Censorship war: Website unmasks links Google is blocking from search results
RT.com
July 17, 2014
Reuters/Chris Helgren
A subversive website has been launched to keep track of news and other webpages Google has “censored” from the search engine’s index, following the European Court of Justice’s controversial Right to be Forgotten ruling.
The tech giant has reportedly been inundated with 70,000 requests to remove sensitive information from its search results in the aftermath of the ECJ’s decision. While this data may be accurate, it is considered “irrelevant” and possibly defamatory under the EU policy shift.
In a mark of protest against online censorship, a new site ‘Hidden From Google’ has begun archiving links censored by search engines intent on complying with ECJ demands. The site was set up by US web developer and transparency advocate, Afaq Tariq.
The New Jersey developer asserts the removal of links from a search engine’s index amounts to censorship. So in an effort to preserve transparency in Europe’s online realm, he invites visitors to log data that has been removed from Google on the site...
Showing posts with label Google censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google censorship. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Friday, July 04, 2014
Update: Google resists a recent court decision in Europe ordering Google to remove results from Internet searches
UPDATE: GOOGLE REVERSES DECISION TO REMOVE NEWSPAPER LINKS
Google reverses decision to delete British newspaper links
Jul 4, 2014
(Reuters)
Google Inc on Thursday reversed its decision to remove several links to stories in Britain's Guardian newspaper, underscoring the difficulty the search engine is having implementing Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling.
The Guardian protested the removal of its stories describing how a soccer referee lied about reversing a penalty decision. It was unclear who asked Google to remove the stories.
Separately, Google has not restored links to a BBC article that described how former Merrill Lynch Chief Executive Officer E. Stanley O'Neal was ousted after the investment bank racked up billions of dollars in losses.
The incidents underscore the uncertainty around how Google intends to adhere to a May European court ruling that gave its citizens the "right to be forgotten:" to request the scrubbing of links to articles that pop up under a name search.
Privacy advocates say the backlash around press censorship highlight the potential dangers of the ruling and its unwieldiness in practice. That in turn may benefit Google by stirring debate about the soundness of the ruling, which the Internet search leader criticized the ruling from the outset.
Google, which has received more than 70,000 requests, began acting upon them in past days. And it notified the BBC and the Guardian, which in turn publicized the moves.
The incidents suggest that requesting removal of a link may actually bring the issue back into the public spotlight, rather than obscure it. That possibility may give people pause before submitting a "right to be forgotten" request.
"At least as it looks now, there are definitely some unworkable components," said Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins. "We've seen a number of situations in the past few days, where somebody in an effort to get a certain thing forgotten has brought more attention to it than ever was there before."
"It does make you think that maybe if you're actually trying to make an episode of your history be forgotten, this channel maybe isn’t the best way."
Google's objective is to protect the reliability and effectiveness of its search franchise. It remains uncertain how it adjudicates requests, or how they intend to carry them out going forward.
"Their current approach appears to be an overly broad interpretation," a spokeswoman for the Guardian said. "If the purpose of the judgment is not to enable censorship of publishers by the back door, then we'd encourage Google to be transparent about the criteria it is using to make these decisions, and how publishers can challenge them."
Google, which controls more than 90 percent of European online searches, said it was a learning process.
“This is a new and evolving process for us. We’ll continue to listen to feedback and will also work with data protection authorities and others as we comply with the ruling,” the company said in a statement.
Notifying media outlets about scrubbed links has the effect of enhancing transparency, privacy advocates say. It might also prompt European courts to re-examine aspects of the ruling, including how it affects media outlets' coverage.
"It’s terra incognito for everyone," said Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. "If sites that receive the notices choose to publicize them in ways that end up boomeranging against the people requesting, that might cause the courts to examine what those sites are doing."
(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic in San Francisco and Aurindom Mukherjee in Bangalore; Editing by Kirti Pandey and Lisa Shumaker)
ORIGINAL POST
Europeans don't have a First Amendment. Are they losing the right to find relevant information on the Internet? A recent court decision in Europe is forcing Google to remove results from Internet searches. But the truth is that Google has already been removing links at the request of public agencies and others in the US. Right to be forgotten: Google may hate it, but we're dangerously close to making it work
Last month, the right to be forgotten was enshrined in European law,
thanks to a ruling by the European Court of Justice. Except it wasn't a
right, you weren't forgotten, and it hasn't really been enshrined
anywhere. Confused? You're not the only one.
In May, the ECJ ruled on the case of a Spanish national who had, over a decade ago, been involved in an auction of property to settle social security debts. When people Googled his name, newspaper stories about the auction appeared prominently in search results. The man thought that the information about him was outdated, and the court found in his favour, ruling that Google must no longer return links to those newspaper stories when his name is searched for. The newspaper articles remain online, and can be found through Google when other search terms are used.
The mechanism is not an outrageous one, and it has precedents in the offline world. When applying for a job, for example, individuals are often asked about any criminal convictions. They are legally bound to tell their potential employer about them for a certain amount of time, but for many types of conviction that duty will eventually expire and the individual no longer has to disclose it.
Nonetheless, the result of the ruling involving what one Spanish man did in the 1990s has potentially far-reaching consequences for internet use in Europe.
In some quarters, the ruling has been described as giving every European the right to be forgotten, in others, as bringing in a new wave of press censorship. In reality, it does neither.
The ruling allows Europeans to request that data controllers, like Google, remove links to outdated or irrelevant information when searches are performed for their names. In the event the request is found to be justified, links will be removed from results returned for searches on that person's name, but the original source material will remain online and can be found through other queries. Data controllers still have the right to refuse requests when they feel the links in question are still pertinent for searches on an individual's name.
However, since Google opened a web form for people to request search result removal, tens of thousands of people have asked the search firm to do just that.
A handful of recent 'right to be forgotten' removals were highlighted by The Guardian on Thursday. According to the paper, Google had alerted it that six articles would no longer be returned in search results for individuals' names. The names were not disclosed, although three articles referred to a Scottish referree, while another was a sweet story about French office workers making art from Post-It notes on their workplace windows.
Yet both cases illustrate the flaws in the system. Is the information in the story about the referree no longer relevant after three years? Is a system ostensibly meant to protect people's privacy being wasted on individuals who once happily told journalists about their creative ways of wasting office stationery?
It's a similar story over at the BBC. The BBC reports one of its articles involving the former head of Merrill Lynch Stan O'Neal no longer appeared in search results for a certain name. That name isn't, as you might have expected, Stan O'Neal. Instead, it's thought that the request is linked to a name in the comments section.
Was it right to do so?
The wider question is perhaps, when does that information become outdated in relation to its subject...
Google reverses decision to delete British newspaper links
Jul 4, 2014
(Reuters)
Google Inc on Thursday reversed its decision to remove several links to stories in Britain's Guardian newspaper, underscoring the difficulty the search engine is having implementing Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling.
The Guardian protested the removal of its stories describing how a soccer referee lied about reversing a penalty decision. It was unclear who asked Google to remove the stories.
Separately, Google has not restored links to a BBC article that described how former Merrill Lynch Chief Executive Officer E. Stanley O'Neal was ousted after the investment bank racked up billions of dollars in losses.
The incidents underscore the uncertainty around how Google intends to adhere to a May European court ruling that gave its citizens the "right to be forgotten:" to request the scrubbing of links to articles that pop up under a name search.
Privacy advocates say the backlash around press censorship highlight the potential dangers of the ruling and its unwieldiness in practice. That in turn may benefit Google by stirring debate about the soundness of the ruling, which the Internet search leader criticized the ruling from the outset.
Google, which has received more than 70,000 requests, began acting upon them in past days. And it notified the BBC and the Guardian, which in turn publicized the moves.
The incidents suggest that requesting removal of a link may actually bring the issue back into the public spotlight, rather than obscure it. That possibility may give people pause before submitting a "right to be forgotten" request.
"At least as it looks now, there are definitely some unworkable components," said Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins. "We've seen a number of situations in the past few days, where somebody in an effort to get a certain thing forgotten has brought more attention to it than ever was there before."
"It does make you think that maybe if you're actually trying to make an episode of your history be forgotten, this channel maybe isn’t the best way."
Google's objective is to protect the reliability and effectiveness of its search franchise. It remains uncertain how it adjudicates requests, or how they intend to carry them out going forward.
"Their current approach appears to be an overly broad interpretation," a spokeswoman for the Guardian said. "If the purpose of the judgment is not to enable censorship of publishers by the back door, then we'd encourage Google to be transparent about the criteria it is using to make these decisions, and how publishers can challenge them."
Google, which controls more than 90 percent of European online searches, said it was a learning process.
“This is a new and evolving process for us. We’ll continue to listen to feedback and will also work with data protection authorities and others as we comply with the ruling,” the company said in a statement.
Notifying media outlets about scrubbed links has the effect of enhancing transparency, privacy advocates say. It might also prompt European courts to re-examine aspects of the ruling, including how it affects media outlets' coverage.
"It’s terra incognito for everyone," said Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. "If sites that receive the notices choose to publicize them in ways that end up boomeranging against the people requesting, that might cause the courts to examine what those sites are doing."
(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic in San Francisco and Aurindom Mukherjee in Bangalore; Editing by Kirti Pandey and Lisa Shumaker)
ORIGINAL POST
In May, the ECJ ruled on the case of a Spanish national who had, over a decade ago, been involved in an auction of property to settle social security debts. When people Googled his name, newspaper stories about the auction appeared prominently in search results. The man thought that the information about him was outdated, and the court found in his favour, ruling that Google must no longer return links to those newspaper stories when his name is searched for. The newspaper articles remain online, and can be found through Google when other search terms are used.
The mechanism is not an outrageous one, and it has precedents in the offline world. When applying for a job, for example, individuals are often asked about any criminal convictions. They are legally bound to tell their potential employer about them for a certain amount of time, but for many types of conviction that duty will eventually expire and the individual no longer has to disclose it.
Nonetheless, the result of the ruling involving what one Spanish man did in the 1990s has potentially far-reaching consequences for internet use in Europe.
In some quarters, the ruling has been described as giving every European the right to be forgotten, in others, as bringing in a new wave of press censorship. In reality, it does neither.
The ruling allows Europeans to request that data controllers, like Google, remove links to outdated or irrelevant information when searches are performed for their names. In the event the request is found to be justified, links will be removed from results returned for searches on that person's name, but the original source material will remain online and can be found through other queries. Data controllers still have the right to refuse requests when they feel the links in question are still pertinent for searches on an individual's name.
However, since Google opened a web form for people to request search result removal, tens of thousands of people have asked the search firm to do just that.
The first removals
This week, the first such removals began to come to light. Large news organisations like the BBC and The Guardian, along with more smaller B2B outlets, all reported Google had contacted them to let them know they were subject to removals, while Google users began to see messages that certain search results "may have been removed under European data protection legislation".A handful of recent 'right to be forgotten' removals were highlighted by The Guardian on Thursday. According to the paper, Google had alerted it that six articles would no longer be returned in search results for individuals' names. The names were not disclosed, although three articles referred to a Scottish referree, while another was a sweet story about French office workers making art from Post-It notes on their workplace windows.
Yet both cases illustrate the flaws in the system. Is the information in the story about the referree no longer relevant after three years? Is a system ostensibly meant to protect people's privacy being wasted on individuals who once happily told journalists about their creative ways of wasting office stationery?
It's a similar story over at the BBC. The BBC reports one of its articles involving the former head of Merrill Lynch Stan O'Neal no longer appeared in search results for a certain name. That name isn't, as you might have expected, Stan O'Neal. Instead, it's thought that the request is linked to a name in the comments section.
Was it right to do so?
The wider question is perhaps, when does that information become outdated in relation to its subject...
Friday, June 20, 2014
Dear Google Blogger: Please quit sabotaging this blog; the public has a right to know about decision of the California Court of Appeal
Click HERE to see complete article.
Also see the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.
All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:
Where did they go? To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.
Also see the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.
All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:
Where did they go? To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.
Dear Google Blogger: Please quit sabotaging this blog; public has right to know about decision of California Court of Appeal
See the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.
Dear Google legal department:
You sabotaged, within the past couple of hours, a completely legitimate post.
I assume that someone has asked you to enforce Judge Judith Hayes' injunction, but it seems that you don't understand exactly what the injunction is. Here it is:
This injunction was issued after the court granted a summary adjudication without weighing any evidence. Does Google want to conceal the actions of the court from the American public?
Clearly, I did not violate this injunction in the post (see below) that you have sabotaged. In fact, I have erased over 400 posts about Stutz law firm. Why isn't that enough for Google and the people who are asking your legal department to censor my blog.
But you seem to want to prevent me from mentioning anything about the case just decided by the California Court of Appeal.
Shame on you. Why are you doing this? The post does NOT contain any statement "accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation" on the part of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm.
Here is the post:
Google sabotaged the above post by adding the following to the html code (actually, Google added about TWELVE times this much garbage, but this is enough to give the idea:
Hey, Google. This isn't Europe. We have the First Amendment here. Update: All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:
Where did they go? To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.
Dear Google legal department:
You sabotaged, within the past couple of hours, a completely legitimate post.
I assume that someone has asked you to enforce Judge Judith Hayes' injunction, but it seems that you don't understand exactly what the injunction is. Here it is:
"... injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from continuing to publish or republishing by any method or media, including but not limited to all electronic data, websites and web pages, the defamatory statements alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pertaining to Plaintiff and any of its lawyers past or present, and future publication of statements with regard to Plaintiff and its lawyers accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation…”
This injunction was issued after the court granted a summary adjudication without weighing any evidence. Does Google want to conceal the actions of the court from the American public?
Clearly, I did not violate this injunction in the post (see below) that you have sabotaged. In fact, I have erased over 400 posts about Stutz law firm. Why isn't that enough for Google and the people who are asking your legal department to censor my blog.
But you seem to want to prevent me from mentioning anything about the case just decided by the California Court of Appeal.
Shame on you. Why are you doing this? The post does NOT contain any statement "accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation" on the part of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm.
Here is the post:
The Court of Appeal issued a decision yesterday in the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation case. It upheld the anti-free speech injunction and default entered by Judge Judith Hayes against me in San Diego Superior Court.
Judge Hayes' 2009 injunction in this case was ruled unconstitutional.
So what was different this time?
The only area in which I prevailed in my appeal of was getting the $10,000 punitive damages award thrown out. The Court didn't have much choice about this. The plaintiff had provided no evidence of my ability to pay.
So, obviously, since the Court of Appeal conclude that my appeal of the unwarranted imposition of punitive sanctions was worthy, there's no way the Court would have ordered me to pay Stutz' costs, right?
Wrong.
The court has revealed its thinking very clearly in its decision to order me to pay Stutz' costs. The Court apparently feels strongly that blogs like mine that criticize trial courts and attorneys should be silenced. Even though I prevailed in part, the Court ordered me to bear costs!
It's odd--and interesting. The Court appears to be sending a warning to all bloggers who might want to inform the public about the tactics of public entity lawyers--and the judges who go beyond the law to defend them. In fact, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2011 that Judge Judge Hayes had violated the Constitution.
I can't entirely blame the Court of Appeal for taking the side of the big law firm. I should have filed more and better oppositions, and earlier and better appeals.
And I should have had a lawyer. Not just any lawyer, but one who holds a position of respect in the community of judges and lawyers.
In this same case, the Court of Appeal threw out a different injunction of Judge Hayes as unconstitutional. Professor Shaun Martin represented me in that appeal. I wrote the Opening Brief, but I have the feeling that the Court might have ruled differently if Mr. Martin hadn't written the Reply and given the oral arguments.
Also, it probably wouldn't have hurt if I had done a fundraiser for one of the judges running in the recent election. One of the partners of Stutz law firm did that. I imagine I didn't earn any Brownie points from the Court by publicly pointing out the questionable behavior of Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.
THE FUTURE
I've erased about four hundred posts from this blog today, and I'll do more erasing as soon as I can. Many of the posts I erased contained only a tangential reference to Stutz law firm. When I have time, I'll find those posts and erase the names of Stutz and/or its lawyers, and republish the post.
It's kind of a good feeling to take these names off my blog. I feel free, light, unburdened. I think I'm going to enjoy not thinking about the lawyers at Stutz.
MORE GOOGLE SABOTAGE
Google sabotaged my blog by making all the links and labels disappear from the right-hand column.
Google sabotaged the above post by adding the following to the html code (actually, Google added about TWELVE times this much garbage, but this is enough to give the idea:
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
Also, Google
has made my post titles very faint, and taken away my ability to fix the
problem using the advanced customization for my template.
Google has
moved my labels on my home page to the very bottom of the page--below all the
posts! Who would know to look there for
the labels?
Hey, Google. This isn't Europe. We have the First Amendment here. Update: All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:
Where did they go? To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Google Alerts is broken. Talkwalker is an alternative.
See all posts re Google alerts.
See all posts regarding Google.
Need A Google Alerts Replacement? Meet Talkwalker
Mar 27, 2013
by Gary Price
With Google Alerts coming under fire as being broken, an impressive new service has stepped up to appeal to those seeking an alternative: Talkwalker.
Luxembourg-based Talkwalker is a social media monitoring company that has now released its own keyword-based alerts resource. The free service utilizes Google’s Web, news, and blog databases and delivers alerts by email or RSS.
Talkwalker_home So, are Talkwalker Alerts the Google Alerts replacement many are looking for?
I spent a few hours running several alerts and at this point I’m both optimistic and even impressed.v A few initial impressions follow.
Interface & Registration
The look, feel, and features of Talkwalker Alerts are nearly identical to Google’s alerts service.
Keyword alerts are available for “everything,” news, blogs, and/or discussions. They can be delivered “as it happens” or “once a day.” You can also limit by language and how many results are received:
Simply enter your email and you’re done.
The alert management page also appears nearly identical to Google Alerts. Here you can modify an alert query, grab the RSS URL, delete alerts, and other management tasks.
Overall, the learning curve is minute for those who have use Google’s alert tool. That’s good news for users and Talkwalker.
By the way, Talkwalker also makes it easy to import your current Google alerts.
But Do They Work?
I’ve only been using the service for a few hours, and I need to do more testing, but given the fact that I’ve had issues with the frequency and timeliness of Google Alerts for a long time (long before the current discussion got underway) several of the alerts I created did trigger with new material in a very timely manner.
So, for this reason alone, Talkwalker Alerts are worth being aware of and perhaps taking a look at to see if they meet your needs.
See all posts regarding Google.
Need A Google Alerts Replacement? Meet Talkwalker
Mar 27, 2013
by Gary Price
With Google Alerts coming under fire as being broken, an impressive new service has stepped up to appeal to those seeking an alternative: Talkwalker.
Luxembourg-based Talkwalker is a social media monitoring company that has now released its own keyword-based alerts resource. The free service utilizes Google’s Web, news, and blog databases and delivers alerts by email or RSS.
Talkwalker_home So, are Talkwalker Alerts the Google Alerts replacement many are looking for?
I spent a few hours running several alerts and at this point I’m both optimistic and even impressed.v A few initial impressions follow.
Interface & Registration
The look, feel, and features of Talkwalker Alerts are nearly identical to Google’s alerts service.
Keyword alerts are available for “everything,” news, blogs, and/or discussions. They can be delivered “as it happens” or “once a day.” You can also limit by language and how many results are received:
Simply enter your email and you’re done.
The alert management page also appears nearly identical to Google Alerts. Here you can modify an alert query, grab the RSS URL, delete alerts, and other management tasks.
Overall, the learning curve is minute for those who have use Google’s alert tool. That’s good news for users and Talkwalker.
By the way, Talkwalker also makes it easy to import your current Google alerts.
But Do They Work?
I’ve only been using the service for a few hours, and I need to do more testing, but given the fact that I’ve had issues with the frequency and timeliness of Google Alerts for a long time (long before the current discussion got underway) several of the alerts I created did trigger with new material in a very timely manner.
So, for this reason alone, Talkwalker Alerts are worth being aware of and perhaps taking a look at to see if they meet your needs.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts
Update: The joy didn't last too long. Google has gone back to keeping my blogs out of its Google Alerts system. Somebody with clout must have got to them again. But the good news is that there's a great alternative: Talkwalker.
I'm not blacklisted anymore! Google has decided I'm worthy of recognition in its Google Alerts.
And who is responsible for this free speech victory? The FBI, apparently!
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz seems to have convinced Google that my blogs were damaging Stutz' reputation, so about two or three years ago Google banned my blogs from its Google Alerts.
Except for a couple of blips, Google has been nice enough to allow my blogs in its search results, but it wouldn't send out alerts on my posts.
But this morning I got a Google alert regarding one of my blog posts.
Google must have decided that if the FBI is taping the conversations of a Stutz law firm lawyer, then the public has a right to the information I have about the law firm.
This morning they sent out alerts on this post: Dan Shinoff meeting with Manuel Paul and Loreto Romero was secretly taped as part of FBI investigation re San Ysidro School District
But the question remains, how much other information is being kept from the public by Internet companies whose lawyers want to please big law firms who complain about people like me?
Friday, December 20, 2013
Google: Surge in pressure from governments to ERASE CHUNKS of the web
"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes."--Google
I have found that school district and teacher union officials also don't want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes, or have a light shone on their conduct. They don't want to see information on the Internet that is critical of them.
Google has been asked to shut down this blog, and Yahoo has been asked to shut down my related website.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
board members Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham
have given school tax funds to support
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's
quest to silence this blog.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz are lawyers for many Southern California school districts. Stutz law firm demanded that Google shut down this blog, and Google complied temporarily. Yahoo also complied temporarily by depublishing my related website.
But both Google and Yahoo relented after I argued that they should let the justice system decide how to deal with complaints about free speech.
The Court of Appeal has already thrown out one injunction from Judge Judith Hayes in Stutz' defamation suit against me.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes threw out all my evidence and granted Stutz summary adjudication based on a technicality. Judge Hayes denied all of my many requests that I be allowed a jury trial for damages. Judge Hayes' decisions are under appeal.
Thank you, Google and Yahoo, for keeping speech free.
Google: Surge in pressure from govts to ERASE CHUNKS of the web
Libelous book about MP among stuff pulled offline
By Shaun Nichols
The Register
19th December 2013
Governments, judges, cops and politicians are continuing to lobby Google to tear down online material critical of their operations, we're told.
Today, the advertising giant said that, in the first six months of 2013, it received 3,846 demands from public officials to remove 24,737 personal blog posts, YouTube videos and other pieces of content it hosts. That's up 68 per cent on the second half of 2012.
And according to the web giant, which has just published its latest transparency report, 93 requests focused on content that was critical of people in public office. Defamation and copyright infringement were often cited, but less than one third of the highlighted material was removed in the first half of 2013.
"Over the past four years, one worrying trend has remained consistent: governments continue to ask us to remove political content," wrote Google legal director Susan Infantino, who called out Turkey and Russia for ramping up the number of complaints.
"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes," she added.
In the US, Google said that it saw requests for content removal up 70 per cent over last year. Notable cases include the removal of 76 apps from the Google Play store over alleged infringements of government copyrights and the denied takedown request from a local official who sought to remove pages outlining his record as a police officer.
In the UK, Google said it shot down a request from a local government council to take down a critical website, and upheld a request to pull a preview from a book that alleged illegal activity by an unnamed member of Parliament.
The report is the latest in a transparency program that Google is soon hoping to expand. The company has petitioned the US government to allow it to post information and notifications relating to FISA takedown requests. Thus far the requests have not been granted.
Verizon is also preparing to launch its own transparency report on law enforcement data requests, a particularly interesting development given the mobile carrier's recent interactions with the NSA and the revelations of federal officials collecting mass archives of user activity.
"All companies are required to provide information to government agencies in certain circumstances, however, and this new report is intended to provide more transparency about law enforcement requests," said Verizon general counsel and executive vice president of public policy Randall Milch.
"Although we have a legal obligation to provide customer information to law enforcement in response to lawful demands, we take seriously our duty to provide such information only when authorized by law." ®
I have found that school district and teacher union officials also don't want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes, or have a light shone on their conduct. They don't want to see information on the Internet that is critical of them.
Google has been asked to shut down this blog, and Yahoo has been asked to shut down my related website.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
board members Pam Smith and Larry Cunningham
have given school tax funds to support
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's
quest to silence this blog.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz are lawyers for many Southern California school districts. Stutz law firm demanded that Google shut down this blog, and Google complied temporarily. Yahoo also complied temporarily by depublishing my related website.
But both Google and Yahoo relented after I argued that they should let the justice system decide how to deal with complaints about free speech.
The Court of Appeal has already thrown out one injunction from Judge Judith Hayes in Stutz' defamation suit against me.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes threw out all my evidence and granted Stutz summary adjudication based on a technicality. Judge Hayes denied all of my many requests that I be allowed a jury trial for damages. Judge Hayes' decisions are under appeal.
Thank you, Google and Yahoo, for keeping speech free.
Google: Surge in pressure from govts to ERASE CHUNKS of the web
Libelous book about MP among stuff pulled offline
By Shaun Nichols
The Register
19th December 2013
Governments, judges, cops and politicians are continuing to lobby Google to tear down online material critical of their operations, we're told.
Today, the advertising giant said that, in the first six months of 2013, it received 3,846 demands from public officials to remove 24,737 personal blog posts, YouTube videos and other pieces of content it hosts. That's up 68 per cent on the second half of 2012.
And according to the web giant, which has just published its latest transparency report, 93 requests focused on content that was critical of people in public office. Defamation and copyright infringement were often cited, but less than one third of the highlighted material was removed in the first half of 2013.
"Over the past four years, one worrying trend has remained consistent: governments continue to ask us to remove political content," wrote Google legal director Susan Infantino, who called out Turkey and Russia for ramping up the number of complaints.
"Judges have asked us to remove information that’s critical of them, police departments want us to take down videos or blogs that shine a light on their conduct, and local institutions like town councils don’t want people to be able to find information about their decision-making processes," she added.
In the US, Google said that it saw requests for content removal up 70 per cent over last year. Notable cases include the removal of 76 apps from the Google Play store over alleged infringements of government copyrights and the denied takedown request from a local official who sought to remove pages outlining his record as a police officer.
In the UK, Google said it shot down a request from a local government council to take down a critical website, and upheld a request to pull a preview from a book that alleged illegal activity by an unnamed member of Parliament.
The report is the latest in a transparency program that Google is soon hoping to expand. The company has petitioned the US government to allow it to post information and notifications relating to FISA takedown requests. Thus far the requests have not been granted.
Verizon is also preparing to launch its own transparency report on law enforcement data requests, a particularly interesting development given the mobile carrier's recent interactions with the NSA and the revelations of federal officials collecting mass archives of user activity.
"All companies are required to provide information to government agencies in certain circumstances, however, and this new report is intended to provide more transparency about law enforcement requests," said Verizon general counsel and executive vice president of public policy Randall Milch.
"Although we have a legal obligation to provide customer information to law enforcement in response to lawful demands, we take seriously our duty to provide such information only when authorized by law." ®
Friday, September 27, 2013
Google joins ALEC, apparently flirting with the thing it eschewed
Google Guys: Larry Page, Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin, Time Magazine February 20, 2006
See all posts regarding Google.
"We're charmed by their corporate mantras – for example 'Don't be evil' (Google) or 'Move fast and break things' (Facebook)" (quote from third story below).
I'm not surprised by anything that Facebook founder and world-famous jerk extraordinaire Mark Zuckerberg does. So it's no shock that Facebook has joined ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, the right-wing organization dedicated to corporate profit.
But Google? Larry Page and the Brin brothers? They used to believe in doing the right thing. Or maybe that was never their plan when they came up with the motto, "Don't be evil." Perhaps they just intended it as a swipe at Bill Gates and Microsoft.
But now that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has withdrawn support for ALEC (see second story below), Microsoft isn't looking so evil anymore. What's going on, Google? You're falling behind.
Google alert: On a more personal note, apparently at the request of school board members in San Diego (or their lawyers), Google has eliminated my name from its Google alerts. You can get alerts for any Maura and any Larkins--except Maura Larkins.
Don't be evil, Google.
STORY #1: GOOGLE JOINS ALEC
Google has joined ALEC
SumOfUs.org
Sept. 27, 2013
Union-busting, fighting Obamacare, backing the Stand Your Ground laws that led to Trayvon Martin’s death, denying the proof of climate change… there’s nothing the American Legislative Exchange Council won’t stoop to.
The public outcry against ALEC has caused nearly fifty corporations to drop out over the past several months. But now Facebook, Google and Yelp are looking to reverse that trend. The companies recently joined the group responsible for some of the most egregious anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-poor, and anti-minority legislation in the past decade. Now, we need to raise an outcry to show them that getting in bed with ALEC is unacceptable, before all the hard work over the past year is undone.
We can’t afford to have three major tech companies help finance a monstrosity like this right-wing lobbying group, and they can’t afford the bad press that comes with an ALEC membership. ALEC has become a toxic brand that image-conscious companies don’t want to be associated with.
ALEC worked in close conjunction with the NRA to push the controversial Stand Your Ground law onto dozens of states. ALEC helped private prison companies enact Arizona’s “papers please” law in order to fill up cells with Latinos. It has sponsored a host of horrific laws that are tearing down personal rights and handing over money to corporations. We simply cannot allow such practices to be condoned by major companies.
Our voices already shamed over fifty companies and nonprofits, including the likes of Amazon, Walmart, and Coca-Cola, into dropping out of the American Legislative Executive Council. Just recently, after months of pressure by students, Sallie Mae left the group. But if we don’t speak out now, Google, Facebook, and Yelp could start back the movement of corporate funding into ALEC.
STORY #2: BILL GATES FOUNDATION AND ALEC
Bill Gates’ Foundation Withdraws Support For ALEC
by Lee Fang
Republic Report
2012
In recent weeks, Republic Report joined a coalition of other groups to demand that companies withdraw affiliation with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a front group that helps lobbyists pass pro-corporate legislation in states across the country.
Republic Report’s Suzanne Merkelson covered how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, supports ALEC financially. Now, Roll Call is reporting that the Foundation is withdrawing support for ALEC:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation today became the latest backer to withdraw financial support for the American Legislative Exchange Council. A foundation spokesman told Roll Call that it does not plan to make future grants to the conservative nonprofit, which has come under fire from progressive activists for its support of voter identification laws and other contentious measures.
Why did the foundation fund ALEC in the first place? It’s likely the group gave funds to ALEC as part of a larger effort by Microsoft-linked groups to promote K-12 virtual schools, a movement that is likely to benefit Microsoft as privatized charters adopt more technology in the classroom.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation joins Kraft, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Intuit Inc. in withdrawing from ALEC in recent weeks. Notably, some corporate interests, including the drug company lobby group PhRMA and Koch Industries, have refused to back away from ALEC.
We’re still waiting to hear from other ALEC-linked corporations. We recently visited the lobbying office of GlaxoSmithKline to make sure they received our letter.
ALEC has been around for years promoting laws that benefit large powerful corporate interests. State laws that promote prison privatization, criminalize municipal telecom competition, and outlaw hikes in the minimum wage have been linked to ALEC. The recent controversy was kicked off after it was revealed that the gun lobby worked closely with ALEC to promote the “Shoot First” law that will likely allow the killer of Trayvon Martin to avoid prosecution.
From left: Co-founders of Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Chairman and CEO of Dell Michael Dell, Co-founder of Microsoft Bill Gates, and Chairman and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg Photographs: AP; Getty
STORY #3: THE MODERN ROBBER BARONS?
New-tech moguls: the modern robber barons?
Are today's captains of industry – the wealthy and powerful figures who control the digital universe – any different from the ruthless corporate figures of the past?
John Naughton
The Observer
30 June 2012
Here's an interesting fact: 10 of the people on Forbes magazine's tally of the world's 100 richest billionaires made their money from computer and/or network technology. At the top (second on the list) is Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, whose net worth is estimated by Forbes at $61bn, despite the fact that he continues to try to give it away. Gates is followed by Larry Ellison, boss of Oracle, with $36bn, and Michael Bloomberg with $22bn. Larry Page and Sergey Brin – co-founders of Google – occupy joint 24th place with $18.7bn each. Jeff Bezos of Amazon is No 26 with $18.4bn while the newly enriched Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook sits at No 35 with £17.5bn. Michael Dell, founder of the eponymous computer manufacturer, is at No 41 with $15.9bn while Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, is three places lower on $15.7bn and Paul Allen – co-founder of Microsoft – brings up the rear at No 48 with a mere $14.2bn. Steve Jobs, who was worth about $9bn when he died, doesn't even figure.
What's striking about this is not just the staggering wealth that these people have managed to squeeze out of what are, after all, just binary digits (ones and zeros), but how recent are the origins of their good fortunes. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, went from zero to $17.5bn in less than eight years. Microsoft – the company that has propelled Gates, Ballmer and Allen into the Forbes pantheon – dates only from 1975. Oracle was founded in 1977. Bloomberg turned a $10m redundancy cheque from Salomon Brothers into his personal money-pump in 1982. Dell started making computers in his university dorm in 1984. Bezos launched Amazon with his own savings in 1995. Brin and Page turned their PhD research into a company called Google in 1998. And Zuckerberg launched Facebook in 2004.
For some of these people, great wealth is correlated with significant power. Once Microsoft captured the market for PC operating systems and office software, Bill Gates and co ruthlessly leveraged their monopoly to eliminate rivals (remember Netscape?) and dictate pricing. So we got a world where you could have any kind of computer you wanted, provided it ran Microsoft Windows. In the era when the PC was the computer, Bill Gates was king because he controlled the PC.
But although Microsoft remains a significant force, its power waned as computing moved from the PC to the network – and therefore to the people and companies who dominate that. Step forward the Google boys, who have the power to render any website virtually invisible, because if their algorithms decide not to index a site then effectively it ceases to exist – at least in cyberspace. Their computers also read our mail and store our documents. Google dominates the online advertising business. The company's founders say grandly that their mission is "to organise the world's information" – and they mean it. They have already digitised a significant amount of the world's printed books – although they are not yet authorised to make many of them available online. And Google's cars have photographed every street in the industrialised world.
Meanwhile, in another part of the jungle, Amazon's Bezos is not just vaporising bricks-and-mortar bookstores; he's also on his way to becoming the world's biggest publisher. And he's already the world's largest online retailer – the Walmart of the web. In social networking Mark Zuckerberg has cunningly inserted himself (via his hardware and software) into every online communication that passes between his 900 million subscribers, to the point where Facebook probably knows that two people are about to have an affair before they do. And because of the nature of networks, if we're not careful we could wind up with a series of winners who took all: one global bookstore; one social network; one search engine; one online multimedia store and so on.
There was a time when the power exercised by computer and internet companies seemed a matter of relatively esoteric concern. But as digital technology began to pervade our daily lives, the boundary between the "real" world ("meatspace", as geeks used to call it) and cyberspace began to blur. What happened in the latter suddenly mattered in the former – and not just in Tunisia and Egypt either. Think of the way Steve Jobs's creation – Apple – exercises such dominance over online music, smartphones and tablet computers. Or ponder what Google and Facebook now know about our lives, loves and obsessions. Or what Amazon knows about our consumption patterns. The implication is that cyberpower has correlates in the real world, which means that it's time we had a really good look at those who wield it. What are these masters of the digital universe really like? What are their values and their politics? And are they any different from the corporate moguls of the past?
Given their prominence, we know surprisingly little about our modern moguls – for various reasons. One is that we are remarkably incurious about what makes them tick. We focus instead on the fact that one of them (Zuckerberg) wears a hoodie even when being interviewed by investment bankers; or that Larry Page, co-founder of Google, refused to stop using his laptop when a big media mogul came to talk to him; or that Bill Gates used to rock furiously backwards and forwards in a rocking chair when being interviewed for an anti-trust case; or that Steve Jobs drove a comparatively modest sports car and lived in a small, old-fashioned house rather than the postmodern minimalist palace that many people would have predicted.
But this is all superficial stuff, the journalistic fluff of celebrity profiles and gossip columns. What's much more significant about these moguls is that they share a mindset that renders them blind to the untidiness and contradictions of life, not to mention the fears and anxieties of lesser beings. They are technocrats who cleave to a worldview that holds that if something is technically possible then it should be done. How about digitising all the books in the world? No problem: you just throw resources and technology at the task. And if publishers protest about infringement of copyright and authors moan about their moral rights, well, that just shows how antediluvian they are. Or how about photographing every street in Europe, or even the world? Again, no problem: it's technically feasible, after all. And if Germans object to the resulting intrusion on their privacy, well let them complain and we'll pixelate the sods. Oh – and when we discover that those same cars have been hoovering up the details of our home Wi-Fi networks, their bosses say "Oops! Sorry: it was a mistake." Same story with the high-resolution satellite imagery beloved of Google and – now – Apple. Same story with Mark Zuckerberg's fanatical, almost sociopathic, belief that the default setting for life should be "public" rather than "private". The prevailing technocratic motto is: if something can be done, then it ought to be done. It's all about progress, stoopid.
Actually, it's all about values. And money. The trouble is that technocrats don't do values. They just do rationality. They love good design, efficiency, elegance – and profits. That's why one of the poster children of the industry is Apple's creative genius, Jonathan Ive, who designs beautiful kit in California which is then assembled in Chinese factories. And when the execrable working conditions prevalent in such places are exposed, the company's senior executives profess themselves surprised and appalled and resolve to do everything they can to ameliorate things. And we believe them – and continue eagerly to purchase the gizmos manufactured in such oppressive plants.
Why are we so credulous, so forgiving? It's partly because wealth – like political power – is a powerful aphrodisiac. But it's mainly because we accept these people at their own valuation. We've bought into their narrative. They see themselves as progressives, as folks who want to make the world a better, more efficient, more rational place.
We're charmed by their corporate mantras – for example "Don't be evil" (Google) or "Move fast and break things" (Facebook)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)