Bigmouthmedia Search Engine News: /ethics/

Group sues over Google privacy policy changes

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:25:00 GMT

Activist group the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission in an effort to prevent Google from updating its privacy policy on 1 March.

By filing suit, EPIC hopes to force the FTC to prevent Google from implementing its new privacy policy, which will give Mountain View the ability to 'combine personal information' across the majority of its services.

"Google's announced changes to business practices will make it possible for advertisers to gain access to personal information which was previously unavailable to them," EPIC said in its filing.

Google entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC in 2011 over similar privacy charges relating to Google Buzz - as a result of the settlement, an independent professional will provide regular reports on Google's privacy practices for the next 20 years.

In response, Google has said EPIC's lawsuit is misinterpreting the facts.

"We take privacy very seriously," a Google representative told CNET. "We're happy to engage in constructive conversation about our updated Privacy Policy, but EPIC is wrong on the facts of the law.

"We're keeping your private information private - we're not changing how personal information is shared outside of Google."

The spokesperson also added Google has "undertaken the most extensive notification effort in Google's history to ensure that users have many opportunities and ample time to learn about our Privacy Policy changes. And we're continuing to offer choice and control over how people use Google services."

EPIC aren't the only ones feeling uncomfortable about the privacy changes - European Union officials asked Google earlier this month to suspend privacy policy changes so they could be analysed, but according to CNET, Google declined saying "delaying the new policy would cause significant confusion."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Ofcom caps broadband and phone line prices

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:12:00 GMT

Talk may be getting cheaper, as Ofcom recently proposed an Openreach price cut.

The telecoms regulator, Ofcom, wants BT Group to cut the prices it charges to internet providers and others who sell services using its lines - calling for an £87.41 price cap on broadband and phone line services and an £11.92 cap on using a broadband line only; dropping the prices from the current £91.50 and £14.70, respectively.

The Ofcom proposals have been submitted to the European Commission for approval, which has one month to comment on the changes. If approved, Ofcom says the new rates could take affect from April.

This is the third time that Ofcom has set the prices BT's wholesale division, Openreach, charges companies for the use of its lines - which Ofcom says it does because the company has a dominant position in the market.

BT, however, isn't overly pleased with the changes this time around. In a statement, the company said: "We disagree with some of the underlying assumptions that they have used to determine these controls.

"Our primary concern throughout this process is to ensure that we are able to achieve a fair rate of return in order to continue our investment in the future of the UK's communications infrastructure.

"We will consider all options available to us, including appealing, after Ofcom confirms its final decisions."

Ofcom has said that the new price cuts were determined in part by an assessment of the costs Openreach incurred running the network of underground ducts used to carry copper lines to properties.

Industry experts also state there was growing pressure from Europe to bring down the cost for alternative operators to access incumbents' networks.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Google demotes itself after paid-blog fuss

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:13:00 GMT

Google has fallen on the proverbial sword - demoting itself in search rankings after a Chrome ad campaign violated the company's own policies.

Google has found itself in hot water following the revelation that a Google Chrome ad campaign did exactly what the company has specifically banned in the past - paying bloggers for links to pad out search results.

To add insult to injury, the posts were of such low quality that they embodied the kind of "thin" content that Google has been working to eliminate from its search results.

So, to make amends it appears the search giant will be turning to a little self-flagellation of the corporate kind.

"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com / chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days," the company said in a statement from Mountain View.

"We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users... we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."

Google notoriously dislikes companies trying to game search results by paying other sites to link to them, and is partly blaming the advertising companies it partnered with for the fracas.

"Google never agreed to anything more than online ads," said the company. "We have consistently avoided paid sponsorships, including paying bloggers to promote our products, because these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users. We are now looking into what changes we need to make to ensure this never happens again."

Searching for the keyword "browser" on Google will no longer bring up the Google Chrome home page anywhere in the top results, with it reportedly currently ranked in position 50.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

World War Tech: EU to tighten web privacy laws

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:36:00 GMT

Proposed legal changes to the European Union's Data Protection Directive may cause trans-Atlantic tensions over Internet privacy.

According to the New York Times, European justice commissioner Viviane Reding plans to insert new wording into Europe's main data privacy law that would likely require non-E.U. companies to abide by stricter rules on data collection or face fines and prosecution.

Ms Reding signalled her intentions to strengthen privacy laws in a speech to publishers in Brussels on Tuesday.

"Companies who direct their services to European consumers should be subject to E.U. data protection laws. Otherwise, they should not be able to do business on our internal market," she said.

"This also applies to social networks with users in the E.U. We have to make sure that they comply with E.U. law and that E.U. law is enforced, even if it is based in a third country and even if its data are stored in a 'cloud.'"

Proposed changes won't come as welcome news to U.S. web giants like Google and Facebook, who have been criticised for storing and retaining logs of personal data after user deletion.

Lobbyists the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union previously submitted a 42-page brief to European lawmakers arguing against enacting undue privacy restrictions that could inhibit the free flow of information.

"AmCham E.U. would like to caution against an attempt to address all the societal challenges of the 'right to be forgotten' exclusively through creation of unjustified obligations on data controllers and processors," according to the chamber's document.

It went on to warn that stricter data protection laws "would inevitably lead to a general obligation to monitor the Internet, undermining the strong foundations on which the Internet was developed in the first place and the basis on which democratic societies operate."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Anonymous puts government sites on the bonfire

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:25:00 GMT

Hacktivist collective Anonymous struck again this weekend, carrying out attacks on both El Salvador and Israeli government sites.

El Salvador's president's website went offline after being swamped with over 30 million visits on Saturday, and the legislative assembly, police and ministry of justice also came under attack.

Presidential spokesman David Rivas pinned the attack on Anonymous and believed it to be part of vigilante Operation Justice El Salvador - sparked by the group's stance on the country's human rights record.

Economy minister, Hector Dada Hirezi added that the group "tried to attack our website to publicise the private information of internal and external users."

On Sunday the Israeli government's website also faced the wrath of Anonymous, as the group threatened action via YouTube video if humanitarian boats attempting to reach Gaza continued to be blocked.

"Your actions are illegal, against democracy, human rights, international, and maritime laws. Justifying war, murder, illegal interception, and pirate-like activities under an illegal cover of defense will not go unnoticed by us or the people of the world," the video said.

Afterwards several of the Israeli government sites went down, citing 'server error' as the problem.

Elsewhere however, the hacking group found they had bitten off more than they could chew when it came to Mexican drug cartel Los Zetas. 'Operation Cartel' was abandoned after an Anonymous member was kidnapped and only released when the hackers threatened to expose corrupt supporters of the gang.

Guy Fawkes weekend perhaps wasn't all the vigilantes had hoped for in the end, as plans to 'destroy' Facebook and an alleged attack on Fox News failed to materialise.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

TripAdvisor in hot water over 'red flag' feature

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:48:00 GMT

TripAdvisor's new "red flag" feature seems to have landed the online travel review site in hot water, as the firm is now facing legal action from disgruntled hoteliers.

According to Brand Republic, Deborah Sinclair of the Riverside Hotel and Restaurant and Evesham has initiated defamation proceedings against the travel review site, after her hotel's TripAdvisor page was red-flagged.

Ms Sinclair's TripAdvisor page now features a warning sign and red text explaining that TripAdvisor has "reasonable cause" to believe that the hotel and its affiliates "may have interfered with traveller reviews".

Ms Sinclair claims that TripAdvisor's decision to red flag her hotel's page has undermined her credibility and will likely badly damage her business.

As a result, Ms Sinclair has petitioned the courts, requesting that TripAdvisor be made to fully disclose how and why it came to red flag the hotel's page.

The court case is set to be closely watched by hoteliers, travel companies, online review sites and online reputation management agencies, as well as by brands and marketers, as friend reviews and consumer reviews have grown to further influence consumer's purchase-making decisions.

TripAdvisor is currently under investigation from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), following a complaint from an online reputation management firm that the site hosted a high level of defamatory comments.

Regardless of the outcome of ASA's investigation, TripAdvisor has already modified its brand messaging to minimise references to "trust". In September of this year, the firm replaced it's well known strapline "reviews you can trust" with "reviews from our community."

It is expected that the court-case and ASA's review will spark further investigation into how user-generated content and user-engagement is indexed and valued.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Removal requests on the rise at Google

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:13:00 GMT

Google is reporting a 71 per cent increase in government and court requests in the UK to remove content from its services - including web search and YouTube.

The figure accounts for the period between January and June, which saw 65 official requests for 333 items to be removed during that time.

A home office spokesman told the BBC: "The government takes the threat of online extremist or hate content very seriously."

"Where unlawful content is hosted in the United Kingdom, the police have the power to seek its removal and where hosted overseas, we work closely with our international partners to effect its removal."

The search seraph and other popular social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have found themselves the subject of serious debate over privacy and freedom of speech, as governments and other regulatory bodies struggle to draw the line between what is appropriate and what isn't online.

The data, released as part of Google's Transparency Report, is released twice a year. Google also gives governing bodies the opportunity to submit Government Requests, allowing them to flag any illegal or inappropriate content to Google and request it be restricted or removed.

Google reported compliance with requests 82 per cent of the time.

In contrast, Google also rejected requests to remove communities and profiles from its social networking site Okrut in India, following complaints that users were being critical of local politicians.

Google spokesperson Stephen Rosenthal said: "As the report shows, we don't simply censor on request, we ensure there is a case for removal."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Spotify heeds complaints over Facebook sharing concerns

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:13:00 GMT

Spotify received hundreds of complaints from angry users following changes to the music streaming service after joining forces with Facebook, prompting new privacy settings for the app.

Last week's f8 conference saw the two web heavyweights team up to provide what they described as a 'frictionless sharing' experience for users. Friction, however, seems to be exactly what a significant number of users felt following the changes.

The GetSatisfaction support forum and Spotify's blog have been inundated with messages from disgruntled music listeners claiming the changes to the service violate their privacy. Privacy campaigners in the US have also filed a letter of complaint with federal regulators.

The main issue is the new default setting on Spotify whereby users' listening habits are automatically shared via Facebook Ticker.

(Not cool for those secret S Club 7 fixes everyone indulges in now and then...)

In reaction to the outcry, Spotify announced that a new 'private listening mode' will be added, in an attempt to placate unhappy users.

"We're rolling out a new client as we speak, where you can temporarily hide your guilty pleasures. It works like a browser's private mode," Spotify chief executive Daniel Ek tweeted yesterday.

The fact it has also been made mandatory for those wishing to sign up to Spotify to have a Facebook account is also a bone of contention amongst those wishing to use the music service.

One angry user echoed the dissent on Getsatisfaction: "You are alienating your core user base - the users that have been with you since the beginning. I've been an ambassador for Spotify since 2008, I will not be recommending this service any more. My loyalty to Spotify is over and I will be on the lookout for another service."

Changes to the social networking site following the f8 conference halready sparked considerable controversy, and the latest Spotify privacy concerns seem to be confounding the generally negative reception of the new, all-seeing Facebook.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Subpoena raises the stakes in eBay versus Craigslist feud

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:36:00 GMT

A bitter dispute between eBay and the classified ads site Craigslist rages on as US prosecutors step in to investigate the alleged gathering of confidential information by employees of the online auction site.

The criminal investigation was sparked by claims that eBay employees misappropriated confidential information from the Craigslist site back when it was launching its own classifieds website eBayClassifieds.com (formerly known as Kijiji) in 2007.

A grand jury subpoena obtained by Reuters looks to source a range of information and documents surrounding the allegations, including details on several eBay employees.

Founder and chairman of eBay Pierre Omidyar comes under particular scrutiny in the subpoena, Reuters found, as does Joshua Silverman, a former Skype executive who sat on Craiglist's board of directors for eBay.

This is merely the latest in an extended row between the business rivals. Since 2008, lawsuits and counter-suits have been relentlessly flying between the two companies, starting with suit brought by eBay that perceived a dilution in its 28.4 per cent stake in Craigslist at the time. Craigslist soon followed with its own suit that alleged, amongst several other things, breach of contract and fiduciary duty.

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman from eBay, outlined the company's stance on these further developments when speaking to Reuters.

"EBay believes that Craigslist's allegations against eBay are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, and we will aggressively pursue our claims against Craigslist."

Craigslist officials have yet to comment on this latest development.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Consumers go digital to control and filter brand interaction

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:49:00 GMT

A new survey has revealed web-savvy consumers are turning to digital technology in order to filter and control their relationship with brands.

According to Brand Republic, a new poll of 1,000 consumers and 200 marketers shows 82 per cent of consumers utilising digital technology feel as though they only receive the marketing material and information they want, when and through the media channels they want.

Marketers previously estimated just 30 per cent of consumers would feel in control of their brand interactions.

Experts also seem to have misjudged the marketing channels consumers feel are most appropriate.

25 per cent of consumers surveyed said they still receive "inappropriate marketing materials", while marketers expected the figures to be much, much lower.

Only 9 per cent of consumers polled felt SMS marketing was appropriate. Marketers expected 25 per cent of consumers to be open to SMS marketing.

Just 4 per cent of customers approved of being contacted directly by brands through social media. Meanwhile, marketers estimated that 5 per cent of consumers would like to be contacted directly through social media.

Marketing expert Murray Dudgeon told the publication that marketers, now more than ever, need further insight into how their consumers and target demographics are both using and interacting with digital platforms and channels.

He said: "For the first time, we have been able to quantify the shift from push- to pull-marketing. Consumers are using technology to filter out messages they don't feel are appropriate. We can also infer that some marketers are still working in silos and do not enjoy a 360-degree view of their organisation's marketing activity.

"In some ways, the industry has created Frankenstein's monster. By doing such a good job of marketing technology and digital services, they have breathed life into consumers' ability to control the relationship between brand and individual.

"Now more than ever, marketers need the insight to understand when and where it's appropriate for brands to join the conversation with consumers."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia