The latter has been around since at least since the ice-age (but almost certainly before that) and is free to enjoy.

How much of Big 4 ‘product’ can actually be called music is questionable, but one thing is solid gold, cast iron, carved-in-rock certain.

It certainly ain’t free. Not only that, if you dare to share online and Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music find out, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a subpoena.

Given that literally hundreds of millions of people share music with each other online every minute of every day everywhere, the chances of that happening to any one person are so tiny as to be zero. But such is the power of the Mighty Corporate Music PR Bullshit Machine and the unquestioning obedience of the lamescream media, who repeat Big Music puff pieces as though they’re genuine news, many people around the world believe it could easily happen.

Now an Australian ad guy has “is expected to announce a licensing deal this morning with Universal Music Group” with “at least one thing going for it that SpiralFrog didn’t and Qtrax has yet to demonstrate:,” says the Los Angeles Times — “a model that’s friendly not just to consumers, but also to advertisers”.

Called Guvera, it won’t launch in the US “until early next year,” says the story.

But the owner, Claes Loberg, figures he’s found a way to scoop up mega-loads of personal user data well before then.

According to the web site, it’ll be the greatest thing since sliced eggs. Or is that bread?

Anyhow, digital entertainment is about to be changed forever, it promises, informing us “an exclusive limited audience and get invited to the Guvera beta 2009 (100% free music).”

Wowee!

And all  interested parties have to do when they register is provide the usual details such as location, age, gender.

Oh, and …

Favorite Holidays:
Select options below.
CITY HOLIDAYS
ISLAND HOLIDAYS
JUNGLE TREKKING
BEACHES
ROAD TRIPS
5 STAR WITH ALL THE BLING
HEALTH SPA & PAMPERING
CAMPING IN THE WILD
MOUNTAIN CLIMBING
SURFING WEEKEND
GOLF WEEKEND
DIVING
CONCERT TRIP
PARTY TOWN
EXPLORING AND EDUCATION

Favorite Sports:
Select options below.
SURFING
SKATE BOARDING
URBAN PARKOUR
HIGH ADRENALINE/EXTREME SPORTS
FOOTBALL/SOCCER
RUGBY LEAGUE
RUGBY UNION
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL
AMERICAN FOOTBALL
BASEBALL
YOGA
GOLF
SWIMMING
TENNIS
CRICKET
XBOX OR PS3
CYCLING
JOGGING
BODY BUILDING

Favorite Music:
Select options below.
ROCK
HARD ROCK OR METAL
POP / CURRENT CHARTS
BLUES
RAP & HIPHOP
REGGAE
COUNTRY
INDIE
LATIN
CLASSICAL
DJ / DANCE / CLUB
ACID JAZZ
JAZZ
FUNK
CAPPELLA
NEW AGE
WORLD MUSIC

Favorite Things and Gadgets:
Select options below.
GUITAR
IPOD
XBOX OR PS
SATELLITE NAVIGATOR
COMPUTER
MOBILE PHONE
BLACKBERRY
WATCH
CAMERA
CIGAR CUTTER
AEROPLANE OR HELICOPTER
BINOCULARS
TV
BIKE
MOTORBIKE
SPORTSGEAR
INTERNET
CHAT MESSENGERS

Favorite Countries:
Select options below.
AFRICA
AUSTRALIA
CARIBBEAN
CHINA
EASTERN EUROPE
INDIA
INDONESIA
MEDITERRANEAN
MIDDLE EAST
PACIFIC ISLANDS
SCANDINAVIA
SOUTH AMERICA
RUSSIA
UK & EUROPE
UNITED STATES

Favorite Books:
Select options below.
PICTURES NO WORDS
COMIC BOOKS
CLASSICS
BIOGRAPHIES
ROMANCE
SCI-FI
FICTION
NON-FICTION
EDUCATION
ART & DESIGN
MAGAZINES
ARCHITECTURE
BUSINESS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
DICTIONARY

Favorite Films
Select options below.
SCI-FI
ROMANTIC COMEDY
COMEDY
ACTION
THRILLER
HORROR
SPORTS
CHILDRENS
CARTOONS
ADVENTURES
DOCUMENTARIES
DRAMA

Favorite Food:
Select options below.
EXOTIC FRUITS
MEAT AND VEGETABLES
SANDWICHES
HAMBURGERS & FASTFOOD
ICE CREAM AND SWEETS
VEGETARIAN
PIZZA
SEAFOOD
HEALTH FOOD
EVERYTHING
ITALIAN
INDIAN
MIDDLE EASTERN
ASIAN

Favorite Web Activities:
Select options below.
GAMES MESSENGER & CHATTING
MUSIC
MOVIES
NEWS UPDATES
SPORTS UPDATES
WEATHER UPDATES
WORKING
RESEARCH
MEETING FRIENDS
SOCIAL NETWORKS (FACEBOOK ETC)
COMEDY & ENTERTAINMENT
BOOKS
SHOPPING
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

AND —- Favorite Charities:

Then, says the LA Times, they  “enter the name of a band, song or genre to search for, and Guvera returns a list of advertiser-sponsored channels that provide the matching tracks. Once they pick a channel, they can stream or download other music paid for by that brand.”

Oh.

Pass.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

since the ice-age – Toot on a flute – an ice-age one, June 25, 2009
Los Angeles Times – Guvera, a place for advertisers to give away music, November 18, 2009

Google started out with Do No Evil as its motto. But that soon fell by the wayside and five years ago, p2pnet reported on the censorship of Google news sources inside China, something it tried to spin as ‘omitting’ or ‘not including’.

“Dynamic Internet Technology (DIT) ceo Bill Xia told us that on September 15, a volunteer working with DIT’s DynaWeb noticed Google’s Chinese news returned different results depending whether the search was conducted in China or in the US,” we stated, going on, “He also said, ‘We were able to confirm this report through proxies in China. Search results inside China do not contain news from blocked sites such as www.epochtimes.com.au’. We spoke with Google spokeswoman Debbie Frost, who denied claims that its Chinese service was censoring news, saying, among other things, “to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons’.”

But that doesn’t mean everything Google does is reprehensible and some of its products are not only genuinely useful, but truly innovative, and one such is its translation service.

Google is by no means the only company whose software offers surfers the abililty to see what something in German, say, might read in English. The translations — its or someone else’s — often leave a lot to be desired, but that’s just carping because they do give you an idea and what’s being said in the original text.

And now Google has launched an interesting upgrade to its existing product, giving it a “new look and feel to the automatic text and Web page translation tool” offering “51 language options and instant translations,” says PC World.

We thought we’d give it a try with the first two sentences of this post. So, below are the results in German, French, panish — and Chinese.

If you speak any of these languages, how do the translations (and they were indeed ‘instant’)  look to you?

French »»»

p2pnet se plaint à propos de Google en raison principalement de mépris constant cynique entreprise pour les personnes qui utilisent ses nombreux et divers produits, qui sont tous d’une manière ou d’une autre liés à son activité de publicité de base.

Google a commencé avec Do No Evil comme sa devise. Mais que bientôt tombé à l’eau et il ya cinq ans, p2pnet rapport sur la censure des sources nouvelles de Google en Chine, ce qu’il a tenté de filer comme des «omettant» ou «non compris».

German »»»

p2pnet beschwert sich über Google vor allem wegen der ständigen zynischen Gesellschaft Missachtung der Menschen, die ihre zahlreichen und unterschiedlichen Produkten, die alle in der einen oder anderen Weise auf seine Kern-Werbegeschäft Form genutzt werden.

Google startete mit Do No Evil als Motto. Aber das ist auch bald auf der Strecke und vor fünf Jahren, berichtete p2pnet auf die Zensur von Google News-Quellen in China, etwas, das sie versucht, als “Spin Weglassen” oder “ohne”.

Spanish »»»

p2pnet queja de Google en gran parte por desprecio cínico compañía constante para las personas que utilizan sus productos numerosos y diversos, todos ellos de un modo u otro vinculados a su negocio de publicidad básicos.

Google comenzó con “no hacer el mal como su lema. Pero pronto cayeron en el camino y hace cinco años, p2pnet informó sobre la censura de las fuentes de noticias de Google en China, algo que trató de hilar como “la omisión” o “no incluido”.

Chinese (simplified – and hopefully, you’ll be able to see the Chinese characters) »»»

p2pnet抱怨，主要是由于公司不断的人谁使用它的许多各种产品，所有这些都是以某种方式与它的核心广告业务又一次嘲弄无视谷歌。

谷歌开始了与你作为其座右铭无恶不作。但很快就被抛在一边，并在5年前下降了，p2pnet报告了谷歌中国内部消息来源审查，东西它试图旋转为’省略’或’不包括’。

And for the hell of it, we submited the French version to be translated back to Engish, with the result »»»

p2pnet complains about Google’s mainly due to constant cynical contempt for business people who use its many different products, all in one way or another related to its advertising activity basis.

Google started with Do No Evil as its currency. But that soon fell into the water five years ago, p2pnet report on censorship of the news sources of Google in China, which he tried to spin as “failing” or “excluding”.

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

censorship of Google news sources – Google on China censorship, October 1, 2004
PC World – Google Translate Tool Offers Instant Results, November 17, 2009

I used to religiously visit the sites of people following me on Twitter, but these days, there are so many notices, many of of them ads and promos (not to mention thinly disguised invites to porn sites), I just don’t have the time to sift through them any more.

So I’m genuinely sorry if you’ve added me to your list and I haven’t responded, but that’s why.

Cheers! And all the best …
Jon

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

November, 2009

Its response is always, Problem? What problem?

But now, for the first time, Google is actually being sued by a government agency.

“Privacy regulators in a number of countries, including Italy, Germany and Japan, have raised concerns about the service but Google has been able to negotiate measures that have reassured them,” says the Financial Times, going on »»»

In Japan, it agreed to lower the height of the cameras taking pictures of the streets by 40cm to ensure they did not take images of people’s private gardens, while in Germany it agreed to erase the raw, identifiable photos of people and property from its system if individuals requested it.

Google also faced a private lawsuit in the US over the service, which was ultimately dismissed.

Google met Swiss data protection authorities in the run-up to launching Street View in Switzerland in September and was initially given the green light.

But  as p2pnet said last week, Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) Hanspeter Thuer llater complained about clearly visible faces and license plates.

“Google announced that it would primarily be filming urban centres, but then put comprehensive images of numerous towns and cities on the internet,” says the FT, going on:

” ‘In outlying districts, where there are far fewer people on the streets, the simple blurring of faces is no longer sufficient to conceal identities,’ said Mr Thür.

Now Thür says Google hasn’t done enough “to make faces and vehicle number plates unrecognisable on the service, which provides panoramic, street-level photos,” says the story, continuing:

“He has filed a motion seeking to freeze any expansion of Google’s activities under a temporary injunction. This would prevent Google from taking any further photography but would not require it to shut down the service entirely.”

Detailed online coverage

One also wonders if freedom groups will pick up on the possibility that Gargle’s Street View may also be acting as a kind of online racial profiling application.

p2pnet reader Marc “spent hours surfing Street View and p2pnet ran the results in what’s probably the only detailed online coverage of easily visible Street View images,” p2pnet reported for the first time on Saturday.

The story went on »»»

However, that’s not all he found.

Said Eric in a Reader’s Write to our latest post on Google’s  apparent intransigence, “I doubt those three guys sitting on the wall were having an abortion. ”

He was referring to one of the Google Street View pix showing an abortion clinic in Switzerland  identified by Marc and which we’d miniaturised for a 32-item montage. However, as we pointed out, “even at these very considerably reduced sizes, some of the people might still be recognizable”. So we obscured them in red.

Marc told Eric »»»

Nope, they were just sitting there about 1 block away from the abortion clinic. Sitting in front of their slum homes across the street.

What *is* significant is that most black people are not blurred at all. Most every black person I came across is in the same unblurred state.

A few things that I noticed that causes the “blur” to *not* kick in:

1. If you are non-white
2. If you wear shades or glasses
3. If you have a hat on (ie baseball cap)

From all the time I spent looking into this, the above 3 conditions are true, regardless of what anyone, or thing, has to say.

Check it out. You will also find this to be true.

The above 3 conditions hold true for gargle Swiss and boogle Canada (I only looked at these two in depth for many, many, hours).

It also holds true for Billboards, hence the billboard example in the pic above.

In the story, we’d included a spoofed KFC pic to illustrate a statement made by assistant privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham.

“We’ve found many instances where people’s faces aren’t blurred”, she said, according to the Canwest News Service, which went on, “In some cases, the face of KFC’s Colonel Sanders or faces on billboards captured in shots are blurred instead.”

Meanwhile, “Color/race determines if you are blurred with gogle,” said Marc. “It cannot be denied.”

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Financial Times – Swiss act on Google Street View pictures, November 14, 2009
p2pnet – Switzerland to sue over Google Street View, November 13, 2009
faces and license plates – No Street View! Switzerland tells Google,   August 25, 2009

p2pnet – Does Google Street View racially profile people?, November 14, 2009

Vehicles equipped with panoramic cameras tour the streets and byways of the world taking pictures of everything they come across.  The results are then displayed on Google pages.

It doesn’t matter whether or not people captured by Gargle SnoopMobiles want to be included. They are, without ever having given their permission. If they want out, they have to ask.

Gogle, probably the internet’s largest and most prolific advertising company, touts Street View as a ’service’.  It is, however, just another product and Switzerland, one of the countries featured, is now going after it in the courts, as p2pnet posted yesterday.

“Switzerland’s data protection authority said Friday it will sue Google for allegedly failing to obscure faces, license plates and other sensitive images from its Street View photo mapping Web application,” said the IDG News Service, going on:

“It’s the latest problem for Street View, which debuted to controversy in the U.K. and raised concerns when vehicles mounted with periscope cameras began shooting imagery in Germany earlier this year.”

So when the complaints started flooding in, did Google immediately suspend all operations and take the sites offline while it fixed the problems?

It was, and still is, bidniz as usual. But as we’ve noted before, Hey! When you’re an 800-pound gorilla …

32-item montage

p2pnet reader Marc spent hours surfing Street View and p2pnet ran the results in what’s probably the only detailed online coverage of easily visible Street View images.

However, that’s not all he found.

Said Eric in a Reader’s Write to our latest post on Google’s  apparent intransigence, “I doubt those three guys sitting on the wall were having an abortion. ”

He was referring to one of the Google Street View pix showing an abortion clinic in Switzerland  identified by Marc and which we’d miniaturised for a 32-item montage. However, as we pointed out, “even at these very considerably reduced sizes, some of the people might still be recognizable”. So we obscured them in red.

Marc told Eric »»»

Nope, they were just sitting there about 1 block away from the abortion clinic. Sitting in front of their slum homes across the street.

What *is* significant is that most black people are not blurred at all. Most every black person I came across is in the same unblurred state.

A few things that I noticed that causes the “blur” to *not* kick in:

1. If you are non-white
2. If you wear shades or glasses
3. If you have a hat on (ie baseball cap)

From all the time I spent looking into this, the above 3 conditions are true, regardless of what anyone, or thing, has to say.

Check it out. You will also find this to be true.

The above 3 conditions hold true for gargle Swiss and boogle Canada (I only looked at these two in depth for many, many, hours).

It also holds true for Billboards, hence the billboard example in the pic above.

In the story, we’d included a spoofed KFC pic to illustrate a statement made by assistant privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham.

“We’ve found many instances where people’s faces aren’t blurred”, she said, according to the Canwest News Service, which went on, “In some cases, the face of KFC’s Colonel Sanders or faces on billboards captured in shots are blurred instead.”

Meanwhile, “Color/race determines if you are blurred with gogle,” said Marc. “It cannot be denied.”

Here’s the compilation. The men Eric refers to are far right in the top row.

Say tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet – Switzerland to sue over Google Street View, November 13, 2009
IDG News Service – Swiss Contend Google Doesn’t Blur Street View Enough, November 13, 2009
Canwest News Service – Better privacy protection needed on Google Street View, MPs told, October 23, 2009

Login

User Name: password:

Archives

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

Switzerland to sue over Google Street View

There’ve privacy problems with Google advertising hook Street View since the day it was launched, said p2pnet recently, going on  »»»

Complaints have been pouring in not only from  individuals, but also governments, around the world.

Ask Beatle Paul McCartney.

But with Gargle, it’s Gosh Golly! We’re definitely going to do something about it — promise promise, delay delay, fudge fudge.

Now, “We’ve found many instances where people’s faces aren’t blurred,” assistant federal privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham says, according to the Canwest News Service.

In August, Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) Hanspeter Thuer gave Google the go ahead for Street View, but later complained about clearly visible faces and license plates.

Google promised to sort things but, “Switzerland’s head of federal data protection has told Google that his country is still not sufficiently blurry on the Great Satan of Mountain View’s Street View service, despite the company agreeing to further obscure faces and number plates,” said The Register, publishing Street View pictures of clearly identifiable vehicle licence plates.

Swiss abortion clinics

“Nowhere is anonymity more highly prized or religiously guarded than in Switzerland, home to the world’s most secretive institutions,” said p2pnet, continuing, “But ironically, there are few places where examples of Google’s failure to live up to its claims of identity protection are more glaringly obvious.”

When frequent p2pnet poster Marc  went surfing in Switzerland he came across a site listing Swiss abortion clinics whose clients include teens aged 16 and under.

Any chance of these showing up on Google? – he wondered.

“But of course” we said. “This is, after all, Google Street View,” going on »»»

And no matter which side of the abortion fence you happen to be sitting, the last thing you want is to have your face or vehicle licence number splashed across the World Wide Web.

Below is a montage of 32 miniaturised pix clipped from Google Street View and even at these very considerably reduced sizes, some of the people might still be recognizable.

But full size, even though some of the faces are blurred, they’d still easily be recognizable to anyone who knew them. And there’d be no trouble at all with the licence plates or locations.

To be safe, we’ve done Google’s job for it,obscuring the faces in red.

You’re welcome, Gargle.

But Marc didn’t stop there, finding scores of other easily recognizable Google images showing faces car and motorcycle licence plates, locations, and so on.

Now, by an amazing coincidence, “The company said it’s willing to consult with other ‘interested groups such as abortion clinics and women’s refuges to hear their feedback and to answer any questions’,” says the IDG News Service.

Extensive solutions

Meanwhile, “In the Street View service, which has been online since mid August 2009, numerous faces and vehicle number plates are not made sufficiently unrecognizable from the point of view of data protection, especially where the persons concerned are shown in sensitive locations, e.g. outside hospitals, prisons or schools,” IDG has Switzerland’s FDPIC saying.

“Google struck back, charging that Thuer is ‘unwilling to engage with the extensive solutions we have offered, according to a statement attributed to Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel,” says the story, adding:

“The FDPIC contends that blurring faces isn’t sufficient to conceal identities, especially in less populated areas. The height of the cameras is also problematic, as it can snap images over fences, hedges and walls, which means the cameras have access to areas that can’t be seen by a pedestrian, the FDPIC contends.

“This means that privacy in enclosed areas (gardens, yards) is no longer guaranteed,” it said.

In Canada, faces and car licence plates  were crystal clear

Here in Canada,  in some cases, “the face of KFC’s Colonel Sanders or faces on billboards captured in shots are blurred” instead of people’s, Canwest had assistant federal privacy commissioner Denham pointing out.

In Canada, faces and car licence plates  were crystal clear in Street View images, we noted, continuing »»»

And in British Columbia, “Within hours of its launch,”privacy commissioner David Loukidelis said he’d be contacting Google, “over early reports of adults and children being clearly identifiable in Street View for Vancouver and his own concern over the area outside the Hotel Vancouver, where he said, ‘certainly if you were the person in the picture you’d recognize yourself’”.

In testimony last June, Jonathan Lister, the head of Google Canada, “left the door open to arguing the company’s collection of cartographic images be exempt from the consent provisions of Canada’s private-sector privacy law,” says Canwest,  quoting him as telling the House of Commons privacy and ethics committee:

“I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t make a legal judgment call and I shouldn’t speculate. It’s reasonable to assume that, given the history of mapping as an artistic enterprise, precedent has been set that maps are considered to be a form of artistic expression.”

However, under certain circumstances, “this could pose a danger to children captured in street-level images if a company argues their work constitutes art,” says Denham in the story: “That raises the spectre of a company not blurring faces at all, and that predators could then obtain the information”.

Companies “may argue that they qualify for that exception,”she said. “On the face of it, I think this argument is problematic as it doesn’t seem to me that this is an artistic endeavour.”

Meanwhile, has Google been trying to reduce the impact of the storm of complaints by posting  phony comments on sites which are critical of Street View? – we wondered, adding:

“Only Gogle knows for sure. Cerainly, fake forum posts are nothing new.”

Stay tuned.

Jon Newton – p2pnet

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet – More Google Street View privacy problems, October 23, 2009
Paul McCartney – Google misnumbers Paul McCartney’s house, May 28, 2009
Canwest News Service – Better privacy protection needed on Google Street View, MPs told, October 23, 2009
faces and license plates – No Street View! Switzerland tells Google,   August 25, 2009
The Register – Street View stalks Swiss data protection bureau, September 17, 2009
IDG News Service – Swiss Contend Google Doesn’t Blur Street View Enough, November 13, 2009
crystal clear – Google Canada Street View faces and plates, October 9, 2009
you’d recognize yourself’ – Google Street View ‘panned’ in BC, October 9, 2009

nothing new – Firm nailed for fake testimonials and forum posts, July 15, 2009

Google, Yahoo and “other Web companies” don’t believe you already have enough coming at you in the way of advertisements.  So they’re joining the pharmaceuticals in trying to talk US federal regulators into making it easier to tout drugs online.

“The Food and Drug Administration is hearing from dozens of drug and advertising executives at a two-day meeting on Internet marketing of medical products,” says the Associated Press, going on:

“The agency has agreed to consider developing rules for online ads after companies complained that the guidelines for traditional media — which require detailed lists of side effects — have left them hamstrung on the Web.”

For its “Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media” meeting, among other questions, the FDA “asked presenters to address was: what criteria should be used to determine when third-party conversations are subject to ’substantive influence’ by companies that market the products being discussed,” says Reuters, continuing:

“The FDA also asked speakers to discuss what online messages drug makers are responsible for, how companies can achieve balance in ads within the confines of a 140-character Twitter message and when linking is appropriate or misleading.

“The hearing comes after the FDA sent warning letters about drug marketing online to 14 companies in April, including Eli Lilly and Merck & Co Inc. The agency told both companies that its ads online for certain products were misleading because they did not contain any risk information.”

Drug advertising “has been one of the few cash cows remaining for traditional media like television and magazines,” says the Wall Street Journal, going on:”Drug companies spent $4.4 billion on ads for prescription drugs last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence, an ad-tracking firm owned by WPP.”

But the likes of giant online advertising company Google “have missed out on most of those ad dollars despite the average of 91 million Americans who seek health information online each month, according to comScore,” says the story. “Pharmaceutical companies spent just $130 million to advertise prescription drugs on the Web last year, TNS says.”

Here’s how Google would like to do it, says NPR News:

“A link headline would go to a designated landing page, warning language would be a permanent part of the sponsored link, and ‘more info’ would lead a person to details about risks. For drugs carrying black-box labels, there would be a special kind of sponsored link to emphasize safety information.”

Where’s  the Asprin?

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Associated Press – Google, Yahoo call for expanded online drug ads, November 12, 2009
Reuters – U.S. FDA tackles gray area of social media, November 12, 2009
Wall Street Journal – Drug Makers to Press for Guidance on Web Marketing, November 12, 2009
NPR News – Google Has A Plan For Safer, More Useful Online Drug Ads, November 12, 2009

“Google has reportedly spent $30 million to buy Gizmo5, an online phone company” that’s akin to Skype, “but based on open protocols and with a lot fewer users,” said p2pnet yesterday, quoting Wired.

“Gizmo5’s founder Michael Robertson, a brash serial entrepreneur, would only say that he could not comment on rumors when asked by Wired.com about a story TechCrunch ran Monday reporting the acquisition,” said the post.

The headline was ‘Google Poised to Become Your Phone Company,’ a prospect that’s chilling and scary.

But why not? Google is already into everything it can lay its hands on  which has anything to do with accessing personal and private data.

So why not telephones?

Now, “we’re pleased to announce we’ve acquired Gizmo5, a company that provides Internet-based calling software for mobile phones and computers,” say Wesley Chan and Craig Walker on behalf of the world’s largest, and most omnivorous, online advertising entity.

“While we don’t have any specific features to announce right now, Gizmo5’s engineers will be joining the Google Voice team to continue improving the Google Voice and Gizmo5 experience,” says Gargle, going on:

“Current Gizmo5 users will still be able to use the service, though we will be suspending new signups for the time being, and existing users will no longer be able to sign up for a call-in number.

“We’ve acquired a number of small companies over the past five years, and the people and technology that have come to Google from other places have contributed in many ways, large and small, to all kinds of Google products.”

No kidding.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet – Google, the new AT&T?, November 12, 2009
Wired – Google Poised to Become Your Phone Company, November 11, 2009

All other considerations aside, there’s no such thing as ‘zilch’ where giant adco Gargle is concerned. The price tag may be well and truly buried under endless happy PR verbiage, but it’ll be there somewhere.

Bank on it.

“Google has reportedly spent $30 million to buy Gizmo5, an online phone company” that’s akin to Skype, “but based on open protocols and with a lot fewer users,” says the story, going on, “Gizmo5’s founder Michael Robertson, a brash serial entrepreneur, would only say that he could not comment on rumors when asked by Wired.com about a story TechCrunch ran Monday reporting the acquisition.”

“It’s a potent recipe,” th story says, continuing, “take Gizmo5’s open standards-based online calling system. Add to it the new ability to route calls on Google’s massive network of cheap fiber. Toss in Google Voice’s free phone number, which will ring your mobile phone, your home phone and your Gizmo5 client on your laptop.

“Meanwhile you can use Gizmo5 to make ultracheap outgoing calls to domestic and international phone numbers, and free calls to Skype, Google Talk, Yahoo and AIM users. You could make and receive calls that bypass the per-minute billing on your smartphone.

“Then layer on deluxe phone services like free SMS, voicemail transcription, customized call routing, free conference calls and voicemails sent as recordings to your e-mail account, and you have a phone service that competes with Skype, landlines and the internet telephone offerings from Vonage and cable companies.”

Sounds too good to be true, don’t it?

Well,  you know what they say …

Manwhile, “Google also gets Michael Robertson, a troublemaker with technical chops,” says Wired, adding:

“Robertson made millions from MP3.com in the dot-com boom, despite drawing lawsuits from major record labels for creating innovative services. He was later sued by Microsoft for his startup Lindows, which made Linux installations for cheap PCs. And his current music venture, MP3tunes.com, is being sued by EMI.”

Google, the only one to completely fail in a  six-month investigation into privacy practices employed by key net-based companies, handling your personal and private phone calls?

Time to move to a galaxy far away …

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Wired – Google Poised to Become Your Phone Company, November 11, 2009
completely fail – Google flunks major privacy study, June 11, 2007

“The Big 4 have since blown hundreds of millions of dollars on one scheme after another designed to provide a vehicle capable of carrying Big 4 product to the satisfaction of the Big 4,” said p2pnet, going on:

“Then along came Sweden’s Spotify, billed as a, proprietary peer-to-peer music streaming service that allows instant listening to specific tracks or albums with almost no buffering delay.”

A little more than a year ago, it seemed the music labels had “finally relented, and were willing to experiment with free streaming music to users,” says TechCrunch. “The future looked bright.

“2009 is the year of reckoning. The European launch of Spotify, which offers users free streaming music on demand, was an affirmation of the trend. Soon Spotify would launch in the U.S., too, the company said.”

And, “No wonder the majors speak so highly of Spotify,” said Helienne Lindvall in The Guardian, “they receive 18% of shares in the online streaming service. “It’s just a pity that artists won’t get to see any of this … ”

Well, there is that. But what else is new?

The major record labels and the bigger indies, “seemed unusually positive about Spotify, which made me think that they must have received a pretty hefty payment and/or equity in the company,” she said, and, “Sure enough, the other week some of my suspicions were confirmed when it was reported that the majors received 18% of Spotify shares.”

She went on »»»

One of the main reasons why majors have been hesitant to offer their music to start-ups is that they’ve seen companies like YouTube and Last.fm build businesses, only to sell them off for big bucks without sharing the money with the copyright owners whose music they used.

A source close to Spotify told me he has serious doubts that their business model will add up and that it’s a case of “spot the idiot”, ie “find somebody stupid enough to buy it before realising that it’s too costly to run and that the numbers don’t add up to making a profit”.

However, “There’s no firm evidence that people will ever be willing to pay to stream music in significant numbers” and this in turn, “exposes a fundamental flaw in the business model: the more people pay for a subscription (thus avoiding the ads) the less attractive the service becomes to potential advertisers. And the more ads it runs, the less music lovers will want to use the service,” reckoned Luke Lewis on NME.

“Indeed,” he stated, “I’m convinced the ‘free’ aspect of Spotify is unsustainable. Across the media, people’s faith in the ad-funded free content model is faltering”.

He pointed out Rupert Murdoch was already planning to charge for content, and that giant advertising company Google was developing a system of micropayments.”

Advertising, “will never cover Spotify’s costs: its only hope of success is in attracting subscribers in huge numbers,” said NME, going on »»»

You might say: who cares if it’s profitable? To its most devoted fans, Spotify represents the achievement of the elusive “celestial jukebox”: the limitless-music paradise that David Bowie predicted in 2002, when he said: “Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity.”

But while it might look like utopia for music fans, if Spotify is to have a future, it needs to be a viable business. For now, funding is still pouring in – the company employs 30 people, and has offices in London and Sweden. It was recently valued at over £200 million.

However this is, Lewis added, “an entirely theoretical, phantom value,” and, “There’s every possibility Spotify could go the way of Spiralfrog, or Pandora, or any number of music services which once looked promising, before fading away when the investment dried up.”

Now, Spotify is saying its much-touted US launch is “delayed”, says TechCrunch.  And in the background Qtrax is floundering, not that that’s anything new.

“They don’t want to launch here [the US'] with a paid-only model, and the big labels are signaling that they won’t have it,” it says, continuing »»»

From the NYTimes last month, quoting Sony Music: “We like Spotify as our partner in Europe, but we would like them to move more toward a paid subscription environment.”

And that isn’t the only bad news. MySpace Music is “almost certainly” going to severely restrict free streaming to users, say multiple sources, and move to a paid model. “They are spending $20 million/month on streaming royalties, and that just isn’t sustainable,” said one source with knowledge of MySpace’s relationships with the labels. Other sources have said that MySpace’s royalty payments are much lower, but don’t deny that the service is a cash hole.

MySpace won’t comment on this story, but they have a deadline to all this. The Google search deal is up next year, and $300 million/year in revenue will evaporate. Changes need to happen soon. The last payment of $75 million is due on June 20, 2010.

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

p2pnet – What’s going on at Spotify?, September 14, 2009
TechCrunch – Free Streaming May Soon Be History: Spotify Delays U.S. Launch, MySpace May Move To Pay Model, November 11, 2001
The Guardian – Behind the music: The real reason why the major labels love Spotify, August 17, 2009
NME – The problem with Spotify, September 11, 2009have
charge for content – Google vs Murdoch, Twitter and Facebook, November 11, 200
system of micropayments – Google micro-payments system, September 11, 2009
Qtrax is floundering – Qtrax blows it again …, November 11, 200

Australian media billionaire Rupert Murdoch is betting there is.

He “reckons net access content is worth money,” said p2pnet yesterday,  going on, “Lots of money. And who better to mine it?

“But why should net users, who’ve always enjoyed free content, suddenly have to pay for it?”of

Easy, says Rupert, “They shouldn’t have had it free all the time. I think we’ve been asleep.”

And as part of the awakening process, he’s threatening to yank all his content from the net’s largest advertising firm, Google, which also owns what’s arguably the most popular search engine.

“Of course, all the netizens freak out when this happens,” says US media billionaire Mark Cuban in Blog Maverick. “Which I love.”

He goes on »»»

I love to tweak all the internet information must be free bigots. They get so damn religious about information on the net that they lose what little objectivity and awareness of the real world they had in the first place.  First a little enlightenment for all of you that think Murdoch is making a mistake. This is not 1999, nor is it 2004, nor is it 2006, nor is it 2008.  The calendar is about to turn to 2010.  What worked and made sense 3,5 and 10 years ago, no longer does.

What has changed  ? Quite a bit, but lets start with this.  TWITTER IS SURPASSING  GOOGLE as a destination for finding information on breaking and recent news  of all types. Whats more,   TWITTER POSSES NO THREAT to any destination news site. 140 characters does not a story make.  Find it on twitter, link to a story on say, FoxNews and everyone is happy. The same concept applies to Facebook Links. Twitter and Facebook are not news  destinations that can compete with traditional news sources.  Google is.   Rupert loves him some twitter. Google, not so much.

Not only but also, Twitter and Facebook are “becoming strong competitors for referrals to news sources from topical searches” and they both have “one HUGE HUGE HUGE advantage for news outlets that Google does not”.

And that is?

They’re both platforms that “allow the news sources, like newscorp to post breaking news and gain value from their brand,” says Cuban.

“Google does not.”

The “bottom line is that in this new era of twitter, things have changed,” he says, adding:

“News sites blocking Google ain’t what it used to be.  Rupert is right. Deal with it.”

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

p2pnet – Time to pay for the net: Rupert Murdoch, November 10, 2009
Blog Maverick – Rupert Murdoch to Block Google = Smart = Twitter has changed it all, November 9, 2009

Last week, “the United States met behind closed doors with dozens of other countries in Seoul, South Korea to consider a global agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,” said KEI and Public Knowledge, going on:

“This agreement, though named the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), implicates changes to international intellectual property norms far broader than its name suggests.”

ACTA has also been called the Hollywood Dream.

But movie moguls, not to mention Big Music, aren’t the only ones watching its progress.

“ISPs around the world may be forced to snoop on their subscribers and cut them off if they are found to have shared copyright-protected music on the Internet, under an international agreement being promoted by the U.S.,” said the IDG News Service recently.

However, as p2pnet has often observed, “Promoted by America, Yes — but on behalf of the entertainment industry.”

The Three Strikes and you’re Off The Net ‘initiative’ touted around the world as individual government plans, “is nothing but a part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to turn governments into copyright agencies  funded by local taxpayers, and ISPs into  copyright police, acting against their own customs,” we said.

Now, not surprisingly, Oz zillionaire and Fux owner Rupert Murdoch (right) Rupert reckons net access content is worth money.

Lots of money. And who better to mine it?

But why should net users, who’ve always enjoyed free content, suddenly have to pay for it?

Easy, says Rupert, “They shouldn’t have had it free all the time.

“I think we’ve been asleep.”

So now it’s time to for Rupert to give us a rude awakening.

And make himself even richer in the process.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

KEI and Public Knowledge – Missing Safeguards in ACTA present risks to consumers in the United States, November 9, 2009
Hollywood Dream – ACTA, the Hollywood dream: CIPPIC, May 27, 2009
IDG News Service – Trade Talks Hone in on Internet Abuse and ISP Liability, November 3, 2009
often observed – Three strikes world-wide, and a global DMCA, November 4, 2009

It bills itself as the provider of “Industry-leading mobile advertising and monetization solutions”.

Not any more. Because yesterday it anounced it’s now another possession of the world’s largest online advertising company, Google.

“… AdMob has signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Google,” says  the company’s Omar.

Producing, consuming, or monetizing engaging products on mobile. Yum.

“AdMob knows performance mobile advertising,” itsays. “As the largest performance mobile ad network worldwide, we offer performance advertisers sophisticated targeting capabilities and low-cost customer acquisition with measurable return on investment,” it says.

How much did Google pay for AdMob?

$750,000,000.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

November, 2009

Unfortunately, the ‘report’ originates with McAfee, not the most reliable of sources.

It regularly produces schlock-horror PR puff pieces disguised as press statements, and experiences difficulty distinguishing real problems from unreal ones.

A new report, “shows a spike in the number of websites hosting copyright infringing content in the month that infamous file-sharing website The Pirate Bay was shut down,” says the story.

It goes on »»»

The site was forced offline in August by a Swedish court order following a legal battle with motion picture and music industry groups.

The Pirate Bay came back online a short time later, but, according to McAfee, there was a significant jump in new file-sharing sites during the downtime.

“The Pirate Bay example shows how difficult it is to ’stop’ data once it is on the web,” the report said, noting »»»

Although a website can be shut down, anyone who has accessed the content (pictures, games, text, movies, etc) may still have some and be able to redistribute it.

Oh, Really ?!

No need to stay tuned.

(Cheers, Andrew)

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

news.com.au – Piracy increased in days after Pirate Bay closed, November 3, 2009
schlock-horror PR puff pieces – New McAfee ‘report’, October 20, 2009
experiences difficulty – McAfee targets p2pnet. Again., August 28, 2008

I was just taking a look at p2pnet subscribers and a disproportionate number have .pl and .ru email addresses.

Some are genuine, but a lot of them are very obvious fakes, perhaps because the people who entered them hoped this would allow them to post spam comments automatically, or by hand, as an increasing number seem to want to do.

I ask because I’ll delete them if they’re in some way beneficial to parties unknown. But if they’re not, I won’t bother.

Can anyone advise me on this?

Cheers! And thanks …
Jon

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

November, 2009

Again.

The EC is accusing the UK government of failing to protect citizens’ privacy, says the BBC, going on »»»

It (the EC) said the government should have done more to guarantee online privacy when trials of a controversial ad-serving system were carried out in 2006.

The Commission said it had now started the second phase of legal action over the trials.

If the UK fails to answer the criticism satisfactorily, it faces being taken to the European court.

The EC initiated its legal fight with Britain over online data pirate Phorm following complaints to the EC over how the behavioural advertising ’service’ was tested on the BT broadband network – unbeknownst to users.

UK authorities said they were  “happy Phorm conformed to European data laws”, said another BBC story, but, “the commission has said Phorm ‘intercepted’ user data without clear consent and the UK need to look again at its online privacy laws.”

Technology used by Phorm is called DPI Deep Packet Inspection, aka Deep Privacy Invasion, “and its use as a means of mining private and personal online data now comprises a major threat around the world,”  p2pnet said in March.

Now, EU telecoms commissioner Viviane Reding is demanding Britain changes its laws to “ensure that British citizens fully benefit from the safeguards set out in EU law concerning confidentiality of electronic communications,” saysthe BBC, adding:

“The Commission has sent a letter containing its opinion to the UK which now has two months to respond. If the Commission is unsatisfied with the response it could take the case to an EU court and perhaps force a change in UK law.

“In response a Home Office spokesperson said: ‘We are firmly committed to protecting users’ privacy and data. We are considering the Commission’s letter and will respond in due course’.”

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

BBC – Brussels criticises UK on privacy, November 2, 2009
initiated its legal fight – EC goes after Britain over Phorm DPI, April 14, 2009
BBC – EC starts legal action over Phorm, April 14, 2009
p2pnet – Phorm pharce: UK media ’suppressed’ survey, March 7, 2009

It wants to convince “music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright,” says the Guardian.

And it hopes to do that with ContentID, a “fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips”.

With it, Google’s computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against “ID files” from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders,” says the story, going on »»»

The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.

Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.

Three years after Google bought the site for $1.65bn, “it has yet to turn a profit and there are concerns the division is devouring the internet group’s cash reserves,” says the Guardian, going on:

“Analysts say the company has struggled to sell online advertising against YouTube’s eclectic content and they estimate that it is losing Google at least $175m a year as a result. Less conservative estimates suggest the figure could be as high as $470m.”

YouTube says it streams seven billin videos a week, nut, “only 1bn of those are monetised”, says the story, adding:

“Of those 1bn, a third make money through the ContentID system.”

The dilemma must be driving Gargle marketing bosses insane.

Like Fa$ebook, GooTube claims to be a service, and that’s the way users use it instead of flocking / clicking in droves, damnit it!

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Guardian – Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes, November 1, 2009

Get ‘em while they’re young. That’s  corporate goal Number One with penetration of school classrooms around the world now a matter of routine.

Unscrupulous marketeers  know the value of corrupting children at the earliest possible opportunity, getting into their heads with flashy ads and mind-worm soundtracks, as Microsoft demonstrated  in a school in Pennsylvania.

It “forced a bunch of middle schoolers in Pennsylvania to learn, and perform,” Jonathan Mann’s Bing song, says TechCrunch.

‘Bing’ is Microsoft’s answer to  advertising giant Google’s search engine.

“The horror,”  said the story, going on, “It’s hard to watch this without immediately thinking about parents who accept money to allow their child to be sponsored. Is this the future of branding?

“Mann actually sent us the video along with the following note: ‘I literally cried a little bit when I saw this video. On the one hand I’m happy I was able to provide some kids with an excuse not to do school work for a few hours. On the other hand, not sure how I feel about these kids being indoctrinated into the cult of, well, whatever. It’s kinda creepy … ‘ ”

It’s more than creepy. It’s criminal.  But what else is new?

Intellectual Property merit badges

All segments of the entertainment industry have been getting away with this kind of thing for years  with corporate indoctrination specialists masquerading as ‘educators’ even using movements such as the Scouts to carry their specious messages.

“Funny thing,” said Rafael Venegas three years ago in a comment post to a p2pnet.net story highlighting the fact Hollywood had weasled  its way into the Hong Kong Boy Scout movement.

“You put two USA lawyers in opposing sides of any infringement lawsuit and they can’t agree on how to interpret the law and its frequently contradictory jurisprudence,” said Rafael. “They can’t even agree on what infringement is. And someone expects some kids in China to have knowledge of IP law’?”

No only China. Soon afterwards, the MPAA  proudly announced Los Angeles Scouts would be expected to ‘earn’ Intellectual Property merit badges.

And the corporate record industry came under fire, “after launching a scheme to teach primary schoolchildren — possibly as young as five — not to illegally download music from the internet,” said Britain’s the Daily Mail, recently

“Lessons teaching pupils about copyright law are already being piloted in six schools and could be rolled out across the country,” but,”Critics suggest the initiative is designed to protect commercial interests rather than provide a valuable educational experience.”

The get ‘em while they’re young child mind-rape scheme was organised by music industry ‘consultant’ Ruth Katz — who also works for EMI, said p2pnet.  But no worries because she’s, “funding the school scheme independently,” although by another amazing coincidence, she’s backed by music industry organisations, “including the  EMI Music Sound Foundation — a charity set up by the label to improve music education,” says the story.

This particular travesty is happening in Britain, but it’s no more than part of an overall entertainment industry campaign to warp the minds of children everywhere by introducing copyright and intellectual property law into classrooms.

Much more recently, Hollywood sent “one of its biggest guns” to New Zealand in a “last-ditch attempt to persuade the Government to beef up its proposed approach to tackling internet piracy,” said stuff.co.nz.

“The corporate movie and music industries are spending millions of dollars in an international campaign to browbeat governments into instituting three strikes laws which would threaten alleged file sharers with two warnings, and then have them thrown off the Internet,” said p2pnet adding:

“With the governments acting as corporate copyright cop agencies, ISPs would be the enforcers.

However, as with Britain, the US, Australia and other countries where Big Music and Hollywood are struggling desperately to have their business plans adopted as local laws, the cartels are meeting with fierce  on- and offline resistance from civil rights groups and citizens.

“ ‘Washington-based executive vice-president and chief policy officer Greg Frazier held discussions with officials in an attempt to persuade the Government to rethink its plan to water down section 92a of the Copyright Act, which was put on hold in March following a storm of protests from internet advocates’,” said stuff.co.nz.

Not only but also, he, “launched a ‘comic book’ driving home the association’s anti-piracy message, which will be distributed to 17,000 children at cinemas throughout New Zealand during the school holidays”.

As I’ve said many times before, Thank  God we home-school our daughter.

Jon Newton - p2pnet

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

p2pnet.net – MPAA Boy Scout spies, July 18, 2006
TechCrunch – Microsoft Tortures Little Kids With Bing Jingle, October 30, 2009
p2pnet – Get ‘em while they’re young!, October 5, 2009
Daily Mail – Anger at record industry bosses over school anti-piracy lessons for children as young as five, October 3, 2009
stuff.co.nz – Copyright crusader flies in, October 5, 2006
p2pnet – Hollywood goes after New Zealand kids, October 13, 2006

That’s PC Magazine today.

“Facebook offers up privacy policy for user review. After earlier brouhaha over changes to terms-of-use policy, site now seeks user input” – Computerworld, today.

“Facebook spells out updated privacy policy”  – CNet News, today.

Will Facebook thumb its nose at Canada? – p2pnet, yesterday.

Available for your review

According to the Fa$ebook blog »»»

Starting today, Facebook’s privacy policy is at and comment. This is the next step in our ongoing effort to run Facebook in an open and transparent way.

Changes are indeed being wrought. But  paradoxically, many of them — the bulk? –  came about only after users organised Facebook groups  to protest actions taken, or not taken, by the company with respect to user privacy  in one form or another.

Because  the truth is: transparency has been one of Facebook’s least visible policies. Every change made in this direction has been forced upon it.

With Mark Zuckerberg (right) in the driving seat, Fa$sebook has had more updates than a dog has fleas and it seems a constant battle between its users and company policies about what it can, can’t and shouldn’t do with user data.

Fast and loose with user information

It’s a strange fish. It’s a privately owned commercial company and it has to make a living. No one begrudges that. But left to its own devices, it’d still be playing fast and loose with user information.

“Late last week, a federal judge in California gave preliminary approval to a settlement of the class action lawsuit regarding Facebook’s Beacon program,” says ReadWriteWeb, continuing:

“The controversial program, launched back in November of 2007, allowed ['forced' would be a better word] Facebook users to share online purchases made on third-party affiliate websites with their social networking friends. The problem with the program was that it was opt-out instead of opt-in, angering many Facebook users who unknowingly shared information they wished they wouldn’t have.”

The other major part to the Facebook settlement is the termination of Facebook’s Beacon program.

“Although Facebook had quickly reacted to the Beacon outcry after its launch, changing the system over to opt-in and even issuing a formal apology, the program still exists today,” says the story. ” (You can check your settings by going to Settings -> Privacy Settings -> Applications -> Settings tab. Then scroll down to the bottom to see if “Beacon websites” is checked or unchecked. Checked will ensure no Beacon stories get posted to your profile).”

If the proposed settlement goes through, “Facebook would then be relieved from liability from any future lawsuits regarding the same complaint and even those still pending,” such as last year’s Facebook-Blockbuster class action suit.

But, “Settlement Sounds Great … Especially for Facebook,” is a subhead to the ReadWriteWeb post, which adds »»»

On the surface, the proposed settlement sounds fair enough to all parties involved. Damages are paid and Facebook has to promote online privacy.

However, as David Johnson points out on the Digital Media Lawyer Blog, Facebook is already required by law to promote online privacy and the safety and security of its users’ information per FTC mandates. In addition, Facebook would get to nominate one and have say over the other two board members on the proposed Privacy Foundation’s board of directors.

Says Johnson: “Facebook effectively gets most of its money back to fund projects that it is already has an obligation to perform.”

Sounds like the real winner here may be Facebook.

Delay and prevaricate

Yesterday, “Fa$ebook is no different from any other company which pulls its money from online advertising,” said p2pnet. “If it’s told to straighten up its act for any reason, it’ll endlessly delay and prevaricate, dragging things out to the absolute last moment before it complies, and even then, it’ll beg for more time.  And it’ll get it.

“Meanwhile, the problems behind the complaints which inspired the order in the first place continue. Now, ‘the office of Canada’s privacy commissioner says Facebook has yet to address some of her concerns about what happens to profiles of users who die’ … ”

Only days were left for Fa$ebook to respond.

Elliot Schrage is vice president of Facebook’s global communications and public affairs and his statement,  including the excerpt quoted above,  on the  company’s blog was its answer.

Now, “Facebook has updated its privacy policy, with some changes based on recommendations filed by Canada’s privacy commissioner,” says the Winnipeg Free Press, adding:

“Users are being given seven days to comment on the new policy document, which weighs in at more than 5,000 words. In the policy, Facebook says it will not share users’ personal information with advertisers without consent.

But it, “may display ads on a user’s profile based on ‘anonymized’ information users willingly share.

“Facebook is also elaborating more on the differences between deactivating and deleting an account, and what happens to an account after a user has died, which were issues raised by privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.”

Below is Fa$ebook’s statement in full

Elliot Schrage Yesterday at 12:24

Starting today, Facebook’s privacy policy is available for your review and comment. This is the next step in our ongoing effort to run Facebook in an open and transparent way. In April, we launched a new system of governance for the Facebook site and became the first company to our knowledge that invites users to both comment and vote on proposed changes to its governing policies.

At the time, we also introduced a new policy document — our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. This document avoids the legal jargon that most sites typically put in their “terms of service.” It articulates the mutual relationship and shared obligations between Facebook and its users as clearly and plainly as possible. We received excellent feedback from many of you over the course of a two-week comment period.

We now are doing the same with our privacy policy. Our primary goals remain transparency and readability, which is why we’ve used plain language and included numerous examples to help illustrate our points. For example, here is how we explain users’ options for modifying or deleting information or content in the current privacy policy on the site:

When you update information, we usually keep a backup copy of the prior version for a reasonable period of time to enable reversion to the prior version of that information. …

… Even after removal, copies of User Content may remain viewable in cached and archived pages or if other Users have copied or stored your User
Content. …
Access and control over most personal information on Facebook is readily available through the profile editing tools. Facebook users may modify or delete any of their profile information at any time by logging into their account. Information will be updated immediately. Individuals who wish to deactivate their Facebook account may do so on the My Account page. Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook.

Here is the clearer and more comprehensive version from the new proposed policy:

Viewing and editing your profile. You may change or delete your profile information at any time by going to your profile page and clicking “Edit My Profile.” Information will be updated immediately. While you cannot delete your date of birth, you can use the setting on the info tab of your profile information page to hide all or part of it from other users. …

Deactivating or deleting your account. If you want to stop using your account you may deactivate it or delete it. When you deactivate an account, no user will be able to see it, but it will not be deleted. We save your profile information (friends, photos, interests, etc.) in case you later decide to reactivate your account. Many users deactivate their accounts for temporary reasons and in doing so are asking us to maintain their information until they return to Facebook. You will still have the ability to reactivate your account and restore your profile in its entirety. When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted. You should only delete your account if you are certain you never want to reactivate it. You may deactivate your account on your account settings page or delete your account on this help page.

Limitations on removal. Even after you remove information from your profile or delete your account, copies of that information may remain viewable elsewhere to the extent it has been shared with others, it was otherwise distributed pursuant to your privacy settings, or it was copied or stored by other users. However, your name will no longer be associated with that information on Facebook. (For example, if you post something to another user’s profile, and then you delete your account, that post may remain, but be attributed to an “Anonymous Facebook User.”) Additionally, we may retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct even if deletion has been requested.

Backup copies. Removed and deleted information may persist in backup copies for up to 90 days, but will not be available to others.

We also have restructured the document — providing key points and easy links to jump to the different sections. We’ve added sections further explaining our current practices and introducing a new concept around Facebook Ads that we hope you’ll take the time to review.

Clarification of Current Practices

In this revision, we’re fulfilling our commitment to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to update our privacy policy to better describe a number of practices. Specifically, we’ve included sections that further explain the privacy setting you can choose to make your content viewable by everyone, the difference between deactivating and deleting your account and the process of memorializing an account once we’ve received a report that the account holder is deceased.

We also have explained in greater detail how Social Ads work on Facebook. Social Ads are sponsored promotions that include relevant information about you and are shown only to your friends. For example, if you become a fan of a Page for your favorite new movie, your friends may see an ad that includes that information.

Advertising on Facebook

Over 300 million people around the world now use Facebook. More join every day. To support this growth and continue providing a free service that connects people and lets them share with whomever they choose, we’ve built a business that allows advertisers to selectively share their messages. Our goal is to make the ads you see on Facebook relevant and interesting. Period. We’re constantly working to improve our systems to make sponsored material compatible with people’s needs and curiosity.

As we do this, we remain committed to protecting your privacy. The information we provide to advertisers is “anonymized,” meaning that it can’t be traced back to you as an individual in any way. For example, we won’t tell an advertiser that you clicked on an ad, but we might report that, of the 100 people who clicked on the ad, 63 percent were female.

Improving the Quality of Facebook’s Ads

In this update, we also have explained how we might use information from other sites to improve the quality of our ads. This information allows advertisers to do what is commonly called “conversion tracking,” which helps them measure the effectiveness of their ads and make them more relevant. Most advertisers already do this in other places on the web. Should Facebook provide this, we’ll continue to respect your privacy by not sharing your information with advertisers, and we’ll anonymize any information we receive.

In the past, we’ve provided a redline version of the new policy document we’re proposing to make clear what’s new. Unfortunately, in this case, the revision is so different from the current policy that this wasn’t possible. You can read the proposed update in its entirety and post comments to the Facebook Site Governance Page before the comment period ends at 12:00 p.m. PST on November 5. After the comment period is over, we’ll review your feedback and update you on our next steps. We appreciate and strongly encourage your participation in this process.

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

ReadWriteWeb – Facebook Settlement Gets Judge’s OK, October 26, 2009
Facebook-Blockbuster – Blockbuster sued over Facebook Beacon, April 17, 2009
p2pnet – Will Facebook thumb its nose at Canada? October 29, 2009
Winnipeg Free Press – Facebook updates privacy policy, based in part on Canadian commissioner’s report, October 29, 2009

If it’s told to straighten up its act for any reason, it’ll endlessly delay and prevaricate, dragging things out to the absolute last moment before it complies, and even then, it’ll beg for more time.  And it’ll get it.

Meanwhile, the problems behind the complaints which inspired the order in the first place continue.

Now, “the office of Canada’s privacy commissioner says Facebook has yet to address some of her concerns about what happens to profiles of users who die,” says  CTV.

But that probably won’t surprise her.

Stoddardt gave Fa$ebook 30 days to respond to privacy concerns which came to light following complaints by the CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) after students probed company’s practices, with a particular focus on privacy issues as they relate to Canadian law.

He report included recommendations and she promised to, “review after 30 days the actions Facebook takes to comply with the recommendations”.

But the 30 days  came and went with zero response from Facebook.

Now it’s, “been reminding members about a service that ‘memorializes’ profiles of deceased users at the request of friends and family members,” says CTV, going on:

“Various online reports suggested Facebook was changing how it dealt with the accounts of deceased users, but a spokeswoman for privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart says the site isn’t really doing anything new.”

Her investigation had expressed concerns about how the social networking site deals with the personal information of users, including those who die an, “Stoddart wants to ensure that users realize that their personal information could remain online, even after death,” says the story, adding:

“Facebook will take down an account if requested by a deceased user’s family or friends.

“Facebook has indicated it intends to update its privacy policy and will disclose what happens to a user’s information after they die, but has yet to do so.”

Commissioner spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden says Facebook was expected to post a new privacy policy within 10 weeks of the August report, which would mean it’s due within the next seven days, said the CBC two days ago.

Meanwhile, “FB has turned into a page full of spam and garabage,” says a poster on one of three new groups begging, Turn Facebook back to Normal.

At 1:00 am Pacific, one had 1,477,972 members, the second, 134,862 and the third, 1,592.

Fa$ebook “tinkered on Friday with its news feed feature,” says the Sydney Morning Herald, going on:

“The feature provides users a ‘feed’ containing updates of what their friends have been up to.

“Following the change, many users were confused to find the feed was no longer in chronological order.”

The story has Fa$ebook saying protesters “represent only an ‘extraordinarily low’ proportion of its total user base.”

No need to stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

CTV – Facebook hasn’t addressed dead users issue, October 28, 2009
came and went – Time runs out for Facebook in privacy probe, August 15, 2009
Sydney Morning Herald – Facebook brushes off user complaints about new changes, October 28, 2009
- Facebook tackles after-death policy, October 27, 2009