and rapidly expanding list of ask Sam book, all free, can be found here.

Btw, to view offline you'll need a free copy of the askSam reader.

Posted by Gary Price at 12:13 PM | Permalink

January 6, 2006

Regulating Search Symposia Recap; Google Attorney Speaks at Oxford

Via Comments at Threadwatch, a blog post from Eric Goldman that does a superb job recapping the Regulating Search Symposia that took place a few weeks ago at Yale University. Some of the papers presented at the conference are also available.

From Goldman's post, a passage of what he calls, meta observations:

* almost everyone on the various panels spoke against government regulation. This was clearly a stacked deck. There are plenty of people who would love to get their regulatory hands on search engines, but their views were not widely represented. The closest pro-regulation advocate was Barbara van Schewick, but her particular axe to grind (search engines self-promote their own subsidiary offerings too favorably) was comparatively tame.

* the words "click fraud" were not uttered once. The words "adware" and "spyware" were used extremely rarely.

* Google's representatives repeatedly tried to position Google as "neutral" and "objective." In my search engine bias paper (and my Deregulating Relevancy paper), I debunk any effort by Google to characterize itself as passive. Perhaps this may have been true at some point in Google's history with respect to core search, but Google has become too multi-faceted and too involved in its databases for it to continue playing the passivity card.

On a related legal issues and search note, Joho the Blog, offers notes and a few thoughts from a November seminar at Oxford by, Alexander Macgillivray, Senior Product and Intellectual Property Counsel at Google. Along with these notes, Macgillivray's presentation is discussed in a BBC News post.

From the BBC article: "We totally believe we have the right to index absolutely everything on the internet, but we will respect any webmaster's decision not to be included," said the California-based legal counsel.

Posted by Gary Price at 12:47 PM | Permalink

December 27, 2005

Google To Limit Photo Resolution Of Israeli Military Sites

We reported earlier about a great New York Times article looking at how various governments around the world have been made nervous by aerial images posted in Google Maps. Now via Google Blogoscoped, there's a report out of Israel that Google has agreed to limit the resolution of military installations in Israel, something the NYT article says is mandated by US law.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:21 AM | Permalink

December 20, 2005

Governments Ask Google to Turn a Blind Eye

Some of those incredibly detailed aerial images available using Google Earch are making some governments nervous. In Governments Tremble at Google's Bird's-Eye View, the New York Times writes about several governments who have expressed alarm.

South Korean officials have said they fear that Google Earth lays bare details of military installations. Thai security officials said they intended to ask Google to block images of vulnerable government buildings. And Lt. Gen. Leonid Sazhin, an analyst for the Federal Security Service, the Russian security agency that succeeded the K.G.B., was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying: "Terrorists don't need to reconnoiter their target. Now an American company is working for them."

This isn't the first time these concerns have surfaced. Gary blogged about the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation asking Google to remove an image of Australia's only nuclear reactor from Google Earth last summer.

Since Google is simply repackaging imagery that's available elsewhere, there's little governments can do to influence what's included in Google Earth.

Postscript from Gary: Several people have asked where does the imagery come from that Google Maps, Google Earth, and MSN Live Local/Virtual Earth come from.

As Chris points out and I've pointed out in the past, Google and MSN are purchasing or obtaining the imagery from several sources. You could also buy imagery from these companies. There is not a Google Satellite or MSN Satellite orbiting the earth.

Sources include: + USGS (United States Geological Survey) USGS offers its own database that anyone can download the raw imagery for free. More examples here.

+ Digital Globe

+ Space Imaging

+ Pictometry Providers of "bird's eye" view imagery to MSN Virtual Earth/Windows Live Local.

+ Harris Just announced deal with MSN for global imagery. Other Databases for Aerial and Satellite Imagery Other tools and aerial that make aerial/satellite imagery available: + GlobeXplorer Database of imagery from various providers.

Long before Google Earth/Maps was available: + World Wind from NASA They even have a wiki that features cool locations users have found. In October, World Wind added cool 3-D imagery of the Moon.

and

+ TerraFly from Florida International University This service provides something we don't find elsewhere. Detailed local info for every location. Down to block level. U.S. only.

Also, very new and not a mashup is HomePages.com Aerial imagery plus real estate listings for many large U.S. metro areas. They also provide additional local data and info about recent home sales.

Finally + Skyline Software. Download their TerraExlporer app (free) and flyover and various cities around the globe and look at building and other locations from various angles. I'm surprised that some Google competitor hasn't done a deal with these guys. Very cool!

Posted by Chris Sherman at 12:51 PM | Permalink

November 28, 2005

Kazaa Ordered By Australian Court To Block Searches

Via Russell Beattie, Search terms on Kazaa to be blocked from ZDNet Australia has the rather disturbing order of an Australian court telling Kazaa that it must not allow searches on certain terms, such as artist names.

Let's be crystal clear about the order. It is not about removing pirated music (which is difficult because Kazaa doesn't host files). It is preventing people from searching for these words at all. Record companies will provide the list.

The reason that is is disturbing is the thought of such an action being applied to other search services. What if some company convinced a court that web search engines like Google and Yahoo were providing links to copyrighted material? Could that company then prevent people from searching on things like "madonna?"

I suspect a key issue in all of this is the fact that it could be argued that those searching for artists by name on Kazaa could be shown as being very likely looking for pirated music. But the idea of censoring what people are allowed to search for at all just feels like a step too far.

Techdirt has some additional coverage here and points out the same thing happened to Napster back in 2001. PC World also has coverage here.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:00 PM | Permalink

November 10, 2005

Yahoo China Relaunched With Pure Search Focus & New Majority Owner

Yahoo China has been acquired by Alibaba.com and relaunched as a pure search service. Here's the rundown on the changes and some reasons behind the handout, which still leaves Yahoo itself earning off the site.

Back in August, Yahoo invested $1 billion in Alibaba. That gave Yahoo a 40 percent stake in the company.

At the end of October, there was a UPI report that Alibaba bought up all the assets of Yahoo China for $1 billion. But I think that was reported backwards and working off the August announcement.

If you look at the release of the August deal, it talks of Yahoo "contributing" Yahoo China to Alibaba. So I think UPI had it wrong. This other report covers how the deal was concluded at the end of October.

Skipping ahead, via Shak's China White blog, Yahoo! China has 8 months to better Baidu or it's 'game over,' says Alibaba CEO covers the relaunch, as does Yahoo China back to search engine market found via Threadwatch.

The first article covers Alibaba feeling they've got about a year to have a chance in search in China and how the more pure search site will also focus on financial news, entertainment and sports. And political news?

I don't want to get into trouble with the government, so I don't do any political news," said Ma. China requires special certification to publish political news.

It's not all abandoning portal features, however. Email is also being kept, as that's seen as a key portal feature that can't go away.

Yahoo's Jeremy Zawodny who is in Taiwan, heard about the move from his cab driver and was surprised to see that Yahoo China has gained an MP3 search tab.

No surprise, really. China's most popular search engine, Baidu, has built its popularity on music search -- or some would say illegal downloads -- as I covered in my Google's China Situation Better Than You Might Think -- And Other China Search News post. The question really is, will the new Yahoo China feature music content but not get into the same trouble Baidu's had with music companies.

I took a fast look to see if I could find any pirated songs, but needing to log into a Yahoo China account lost me, I'm afraid. If you have to log in, I'm guessing pirated music is less likely.

Finally, doesn't it seem odd for Yahoo to be handing over Yahoo China to another company when just this week, it bought out control of Yahoo UK, Germany, France and Korea from Softbank?

Nah. I'm guessing it's a handy way for Yahoo to profit off of China but get free of all those pesky complaints that Yahoo bends to China's will on political issues. Hey, we didn't hand that email over to the Chinese government. We didn't censor those news results. We didn't filter those search results. Alibaba did -- take it up with them! Yet by owning a stake in Alibaba, Yahoo can earn money of the search business.

As a reminder, Google owns a stake in four percent stake of Baidu. That gives it a bit of a hedge in case Google China doesn't work or the entire Yahoo keeping your distance situation -- if I'm reading that situation right -- looks worthwhile to follow.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:17 AM | Permalink

November 7, 2005

Yale Law Holding Regulating Search Symposium

I got invited to take part in the Regulating Search symposium at Yale Law School next month and desperately wish I could have made it, but SES Chicago 2005 begins on Dec. 5, my flight plans were already set for that. But Gary might be taking part, and there are plenty of other good speakers and interesting panels, including:

Search Engines and Public Regulation
Search Engines and Intellectual Property
Search Engines and Individual Rights

I'm looking forward to hearing what discussion comes out of the event. Interested in attending? More info is here, and registration prices here (it's cheap, only $165 for corporate types and much less for students and academics).

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 7:27 PM | Permalink

October 12, 2005

UK Government Pondering Changes To Searches On Suicides

I saw this come up on Threadwatch and someone's just posted to our SEW Forums about it, as well. Clampdown on chatrooms after two strangers die in first internet death pact at The Guardian looks at the UK government talking with search providers to see if there's a way to ensure those searching on things like "suicide" can get to help to talk them out of the idea, rather than getting advice on how to commit suicide.

Out of curiosity, I tried searches on suicide on major UK search engines to see what comes up. Aside from Ask Jeeves, no one's getting "suicide advice" when searching on that topic. Using the default settings at each place, I found:

Google: Nine of 10 listings all seem to be about suicide prevention, as best I can tell. The exception is for the SuicideGirls rock group.
Yahoo: Listings are mostly about suicide prevention or general information about suicide (like a Wikipedia entry) but nothing I'd say is advice on committing suicide.
MSN: Mostly sites about suicide prevention, though the second listing is for archives of the alt.suicide.holidays group which doesn't encourage suicide (the FAQ says) but believes people have a right to commit suicide and doesn't try to prevent them from doing so.
Ask: A mixture of suicide prevention listings, general info but also two listings specifically about killing yourself: "A Practical Guide To Suicide" and "Easiest and Painless Suicide."

Overall, it's always a tricky issue of what a search engine should do with intervention with its results. You simply can't filter out all the sites that might discuss taking your life, at least not by keyword, as there are so many different ways people might search for that information. People can also have very different views on what prevention should be required. I don't think anyone wants depressed teenagers to easily learn how to kill themselves. But someone with a painful terminal illness? Perceptions can change with that.

If results can't be filtered, certainly the search engines can look at ways to perhaps provide free ad space to those who specialize in suicide prevention or yes, perhaps ensure that some well respected suicide prevention groups are hand selected to do well for key queries in addition to algorithmic picks.

FYI, back in May 2003, Wired had an article dealing with this exact situation at Google, where a Google engineer watching queries hoped people were getting help:

Santa Clara, Calif. > What to tell a suicidal friend

This query hasn't come from Kuala Lumpur or Genoa or Montevideo, but just outside Google's front door. A drama is unfolding only a few miles away, and there is no way to help; I don't even know the person's name. I can only sit and watch the words crawl up the screen and disappear. This is a contract between man and machine, and I can only observe, not intervene.

Stricken, I glance over at Rae, who has returned from night league volleyball, his spiky blond hair still wet. He, too, has seen the query and is typing away furiously. Finally he stops and looks up at me. "They're going to be OK. They got referred to the right places."

"You can do that?"

"Yeah, well, I can see how the system responds. And if it doesn't give the right information, I'll find better sites and attach them for future queries."

Sounds like Google doing exactly what I'm talking about, right, hand manipulation of its results that it says it does NOT do. I did follow up on this with Google, as I reported within this article:

By the way, I asked Google previously about the reference in a Wired article about wanting to "attach" better sites to queries to ensure it had good information available. I remember being disturbed by this, just as some in the aforementioned thread were, as it indeed suggested that Google was doing hand-ranking in some cases.

I was told by Google that this was a misinterpretation on the part of Wired. The Google engineer apparently meant that the Google search algorithm would be tweaked to produce better results, not that the results would be reordered by hand.

So no hand changes, at the moment.

Want to comment or discuss? Visit our forum thread, Will Google Censor Suicide Searches?

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:05 AM | Permalink

August 8, 2005

Google Asked to Remove Imagery from Google Earth

Philipp points to this News.com.au story about the head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation asking Google to remove an image of Australia's only nuclear reactor from Google Earth. If Google decides to remove the image does it mean that imagery of the location will also be removed from other providers of satellite/aerial imagery? In other words, could someone still get the image from GlobeXplorer or another provider? Would removing the imagery from Google Earth also make it unvailable from other services?

Posted by Gary Price at 12:33 AM | Permalink

April 5, 2005

Google Removes Child Porn Post & Reports To FBI

Child Pornography Complaint at Chilling Effects illustrates how Google received a complaint of child pornography in its Google Groups service, causing the company to remove the post and report the incident to the FBI. Google reporting to the FBI? As Chilling Effects explains, it's something electronic service providers are apparently required to do. Other search engines have probably taken similar actions, but Google is still unique to my knowledge in publishing its takedown actions to Chilling Effects.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 7:41 PM | Permalink

February 18, 2005

Head of France's National Library Not Happy With Google Library Project

Google book plan sparks French war of words from Reuters notes that the head of France's national library (Bibliothèque nationale de France) is concerned with Google's plan to digitize library books. Why?

Jean-Noel Jeanneney, who heads France's national library and is a noted historian, says Google's choice of works is likely to favour Anglo-Saxon ideas and the English language.

He wants the European Union to balance this with its own programme and its own Internet search engines.

"It is not a question of despising Anglo-Saxon views ... It is just that in the simple act of making a choice, you impose a certain view of things," Jeanneney told Reuters in a telephone interview on Friday.

As we pointed out in a post earlier this week, some details about Google's plans to digitize library books are still not fully known. However, in the millions of volumes from the outstanding library collections that Google plans to digitize, many viewpoints in many languages will be included. Btw, It's also worth mentioning that many other book digitization programs are working to make material available. I'm sure more projects from France and elsewhere would also be welcomed.

Posted by Gary Price at 12:24 PM | Permalink

November 8, 2004

New Report: Search Engine Disclosure of Advertising

How search engines disclosed paid advertising was quite the popular topic a couple of years ago when the Federal Trade Commission issued recommendations to the industry.

Today, Consumers Union (the publisher of Consumer Reports) released results of a six month study that looks at how engines disclose advertising to searchers.

The 82 page report: In Search of Disclosure: How Search Engines Alert Consumers to the Presence of Advertising in Search Results, is available as PDF file. "Searching for Disclosure," WebWatch's third search-engines-related report, shows many of the Web's top search engines have made improvements in disclosure and transparency -- describing their business relationships with advertisers and how those relationships may or may not affect the objectivity of search content and results -- since the FTC two years ago warned several major search engines about problems with the practice. While this report was being researched, two of the Web's top five search engines announced they would terminate paid inclusion.

Compliance with FTC recommendations for disclosure varied widely, however, leaving ample room for improvement throughout the industry. Even the report's testers, information professionals by trade, found disclosure and transparency practices among many search engines confusing and confounding. That increases the likelihood consumers may have a difficult time distinguishing objective search results from paid advertising.

Access to reports published in 2002 and 2003 remain available online.

Posted by Gary Price at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 2, 2004

FindWhat Will Drop Gambling Ads

A Clickz article reports that FindWhat will soon stop showing gambling ads for IP addresses that they determine come from the United States or where a location cannot be determined.

Such gambling advertising accounted for $2.3 million in revenues in the third quarter. The company said it felt halting the display of such ads in the U.S. was the prudent thing to do, given the industry and law enforcement climate.

The announcement was made yesterday during FindWhat's Q3 financial results conference call. You can listen to the complete call here.

For more on gambling ads and search advertising see Danny's, Lawsuit Filed Over Search & Gambling Ads and Yahoo Bans Online Casino Ads; Google's Ban Has Holes.

Want to comment or discuss?

Visit the Gambling Ads On Search Sites thread in the SEW Forums.

Posted by Gary Price at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

See More Posts From:

This Week | This Month

Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints & Permissions

Privacy Policy
Affiliates

var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-564586-7"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".searchenginewatch.com"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); window.collarity_appid = "incmedia"; //> //>

Top Jobs

more Jobs

Account Manager
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Reporting and Data Analyst
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Director of Marketing Communications
Avery Dennison Brea, United States

Publisher
Confidential Leading Publisher New York, United States

White Papers

more Research