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

Wed Nov 8 16:17:01 2006

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Gwen Hinze wrote:

> Note that unlike Yahoo!, which has expressly advocated for the treaty, Go=
ogle
> has *not* taken a public stance on this Treaty.
>
>
> Gwen

Let us speak with Google.

oo--JS.

>
>
>
>
>
> 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-intell=
igence/
>>
>>
>> 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-intell=
igence/
>>
>> 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 free=
dom
> of speech since 1990
> _______________________________________________
> Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>
>