Session Blog Reviews

Posts Tagged ‘legal’

A lot of concern circulates about just how much information a company like Google has on individuals and virtually everything else. While it makes me queasy at times as well, I don’t get the same Orwellian feeling about Google as I do about the government and the data they collect. That’s why the White House’s new policies on social media interaction with the public are both interesting and a bit troubling all at once. The Washington Post reports Soon it will be much easier to interact with government through tweets, blogs and wikis without forcing federal agencies to jump through the procedural hoops set up by the Paperwork Reduction Act. As part of the Obama administration’s effort to bring a new level of openness to federal agencies, government lawyers have clarified — sort of — how the PRA will treat the new forms of online interactions between federal agencies and the public. Sort of, because, as in many government documents, there’s no simple yes or no answer in the memorandum titled “Social Media, Web-Based Interactive technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.” On the surface this seems like a good thing to possibly cut through bureaucratic red tape and get things done. That can be a good thing. What is giving me the heebie-jeebies is just what potential harm someone can do to himself or herself by having some direct digital interaction with the government. Think about it. People screw up online all the time. They get fired up and type something they regret then get in the inevitable online pissing contest that does no good for anyone. I’ve been there. I suspect we all have. Well, what if you have one of these low moments with a government agency and you put something in writing that can be taken in several different ways? What kind of electronic “profile” would you create because you lost your cool in trying to deal with something that makes most people crazy anyway? Talk about online reputation monitoring and management concerns. So just how does the government intend to “open up” communications online? Federal wiki pages can encourage interactions between the public and officials at federal agencies without running afoul of the law. (But wikis that are used to gather specific data — like a compliance spreadsheet — are still covered.) Webinars (considered online public meetings) can happen without triggering the PRA requirements, the document says, along with “blogs, discussion boards, forums, message boards, chat sessions, social networks, and online communities.” The document warns, however: “If an agency takes the opportunity of a public meeting to distribute a survey, or to ask identical questions of 10 or more attendees, the questions count as an information collection.” “Government websites that host social media interaction can ask visitors to set customized preferences for layout, color scheme, subject areas and topics without requiring a Form 83-I. The government can seek general commentary from the public without having to justify the effort, according to the document. “Agencies may offer the public opportunities to provide general comments on discussion topics through other means, including but not limited to social media websites; blogs; microblogs; audio, photo, or video sharing websites; or online message boards (whether hosted on a .gov domain or by a third-party provider).” General commentary? How wide open is that? And how long will this data be stored? By whom? For what purposes? If people are worried about what Google and others know about us, doesn’t this government “openness” to data collection throw up a red flag too? I realize there is a lot of conspiracy theorist in my thinking and I may be way off base. I hope I am. I just don’t think it’s the best idea to go into any interaction with any company or government in the electronic age without having both eyes wide open. Heck, things that are supposedly private aren’t really if the government deems so (Patriot Act). As marketers we understand how communication and data collection has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Our activities of gathering data to help sell things is annoying to many, including the government at times. What makes anyone think that this new “transparency” won’t have a very serious down side potential in ways we won’t even recognize until it’s too late. Your thoughts? Am I paranoid or is this something to be concerned about? Hey, did you just say something about me?

Read more:
And You Thought Google Was Big Brother?

Apple is hosting an iPhone developer event Thursday, where they’ll most likely talk about adapting to the iPad—and a new mobile advertising platform . While I’m sure the developers and Apple are pretty excited at the prospect of more money, it’s Google that might be cheering the loudest. Once upon a time, the two companies were friendly, but especially since Google has entered the mobile phone market, the two have become rivals—and that’s exactly why Google will be excited to see a new ad platform from Apple. After Google announced its acquisition of in-app ad platform AdMob in November, they’ve faced scrutiny from consumer groups and the FTC , especially since there appear to be few rivals for Google has been applauding Apple’s recent advertising moves, from Apple’s acquisition of Quattro Wireless in-app ad platform in January . Quattro is likely part of the pending ad announcement. Google lauded the deal on their public policy blog . But they’re not just genuinely good-hearted. Their true motivations are obvious from that January post: When we announced our planned acquisition of AdMob in November, we noted that the mobile advertising space is highly competitive — with more than a dozen mobile ad networks.

After the NCAA championship Monday, one of the sportscasters noted, “Duke won this game [OH YES THEY DID!]; Butler didn’t lose it.” [Also true—awesome game.] After years of a case dragging through the courts (not unusual, but still), I think we can say something similar about the FCC’s challenge to Comcast on principles of Net Neutrality: the FCC lost this case ; Comcast didn’t win it. That is to say, Comcast’s reasons for blocking BitTorrent downloads weren’t just so awesome that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously declared Comcast the winner—it was Comcast’s claim that the FCC doesn’t currently have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality. In a major blow for Net Neutrality, the Court of Appeals really did say that the FCC, the federal agency that regulates “all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States,” as Wikipedia says. However, “broadband” isn’t currently defined as “telecommunications.” The case originally picked up in 2008, with several volleys: FCC Stepping in on Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality Conference for FCC FCC: We Can Enforce Net Neutrality Now Comcast Says FCC and Internet Access Principles Don’t Apply To Them But since then, it’s been mostly a waiting game. There is, however, still one point of hope for the FCC and Net Neutrality: the court ruled that the FCC “‘has failed to tie its assertion’ of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress.” So if Congress can enact a law granting the FCC that authority, they can regulate the Internet (However, there have been multiple attempts to do just that, with no success). Alternatively, the FCC could also try to reclassify broadband as “telecommunications,” giving the commission full jurisdiction—but that action would surely be met with legal opposition just like this case. Meanwhile, Comcast reassures consumers that they’re committed to neutral principles. (Except, you know, when the FCC imposes them.) Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice told Online Media Daily that the company will “continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.” Personally, I’m torn. Net Neutrality is an important principle to preserve the freedom of the Internet. But on the other hand, courts so rarely limit continually-growing federal powers that I can’t help but cheer when that power does get limited. And the power to “regulate the Internet” does sound a little scary, doesn’t it? What do you think? Is there any hope left for legal Net Neutrality?

Visit link:
FCC vs. Comcast on Net Neutrality: FCC Loses

Poor Google. It takes two steps forward, one step back when trying to make progress with its book settlement. FT.com reports a new group of content creators are not happy with the proposed deal: photographers. They’ve filed a new class action lawsuit, because they were, apparently, left out of the one filed by the authors and publishers. Photographers and illustrators were not allowed to join the existing class action suit, and have opted to file their own case…"Google is scanning in books and publications with visual images, which impedes the rights of the copyright holders of those images. We are seeking compensation for that," said James McGuire, founding partner of the New York office of law firm Mishcon de Reya, who is leading the case. Google was this close to getting approval for its $125M book settlement but this new lawsuit could re-open the can of worms for the search engine. While you may ask yourself, why did the photographers wait this long to file their action–I know I’m asking–apparently their intent is not to "crash the party" or influence the ruling in the existing class action. The class action consists of American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, and the Professional Photographers of America. Knowing a thing or two about photography , I can tell you that it’s hard to make a living as a photographer–which is why I don’t–so I’m sure any settlement will go a long way to buying new memory cards or the latest strobe.

Link:
Picture This! Photographers File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google

From what I remember of former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott–it’s been 10 years since I left England–he was a bulldog of a politician, who always liked to pick a fight. It appears he’s still up to his old tricks and inadvertently learned a new one as well: click fraud! In what he may have considered to be a innocuous tweet, Prescott suggests Labour Party supporters click on Google AdWords ads paid for by the rival Conservative Party. The link actually refers to this AdWords ad: You could argue that all is fair in love and politics–after all, the Conservative Party is pretty brazen to buy the ad in the first place–but click fraud? Has this happened in the U.S.? I don’t recall seeing anything that suggested something so low. I wonder what–if any–action Google will take over this.

More here:
Prominent UK Politician Encourages Google Click Fraud