[Ecommerce] Re: [Broadcast-discuss] Regarding Google and YouTube

[Gwen Hinze]

Note that unlike Yahoo!, which has expressly
advocated for the treaty, Google has *not* taken
a public stance on this Treaty.


Gwen





At 8:02 AM -0500 10/30/06, Seth Johnson wrote:
>A few strands to link up:
>
>Youtube's practice is precisely in accord with the WIPO
>Broadcaster's Treaty.  The notion is to watermark video streams
>so you can tell who broadcast particular broadcasts, then create
>an unconstitutional, but international-treaty-based
>"broadcaster's right" to enforce that in complete disregard for
>basic rights.  A fundamental change in the nature of the public
>domain (and the Internet).
>
>I don't know a lot about the "Homeland Stupidity" site that
>follows, but take note of the following (text pasted below):
>
>>
>>http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/22/google-in-bed-with-us-intellig=
ence/
>
>
>Google recently acquired Youtube.  Despite their net neutrality
>stance, Google is now in a position to help facilitate the end of
>net neutrality through the broadcaster's treaty.
>
>
>Seth
>
>---
>
>>
>>http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/22/google-in-bed-with-us-intellig=
ence/
>
>Google in bed with U.S. intelligence
>
>
>By Michael Hampton
>
>Posted: February 22, 2006 11:31 am
>
>
>Even while Google presents a public image of vigorously
>protecting its users=92 privacy, it has quietly provided assistance
>to several U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the Central
>Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, as the U.S.
>prosecutes its war on terrorism. In addition, Google may be
>providing assistance to the National Security Agency.
>
>IT contractors and intelligence officials familiar with the
>arrangement confirmed to HSToday.us that Google had been
>providing assistance to the intelligence community, but would not
>say under what authority that assistance had been requested or
>provided.
>
>The intelligence community appears to be interested in data
>mining Google=92s vast store of information on each user who uses
>Google=92s services. Google collects data on each user=92s search
>queries, which web sites users visited after making a query, and
>through its Google Analytics service, can also track users on
>cooperating web sites. It=92s not clear what level of access to or
>how much of this information has been made available to
>intelligence agencies.
>
>     The contractor, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis,
>said that at least one US intelligence agency he declined to
>identify is working to =93leverage Google=92s [user] data monitoring=94
>capability as part of an effort by the IC to glean from this data
>information of =93national security intelligence interest=94 in the
>war on terror. . . .
>
>     One of the sources did say, however, that the CIA=92s Office of
>Research and Development =93has been giving them additional money
>and guidance and requirements.=94
>
>     Last November, the CIA - through In-Q-Tel [CIA venture
>capital company] - issued notices to sell $2.2 million worth of
>Google stock.
>
>     Robert David Steele, intelligence veteran and CEO of OSS.Net,
>Inc. which sponsored last week=92s event, told HSToday.us Tuesday
>evening that =93Google is being actively hypocritical and deceptive
>in playing up its refusal to help the Department of Justice when
>all along it has been taking money and direction for elements of
>the US Intelligence Community, including the Office of Research
>and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency, In-Q-Tel, and
>in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and
>the Army=92s Intelligence and Security Command.=94
>
>     Steele added, =93I have no doubt that Google, in its arrogance,
>decided it could make a deal with the devil and not get caught.=94
>=97 HSToday.us
>
>If you are extremely concerned about the possibility that your
>private browsing information is going to wind up in the hands of
>U.S. intelligence agencies, you can throw a spanner in the works
>by blocking cookies from the following domains: google.com,
>googlesyndication.com, google-analytics.com, and your
>country-specific Google domain (e.g. google.co.uk). If you
>actually use Google services, such as Google Mail, then this
>obviously will prevent you from using those services.
>
>Even with cookies blocked, a limited amount of user tracking is
>possible, so unless you really are a terrorist, it probably isn=92t
>worth the trouble. I still have all of my Google Cookies. Then
>again, I already know they=92re watching me=85
>
>
>--
>
>[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
>
>I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
>distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
>Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
>far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
>ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
>exclusive rights.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Broadcast-discuss mailing list
>Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss


--
Gwen Hinze
International Affairs Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Email:gwen@eff.org
Tel.: + 1 415 436 9333 x110

Please support EFF - Working hard to protect your
digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990