January 2012

Google Tries Setting the Record Straight on Privacy Policy Changes

You still have choice and control. You don’t need to log in to use many of our services, including Search, Maps and YouTube. If you are logged in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to “off the record,” control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools we offer.
We’re not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google — whichever products or services you use. This is something we have already been doing for a long time.
We’re making things simpler and we’re trying to be upfront about it. Period.
You can use as much or as little of Google as you want. For example, you can have a Google Account and choose to use Gmail, but not use Google+. Or you could keep your data separate with different accounts -- for example, one for YouTube and another for Gmail.

Experts: Google privacy shift will have greater impact on Android users

Google doesn’t make much money from its Android phones, but chief executive Larry Page recently vowed in an earnings call that that was about to change. A push by the company to create clearer online profiles of Web surfers may turn the promise into reality, analysts say.

Google’s shift in its privacy policies that will allow it to follow the activities of users as they move across the firm’s Web sites, including its highly popular YouTube, Gmail and main search engine. The company emphasized in interviews that the change would apply only to users who are signed on to their Google accounts. The initiative could be of particular significance for consumers of Android devices, who are almost always signed on to their phones and tablets, experts said. Without signing up for an account, an Android smartphone owner would be limited in what he or she could do on the device, they said.

Privacy Less Controversial Than Piracy? For Now, Web Giants Don’t Sound the Alarm on EU Data Protection.

Internet companies are less up in arms about another proposed bill, this time about a unified approach to online privacy in the European Union. Some initial reactions to the proposal, which was pre-announced at the DLD conference in Munich and then published on Jan 25, were harshly critical. But now that European Commissioner Viviane Reding has formally proposed her legislation, Web companies seemed more measured in their response. Though they didn’t endorse the bill, they seemed willing to work with it. Of course, they’d prefer to avoid walking into fines of up to two percent of their revenue.

Online privacy battle brings gains, setbacks

[Commentary] As we approach this year's Data Privacy Day, some experts believe we've begun to see real momentum in the field, as consumers become more conscious of the issues and regulators beef up enforcement.

Not to say the battle is won and the legal questions settled, or that the proliferation of new threats has stalled. Far from it. But the increasingly common and aggressive use of online data seems to have shaken awake media, consumers, legislators and enforcers, who in turn have begun to draw deeper lines in the virtual sand. Most notably, the Federal Trade Commission slapped Google, Facebook and Twitter last year over assorted privacy failings in a series of first-of-their-kind settlements that included 10 to 20 years of privacy audits. The FTC has clearly signaled it intends to keep up the pressure this year and focus its gaze on mobile products and services, such as smart-phone applications.

Original programming from Netflix, YouTube and Hulu could signal big changes for TV industry

After years of experimenting, the top video destinations on the Web are suddenly flush with original programming: documentaries, reality shows and scripted series.

Over the next few months, YouTube, Netflix and Hulu will roll out their most ambitious original programming yet -- a digital push into a traditional television business that has money, a bevy of stars and a bold attitude of reinvention. The long-predicted collision between Internet video and broadcast television is finally under way. No one is suggesting that the quality on the Internet is close to that of broadcast TV, but it's becoming easy to imagine a day when it will be. And even though critics question whether new media can rival a business that's been around for about 70 years, the video sites have sought partnerships with seasoned professionals. And they benefit from the different economics of global Web-based entertainment. Either way, what's happening now is just the first wave.

Confessions of an iPhone Data Hog

[Commentary] AT&T sent Plank an e-mail warning that she is in the top 5% of the carrier's heaviest data users. How did I get to this digital penalty box? In 2010, AT&T announced new tiered data plans, with prices escalating based on the amount of a customer's monthly data use. In July, it warned that data hogs might suffer network slowdowns. I stuck with the $30 a month unlimited plan, figuring I wouldn't be one of them. I was wrong. I had been using my iPhone for nearly four years, doing nearly the same things every day—checking email, listening to Pandora Internet radio, using Google Maps, browsing the Web at night and shopping online. I averaged about 1.76 gigabytes of data per month in 2011. That changed this month.

Spectrum Policy Gets Diverse Treatment at Broadband Conference

At the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council's Broadband and Social Justice Summit in Washington, representatives of the cable and broadcast industries made the case for why those technologies would be key players in the wireless broadband space.

The National Association of Broadcasters’ Chris Ornelas said that broadcasting could help offload wireless capacity that over-the-air broadcasters continued to serve a diverse population that should not be forgotten in the rush for "spectrum, spectrum, spectrum," and that the over-the-air viewership was growing, not shrinking. He said broadcasters were "happy to be part of the solution: if there was a need for more spectrum to "sate the congested networks that the wireless folks are operating on today." He also said NAB had "no objection" to folks who want to get out of the broadcasting business, but that what it wants to insure is protecting the people who want to stay and their viewers.

FCC Sets Pleading Cycle for AT&T Spectrum Transfer to T-Mobile

T-Mobile and AT&T have filed four applications seeking approval to assign AWS-1 spectrum licenses. The Applicants request consent to assign 13 AWS-1 licenses in full and partitioned portions of 23 AWS-1 licenses from AT&T Mobility to T-Mobile License. The Applicants also request consent to assign seven AWS-1 licenses in full and partitioned portions of four AWS-1 licenses from New Cingular Wireless to T-Mobile License. The proposed license assignments are part of the break-up provision of AT&T’s proposed, but failed, acquisition of T-Mobile. The Applicants assert that the proposed license assignments will serve the public interest by allowing T-Mobile USA to acquire spectrum to enable it to better address the growing demands of consumers for wireless data and content. The Applicants also assert that the proposed license assignments raise no competitive concerns. They note that AT&T will retain spectrum, and continue to serve customers, in each of the affected markets and therefore conclude that the proposed transaction will in no way reduce the number of wireless competitors or choices available to consumers in any market.

Petitions to Deny the transaction are due February 27, 2012. Oppositions are due March 8 and Replies are due March 19, 2012.

Legislation to Address the Growing Danger of Cyber-Threats

To follow up on his State of the Union speech, I would like to highlight a few key points about the legislation the President mentioned that we sent to the Congress last May to secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

The Administration sent the Congress a package of legislative proposals in May 2011 to give the federal government new authority to ensure the corporations that own the assets most critical to our nation’s security and economic prosperity are adequately addressing the risks we as a nation all share. Additionally, our proposals would provide new tools to help our citizens and law enforcement professionals defend against cybercrime and identity theft, while, at the same time, safeguarding individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. Further, our proposals would give the federal government new authority to share information about cyber threats with businesses, and when asked, provide them with federal assistance to prevent attacks and defend against the theft of intellectual property, which, when stolen, erodes their corporate competitive advantages among global peers and our competitiveness as a nation. Our legislative proposals will move us toward accomplishing these goals, and while the task of securing our nation is never done, enacting them would be an incredibly important step. At the same time, addressing only a portion of these needs by our cybersecurity professionals will continue to expose our country to serious risk. For example, only providing incentives for the private sector to share more information will not, in and of itself, adequately address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. The American people expect the federal government to work with the private sector to ensure our critical infrastructure is protected. Our professionals in the federal government, as well as those in state, local and private sector entities need new legislatively-enacted authorities to do so.

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged

[Commentary] Only three months ago, we would have violated U.S. secrecy laws by sharing what we write here—even though, as a former director of national intelligence, secretary of homeland security, and deputy secretary of defense, we have long known it to be true. The Chinese government has a national policy of economic espionage in cyberspace. In fact, the Chinese are the world's most active and persistent practitioners of cyber espionage today. The bottom line is this: China has a massive, inexpensive work force ravenous for economic growth. It is much more efficient for the Chinese to steal innovations and intellectual property—the source code of advanced economies—than to incur the cost and time of creating their own. They turn those stolen ideas directly into production, creating products faster and cheaper than the U.S. and others. So how to protect ourselves from this economic threat? First, we must acknowledge its severity and understand that its impacts are more long-term than immediate. And we need to respond with all of the diplomatic, trade, economic and technological tools at our disposal. The U.S. also must make broader investments in education to produce many more workers with science, technology, engineering and math skills. Corporate America must do its part, too. If we are to ever understand the extent of cyber espionage, companies must be more open and aggressive about identifying, acknowledging and reporting incidents of cyber theft.

Benton

Search