Creepiest story of the day (so far)

Big Brother: The Google cars that will photograph EVERY front door in Britain

Last updated at 4:00 PM on 11th July 2008

The Google Earth spy car takes images of individual streets for inclusion on the StreetView website

Plans by Google to photograph millions of British homes and publish them online have been condemned as a 'gross invasion of privacy'.

The internet giant's StreetView website will allow anyone in the world to type in a UK address or postcode and instantly see a 360-degree picture of the street.

It will include close-ups of buildings, cars and people. Critics say the site is a 'burglar's charter' that makes it easy for criminals to check out potential victims.

The pictures also show people leaving and entering hospitals, health clinics, adult shops and hotels. Although their faces are deliberately blurred, many could still be recognised by their clothing and hair colour.

The site was launched in major American cities last year.

Google has confirmed it is now in the process of photographing Britain as part of the Street View project.

Cars emblazoned with the company's logo and carrying massive 360-degree cameras have been spotted circling the streets of British cities in recent weeks.

The data watchdog, the Information Commissioner's office, is so concerned about StreetView that it has written to Google demanding privacy guarantees.

A Google spokeswoman said: 'Google works hard to make sure that our products respect both users' expectations of privacy, and local privacy laws, in each country in which they are launched. Google Maps Street View is no exception.'

StreetView is designed to complement Google Earth, a collection of satellite pictures that covers every square mile of the globe.

Google Earth has come under fire for the level of detail in its overhead pictures, which have become enormously popular.

The pictures don't just show which homes have swimming pools or tennis courts, they can reveal the model and colour of cars, whether gardens have furniture and even sunbathers lying outside.

Critics say the site can be used by burglars planning escape routes from homes and by terrorists looking for military bases.

The site has even been used by teenagers arranging unauthorised swimming parties in unoccupied homes.

Users of the new StreetView website can either browse maps of towns before clicking on a street view, or type in an address or postcode.

By clicking on arrows on the screen, users will feel like they are walking down the street and will be able to look right, left or behind them during their virtual tour.

The images show which homes belong to wealthy owners, which have easy access for burglars, which have expensive cars parked outside and which have alarm boxes.

And although the pictures are not 'live' - they will be updated once every few years - the website has also raised concerns about people photographed by the roving cameras.

Enlarge

In America, its launch has provoked complaints about intrusions into privacy.

One image, since removed, showed a woman accidentally exposing her underwear as she got out of a car in an American city street. The scene was captured by a passing camera car and posted online without her permission.

Other StreetViews show two men gazing at a woman as she bends over in the street, a man apparently entering an adult book store, a man apparently scaling a security fence, and two women sunbathing on the lawn of Stanford University campus.

Internet experts in America are waiting for the first high-profile lawsuit from someone photographed in a compromising or embarrassing position.

The Information Commissioner's Office said Google would have to avoid showing people's faces. A spokesman said: 'There is a risk that StreetView could identify individuals alongside their place of work or places they are visiting.

'In most instances this will not have a serious impact on people's privacy, however identifying an individual outside some premises, for instance health clinics and hospitals, could raise serious privacy issues.

'For this reason we would expect Google to take measures to ensure privacy rights are not infringed, for example blurring all images of individuals to ensure privacy rights are maintained. We are contacting Google to discuss the issue in further detail.'

The campaign group Privacy International warned that the website could be a massive invasion of privacy. It is to lodge a formal complaint with Google unless the company can guarantee that number plates and faces will be blurred.

Director Simon Davies said: 'Google has made similar privacy assurances in the past and nothing has come of them.'

Paul Gilbert, a media lawyer at London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said taking pictures at street level and joining them up to create a map did not breach privacy laws in the UK.

'However, if the pictures captured the inside of a person's house by taking a photograph through the window, then the homeowner may be justified in claiming a breach of privacy,' he said.

Google makes money from its websites through advertising.

It believes StreetView will be popular with tourists picking holiday destinations, housebuyers wanting to explore neighbourhoods, and shoppers trying to find stores.

It wants to encourage businesses to include links to the site on their own homepages.

Google said all faces were blurred automatically by its software, but refused to say whether number plates would also be disguised.

A spokesman said: 'We will not launch in UK until we are comfortable StreetView complies with local law, including law relating to the display of images of individuals. We will use technology, like face-blurring, and operational controls, such as image removal tools, so StreetView remains useful and in keeping with local norms wherever it is available.'

Anyone who thinks their face is recognisable can email Google and ask to have the image disguised, he said.

In Britain, anyone is allowed to take a picture of a house or a street and put it on the Internet. But if some pictures show the inside of someone's house, even inadvertently, then homeowners could show their privacy has been breached under common law.

Similarly, we are legally entitled to take pictures of people, even complete strangers, and post them on the Internet. But if a man is photographed walking past an adult store - but not going in - giving the wrong impression that he is a customer, then the image could defame his character.

******************************************************************

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?

What is wrong with people? Do they have something to hide?
Anybody can walk down any street and look at your garden, your house, your car, your kids toys strewn about, etc., etc., and there are more CCTV cameras in this country than you can shake a stick at.
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Google Earth is a fascinating addition to anyone's browsing pleasure, so good on you Google for making it even better.

And if you are concerned that you will be photographed doing something you shouldn't, don't do it.

- Joe King, Lancs, 11/7/2008 07:48

Well we could all put big stickers advertising other search engines on our front doors-so Google will be paying to advertise a competitor. Google can only do this because they feel confident that we have no other choice but to use them. Wrong, let's start using other search engines, and advertising them on our front doors. That will soon put pay to Googlewatch.

- Ann, UK, 11/7/2008 07:47

Up to now I have been very impressed with Google and use them all the time as my favourite search engine.... but this is a Bridge Too Far - Sorry Chaps!!

- Sally Roberts, London, UK, 11/7/2008 07:45

GOOGLE - Please would you make this LOAD PROPERLY !!!!!!!

I am not sure what the problem is - but lots MORE should be showing up !! Lots more !!

Could someone fix it without me going through some weird ritual helpdesk?

OBVIOUSLY, the page elements are loaded properly on the url layout, but something must be done to fix this all up.

Google Lawyers Look to Hide
YouTube-User Identification

By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO and MERISSA MARR

July 3, 2008 8:49 p.m.

Lawyers for Google Inc. Thursday asked Viacom Inc. for permission to better hide information that might help personally identify YouTube users before Google complies with a judge's demand that it hand over YouTube "user logs" -- the records of what videos people watch -- to Viacom.

The letter comes a day after a federal judge in New York ordered Google to give Viacom a database that links users of YouTube -- a Google unit -- with every video clip they have ever watched through the service in conjunction with Viacom's $1 billion copyright suit against Google.

A Viacom spokesman said Thursday that the data the company has requested from Google don't identify users personally and "will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google." He added that the data "will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner."

Viacom is seeking the data in order to bolster its copyright claims against YouTube and Google. In particular, Viacom is seeking to determine how often its copyright-protected videos are watched compared with other amateur content on YouTube. That data could bear on the plaintiffs' argument that their copyright-protected content helps draw users to YouTube, leading to a financial benefit for Google.

The discussion about the data comes amid a debate over just how much information can be gleaned from the YouTube database. The database pairs each instance that a video is viewed with the unique login identification code of the user who viewed it and the "Internet Protocol," or IP, address for that viewer's computer.

The database doesn't include identifiers like personal names or email addresses. But the court's decision to compel Google to share it drew immediate criticism from privacy advocates who argued that the data could expose the viewing habits of online video watchers. They note that users often put fragments of their own names in their IDs, for example.

Citing "the significant volume of public protest" generated by the court's demand, lawyers for Google Thursday wrote to Viacom requesting permission to redact user names and IP addresses from the data before turning them over.

A Viacom spokesman said in a statement that the company is working to address Google's concerns but declined to comment about the letter's specific requests. "We will continue to work together on this issue, and Viacom is committed to developing a framework with strong confidentiality protections," he said.

Google fought Viacom's request for user data on the grounds that it would allow Viacom to "be able to determine the viewing and video uploading habits of YouTube's users based on the user's login ID and the user's IP address," according to court papers.

Judge Louis Stanton wrote that the privacy concerns were "speculative" and argued that the database was the only existing record of "how often each video has been viewed during various time periods."

Privacy advocates also noted that the debate is a reminder of the vast repositories of data Google and YouTube keep about their users and the online services they use. A YouTube spokesman said the company hangs on to IP information in order to comply with laws than ban some types of content in some markets and to improve the user experience.

The judge also Wednesday ruled that YouTube was not obliged to turn over its "source code" -- the basic code that runs its site -- as part of the suit.

In a statement responding to the court's decision, Catherine Lacavera, Google's senior litigation counsel, said Google was "pleased the court put some limits on discovery, including refusing to allow Viacom to access users' private videos and our search technology." She added: "We are disappointed the court granted Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history."

Discussion on blog comments needed !!

Has anyone who reads this noticed that during the past week, there has been a CHANGE in
in sign-in procedures to any sites within the last week.

I really encourage some discussion of why sign-in policies, agreements, or other things might have changed now.

Has anyone noticed an abrupt change also ??

I am finding that none of the comments but one are posting and being logged by Google ..

Virginia

Datamining your life

By Carlton Meyer

May/13/2008

Few Americans pay attention to the Bush administration’s effort to better monitor terrorist communications. In short, federal authorities want to indirectly void the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires a warrant signed by a judge before they can search a person’s home and other personal information. This seems harmless to most law abiding citizens, so why is this opposed by many in the U.S. Congress? The answer is that most people have skeletons in their closet, as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer recently demonstrated. Congressmen know that the U.S. government wants to learn every detail about everyone’s private life through the growth of massive computer databases and new search technology that allows “data mining.” Prior to the “war on terror,” the “war on drugs” was the excuse to gradually errode the U.S. Bill of Rights. Since drug lords do business in cash, a database called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was established to monitor cash transactions in the USA.[1] Banks must submit a report on persons who make a cash transaction of $10,000 or more. Drug lords learned of this, so they limited transactions to less than $10,000. As a result, laws were passed that require banks to also report “suspicious” or multiple cash transactions below $10,000. Since money was often laundered through casinos and money transfer companies like Western Union, they are required to submit reports to FinCEN too. Structuring This data provided federal agents with leads to possible criminal activity, but they were often unable to link cash transactions to a specific crime. As a result, a vague law prohibiting “structuring” was enacted, in which it became illegal to structure transactions to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement. This little understood law is a favorite tool of law enforcement because few Americans know that depositing or withdrawing a few thousand dollars in cash a few times a year may land them in prison. Once such activity is detected, federal agents demand an explanation, while threatening to imprison the suspects for “structuring.” As a result, thousands of uncooperative or unconvincing Americans have been imprisoned for nothing more than suspicious cash transactions. A good example occurred in 2003 when famous talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh was investigated. He had become addicted to pain killers and purchased them on the black market with the help of his maid. He withdrew cash 30 to 40 times from his bank account at amounts just under the $10,000 bank reporting requirement. FinCEN tipped off federal officials and an investigation was launched. "I was not laundering money. I was withdrawing money for crying out loud," Limbaugh said in his three-hour broadcast, soon after he returned from five weeks of drug rehab.[2] Limbaugh is an influential multi-millionaire with close ties to President Bush, so criminal charges were never filed. However, there are thousands of cases where law enforcers abused the intent of money laundering laws. Foreign exchange dealers, car dealers, or local wire transfer dealers may be offered a bonus by undercover agents if they promise not to file the required report. If they agree, they are arrested. People attempting to hide money from the IRS or their wife or debt collectors are often investigated. Large cash withdrawals by Eliot Spitzer for his expensive prostitution flings were detected by FinCEN, which led to his downfall. Washing Money Money laundering is a federal crime with heavy penalties. It was sold to Congress as an essential tool to use against elusive drug dealers and organized crime bosses. Nowadays, it is part of almost every federal indictment that involves cash transactions as part of criminal activity. It is routinely abused by federal prosecutors to entice a guilty plea for minor crimes. Suspects, who insist on innocence and a trial, face the prospect of ten years in prison for money laundering, even though the penalty for their root crime is less than a year in prison. The most serious count facing Eliot Spitzer is money laundering. Most federal agents and prosecutors are not zealots, but professionals doing their best. They want every tool Congress will allow, which is why most criminal laws in the USA are not written by congressmen responding to concerns of citizens, but by federal employees in the U.S. Justice Department. The 9-11 terror attack provided them with a unique opportunity to amass a wish list of new powers that became known as the “Patriot Act.” This further weakened the Bill of Rights, but did not eliminate the requirement for search warrants. Data Mining The 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants has become the key issue in a political battle between the Bush administration and Congress. Law enforcers desperately want authority to engage in widespread “data mining.” New computer search-engine technology now allows massive databases to be easily mined for information. Data mining is routinely used by private companies for marketing and credit reporting purposes. It is also used by government agencies to pursue tax evaders and criminals using their own databases, such as FinCEN. However, using government computers to browse private sector databases is illegal, since judges refuse to issue a blanket warrant allowing the random search of all information of all American citizens. The media has produced hundreds of stories about “warrantless wiretapping” during terrorist investigations. However, the central issue is not terrorism, but the desire by federal agencies to engage in unlimited data mining. There are numerous examples where agencies already conduct private sector data mining without obtaining search warrants or complying with federal laws such as the Privacy Act. This was revealed in a 2005 report from the General Accounting Office, which reviewed the policies of five government departments in regards to data mining and found clear violations of federal law. The report did not delve into data mining details, but a graphic toward the end shows that the IRS already mines data from state driver’s license records and telephone databases.[3] Credit Card Money Laundering In recent years, the IRS became aware of the widespread use of credit cards to evade taxes and launder money. Credit card payments are not scrutinized like bank deposits, and records exist in computers separate from traditional banking records. Thousands of small businessmen discovered that they can mail a customer check as a payment to their personal credit card account, so that taxable income disappears from their business books. In addition, criminals can mail money orders purchased with cash to pay credit card bills. This is small-time money laundering, yet the problem is massive and IRS and other federal agencies have no legal authority to sift through credit card records without a specific warrant, while banks have no obligation to report suspicious activities. The credit card payment process is completely automated, so payments are accepted even if the payee name does not match the cardholder. Credit cards were a favorite method of obtaining money from secret overseas bank accounts until 2004. Customers used them to pay for anything and even take cash advances using a system outside traditional banking channels. This infuriated the IRS until they found a judge with no fondness for the Bill of Rights, probably one with serious tax problems. He brazenly waived the 4th Amendment and issued a blanket summons to secure all offshore transaction data from MasterCard International Inc. and Visa USA for 31 countries that are known tax havens.[4] A blanket summons for all records is certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment and the Privacy Act. In these cases, the IRS does not pursue a lead against a specific taxpayer; it uses data mining to fish for information. Now that a legal precedent has been set, the IRS wants access to all domestic bank credit card computer systems for data mining. This would allow income claimed on returns to be matched with spending. In addition, airline travel, automobile fuel charges, and hotel stays could be matched against travel claims. The IRS Loves Data Mining The American people have no desire for the IRS to sift through their credit card records, so a “telecommunications” act to allow warrantless searches is the best route to legalize what the IRS already does to some extent. The IRS already data mines its own database and several others with software called “REVEAL” to spot anomalies in tax returns. If someone earned $50,000 in 2006 plus $45 in bank interest, yet in 2007 they earned $14,000 in interest, the IRS wants to know where that money came from. Or if they have a $30,000 mortgage interest deduction, the IRS wants to know how they afford such a huge house. The IRS does not need proof of income tax evasion to assess taxes and penalties. It simply makes allegations that a taxpayer must disprove, which is why accountants tell taxpayers to keep all records for their entire life. “Lifestyle Audits” are extremely intrusive as they require taxpayers to refute anomalies detected by IRS computers.[5] While the IRS is restricted to audits going back just three years, it can demand proof of income for everything a persons owns, meaning one must keep a financial record of their entire life. If the taxpayer refuses or is unable to prove how his assets were obtained with declared income, an agent assesses a tax based on speculation. The IRS refuses to disclose what other databases it mines, but does pay private sector data miners for information. Databases exist that detail every car, boat, airplane and property each taxpayer and their children own. Databases of insurance policies and claims offer additional clues. Even frequent flyer databases are of interest, because the IRS considers frequent flyer awards as income. Snooping Technology Keeps Growing Even more intrusive technology has appeared over the past couple of years. Several court cases revealed that companies like Yahoo and Google keep a record of every search term ever made from every computer address, and links it to an account if that person is logged on. Their databases keep copies of all e-mails as well, even after the user deletes them. Most people do not even realize copies of deleted e-mails remain in their account within their SENT or the TRASH section. Even if these are cleared, the data remains on their computer hard disk and can be retrieved by experts. Experts had long assumed that federal agencies could infect personal computers with “spyware” programs that automatically forward all activity for government review. This was confirmed last year in a court affidavit where: “FBI agent Norman Sanders describes the software as a ‘computer and internet protocol address verifier,’ or CIPAV. Sanders wrote that the spyware program gathers a wide range of information, including the computer's IP address; MAC address; open ports; a list of running programs; the operating system type, version and serial number; preferred internet browser and version; the computer's registered owner and registered company name; the current logged-in user name and the last-visited URL. The CIPAV then settles into a silent ‘pen register’ mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every computer to which the machine connects for up to 60 days.“[6] Since this was used in common case of an e-mail bomb threat to a high school, citizens must assume it is used in all cases. Many techies fear that the newest version of the unwanted Yahoo toolbar is part of a government program because it collects user information. This toolbar has infected most personal computers and Yahoo’s instructions on methods to remove this data collection “spyware” do not work for the new version. Databases of medical records are mined by insurance companies to verify applicant information so the sickly can be denied coverage. Mining medical databases may uncover embarrassing details, like: treatment for venereal diseases, treatment for drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric counseling, cosmetic surgery, and what prescription drugs a person has used. Some fear databases that include DNA will soon exist so that insurers can deny coverage to healthy people who have a greater genetic chance of succumbing to deadly diseases. Internet usage by employees is widely monitored by businesses to prevent hours of casual browsing and shopping on company time. In addition, e-mail sent from company computers is considered company property, and can be read by bosses. Data mining technology under development by the U.S. Air Force monitors e-mail traffic to uncover social networks among employees and outsiders. Unusual traffic or a change in traffic indicates a troubled or disgruntled employee, who warrants investigation. E-mails that express interest in a sensitive topic may indicate espionage or a whistleblower.[7] A major problem is that these databases are filled with errors caused by data entry typos, identity theft, or similar names. One can see this problem by paying any of the dozens of on-line background check companies to provide a report on oneself. The data provided by these simple checks is frightening, as well as the large number of errors. The ease in which this personal data can be retrieved explains why identify theft has become rampant. As a result, each year millions are denied jobs, loans, or medical coverage, or are investigated and even arrested because of database errors. Mass illegal immigration to the USA has made this problem far worse as undocumented workers use documents from citizens to function in society. Blackmail Last year, an article in Sanders Research explained the growing danger of databases for blackmail.[8] This may explain why most Congressmen are afraid to confront abuses by the executive branch led by President Bush. Julian Sanchez recently provided an excellent overview of why Congress passed various laws in support of the 4th amendment over the years: “…for decades, intelligence analysts -- and the presidents they served -- had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices -- even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often ‘collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.’"[9] Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is a recent example of a prominent American whose career was destroyed by intrusive government surveillance. He had harmed no one, yet his desire to have sex with beautiful women is deemed criminal. Like most Americans, he had violated one of thousands of federal statutes that can be legally interpreted as a heinous offense. On the other hand, this particular case is ironic since Spitzer was known for abuse of statute intent during his years as a federal prosecutor. While the Spitzer story received widespread media coverage, the intriguing inner story was ignored, even after it was mentioned in the Washington Post, which revealed: "The FBI placed a surveillance team on Spitzer at the Mayflower Hotel for the first time on Jan. 26, after concluding from a wiretapped conversation that he might try to meet with a prostitute when he traveled to Washington to attend a black-tie dinner, the source said Tuesday."[10] Americans have a federal government near bankruptcy, yet it dispatches several $100,000 a year FBI agents to spy on a senior political rival in hopes of ruining his career. This is the same government that continually informs citizens that a major terror attack is imminent, and claims that all available resources are focused on this threat. The American media did not critically pursue this story, perhaps because owners, editors, and reporters fear they may become “data mined” and placed under surveillance. This fear was confirmed when it was recently revealed that the FBI searches telephone records of reporters in hopes of finding their sources of information.[11] One must read news from Hong Kong where Asia Times writer, F. William Engdahl, clarified the issue with an article entitled “Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked,” where he wrote: “Spitzer was likely the target of a White House and Wall Street dirty tricks operation to silence one of the most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling of the current financial market crisis. A useful rule of thumb in evaluating spectacular scandals around prominent public figures is to ask who might want to eliminate that person” Spitzer was quoted as saying “The Bush administration let the housing bubble inflate and now that it's deflating we're dealing with the consequences. The real failure, the genesis, the germ that has spread, was the subprime scandal,”[12] Spitzer has made no bold comments in recent weeks, as he hopes to stay out of jail. Meanwhile, fear has assured that no other prominent American political figure or journalist suggests that the Bush administration is to blame for the current financial crisis. [1] The existence of FinCEN is not secret; it has its own website http://www.fincen.gov that explains its crime-fighting purpose. [2] “Limbaugh investigated for money laundering”; CNN.com; Nov. 20, 2003. [3] “Data Mining”; GAO; Aug. 2005; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05866.pdf [4] “IRS and Agriculture efforts strike pay dirt”; GCN; Sept. 27, 2004; http://www.gcn.com/print/23_29/27421-1.html [5] “Audits; Can Your Life Pass Muster?"; Businessweek; Feb. 3, 1997; http://www.businessweek.com/1997/05/b3512138.htm [6] “FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats”; Wired; Jul.18, 2007. [7] “Sniffing Out Insider Threats May Improve Public Safety, Prevent Terrorism”; Medical News Today; Feb. 23, 2008; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97961.php [8] “Super Snoopers": SRA, Apr. 17, 2007. [9] “Wiretapping’s True Danger”; LA Times; Mar. 16, 2008; http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0160.html [10] “FBI Watched Spitzer Before February Incident“; Washington Post; Mar. 12, 2008. [11] “Leak Inquiry Said to Focus on Calls with Times”; New York Times; Apr. 12, 2008. [12] “Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked”; Asia Times; Mar. 20, 2008.

Net Neutrality's Quiet Crusader

We must NEVER take internet freedom for granted. If there is one MOST important issue - this is the one.

Free Press's Ben Scott Faces Down Titans, Regulators in Battle Over Internet Control

SLIDESHOW

Previous Next

Ben Scott is the ringleader for an emerging political constituency raised on text messaging and that relies on e-mail and online video in its advocacy. (By Melina Mara/Post)

y Cecilia Kang

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 28, 2008; Page D01

Bearing video cameras, laptops and cellphones, a small army of young activists flooded into a recent federal meeting in protest.

Members of public-interest group Free Press weren't there to support a presidential candidate or decry global warming. The tech-savvy hundreds came to the Federal Communications Commission's hearing at Harvard Law School last month to push new rules for the Internet.

For the first time, Congress and the FCC are debating wide-reaching Web regulations and policies that would determine how much control cable and telecommunications companies would have over the Internet. The issue has given rise to a new political constituency raised on text messaging and social networking and relies on e-mail blasts and online video clips in its advocacy.

Although Free Press has generated buzz for its aggressive and sometimes controversial tactics online, its ringleader in Washington is an unlikely crusader. A soft-spoken 30-year-old PhD candidate, Ben Scott has become an operator in multibillion-dollar battles involving corporate titans, regulators and consumers debating policies over who controls the media and the Internet.

"There have been policy moments in the past when the market has been shaped by decisions made in Washington -- radio in the 1930s, television in the 1950s and cable in the 1980s. That moment is now for the Internet," said Scott, who runs a nine-member office.

Working mostly behind the scenes, Scott has been a driving force for "net neutrality," a concept that in policy terms has come to mean enforcement of open access online, so cable and telecom operators cannot block or delay content that travels over their networks. In a complaint filed at the FCC last November, Scott and his staff called for action against Comcast, which admitted it slowed content over its network involving the BitTorrent file-sharing site.

Scott and the group's 500,000 members, most of whom joined online, helped sell their argument. Free Press drew together strange bedfellows, including the Christian Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Gun Owners of America, and helped set in motion a broader debate on the issue that resulted in the recent FCC hearing in Cambridge, Mass. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) also sponsored a bill to strengthen governance against Internet service providers trying to control consumers' Web access over their networks.

"Ben has exquisite political judgment and is a key player in net neutrality and wireless issues because he represents a new, grass-roots dynamic in the battle against media concentration and the communications colossus," said Markey, chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.

Under pressure, Comcast yesterday said it would work with BitTorrent to improve the transfer of large files over the network.

Free Press's critics -- who spoke on condition of anwith BitTorrent to improve the transfer of large files over the network.

Free Press's critics -- who spoke on condition of anonymity because discussions on net neutrality policy are ongoing -- say the group often oversimplifies complex technical issues, dismissing the importance of some network management practices that block spam and pornography, for example. Free Press is also not the populist group it makes itself out to be, critics noted, partnering with corporate interests when it suits its goals, as it did with Google on net neutrality. Also, they said the group is not as boot-strapped as it may appear, with donors such as billionaire George Soros and singer Barbra Streisand.

Free Press has more than $5 million in funding, in part from major foundations such as the Soros Open Society Institute. Its annual lobbying budget is $250,000, compared with the $13.8 million spent by Verizon Communications, $17.1 million by AT&T and $8.9 million by Comcast last year.

The group, founded in 2003, was the brainchild of Scott's doctoral adviser, University of Illinois media history professor Robert McChesney. Its first mandate was to fight policy changes allowing greater media consolidation between local newspapers and broadcast concerns.

Scott, who was in Washington at the time, joined soon after.

"It was the moment when core policies were being set up on the future of digital media and communications," McChesney said. "For Ben, who had studied this stuff, it was like asking a political scientist to be chief of staff to the president."

The issue also resonated with Free Press's fast-growing membership. Members regularly blasted the FCC and lawmakers with e-mails, video and online petitions. They flooded the agency's hearings on media ownership around the country to protest the rules. A Philadelphia district court eventually overturned the regulations, sending the FCC back to the drawing board.

What we've done is organize the massive pent-up frustration that the media wasn't measuring up," Scott said.

Harnessing that is sometimes just a matter of capturing a moment and publicizing it online.

When Free Press employees discovered Comcast had paid people to attend the hearing at Harvard and appear supportive of the company, it blasted e-mails with photos and video of some hired stand-ins sleeping in the front rows. The video was viewed 60,000 times on YouTube.

Members of Free Press "are people in their 20s and 30s who are active in politics, who have grown up on the Net, who have come to learn and appreciate the value of the Net and want to preserve it," said Richard Whitt, the Washington telecom and media counsel for Google.

If the issues are new to Washington, so is Scott's understated style.

gThe son of a Methodist minister, Scott is no bombast. He doesn't interrupt people. When he speaks -- whether it's about media ownership or low-power radio -- he does so with a studied economy of words, and in a voice that makes people crane to hear him.

"Ben Scott and his people are bringing thoughtful, knowledgeable arguments and doing their homework," said Blair Levin, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. "And they never are saying they want you do something 'because we said so.' "

Scott's kindred spirit at the FCC might be Democratic commissioner Michael J. Copps, also a student of history who recently read a biography on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Scott and Copps recently bonded over the book, drawing comparisons between the New Deal and net neutrality. At another meeting that day, Scott and the other Democratic commissioner, Jonathan S. Adelstein, held forth on legal definitions and case law for net neutrality.

Scott understands that effectiveness lies in the ability to cater the message to the right audience.

"Ultimately power is transacted on a personal level," he said, "and ultimately people make decisions based on conversations with people that they trust."

Catherine Bohigian, chief of the FCC's Office of Strategic Planning, said Scott keeps discussions going by advocating without aggression.

"You are able to talk about issues and don't have personalities that get in the way," she said. "We've been on the other side with him on some issues; but being a nice guy, you want to work with him."

It's not that Free Press's approach doesn't occasionally backfire.

On Valentine's Day, as part of an e-mail campaign, Free Press posted an fictional online video of FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin in a hotel room with big corporate lobbyists.

"Let's just say I didn't get calls back from the chairman's office for a couple weeks," Scott said.

Eventually Scott was forgiven, and Martin consulted him about a net neutrality hearing scheduled for next month at Stanford University.

"There have been times I might have agreed or disagreed with the position he's taken, but his ability to mobilize at the grass-roots level and advocate and communicate effectively has certainly had an influence at the commission," Martin said of Scott.

At Scott's urging, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) wrote a bill in June to expand the number of low-power radio stations on the FM dial -- an issue that had languished for a long time.

After low-power advocates Pete "Petri Dish" Tridish and Hannah Sassaman approached Scott three years ago to craft their message and go against the powerful National Association of Broadcasters, Doyle took up their cause.

"What people don't know is that getting a bill like this together requires a lot of hard work. It's laborious, and a lot of people don't want to do it," Doyle said. "But Ben and his people are coming prepared and with all the facts and figures and willing to do the hard work and that makes us on the committee really take notice."

YouTube Unplugged (and human rights)

As Foreign Governments Block Sensitive
Content, Video Site Must Pick Between
Bending to Censorship, Doing Business

By JANE SPENCER and KEVIN J. DELANEY
March 21, 2008; Page B1

On Sunday, access to Google Inc.'s YouTube inside China was cut off after the Web site was flooded with graphic images from Tibet, including videos of burning trucks and monks being dragged through the streets by Chinese soldiers.

Blocking Western Web sites is routine in China, where the government has tightly controlled the flow of information. But the new YouTube blackout is the latest in a string of clashes between the site and foreign governments in Asia and the Middle East that's forcing the company to grapple with the consequences of its increasingly global reach.

TIBET ON YOUTUBE

Click the images to watch the videos at YouTube.

	Chinese police scatter a crowd of Tibetan protesters in East Tibet. "Tibetan culture is being suppressed," an unidentified Tibetan monk says.
	On March 10, the Tibetan Freedom Movement launches protests around the world. In New York City, supporters gather at City Hall and march to U.N. headquarters.
	A composition of photographs from the Tibetan protests around the world, with the song "Come Home" by the American band, OneRepublic.
	Video taken with a mobile phone of Tibetan protesters gathering in front of a Chinese office in Labrang, Amdo, Tibet, March 15.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt raised the issue in a meeting in Beijing with Cai Mingzhao, vice minister of the State Council Information Office, on Monday, the company said. The Council denied any knowledge of the blockage and promised to investigate, according to Google. On Thursday, YouTube remained inaccessible from China except to users who took extra technical steps to circumvent the ban.

Last Friday, a Turkish court banned YouTube over a clip deemed disrespectful to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey's founder. In February, Pakistan briefly banned YouTube because of an anti-Islam video clip posted on the site that the government said was so inflammatory it could spark riots. In the fall, Thailand blocked YouTube after the site refused to remove a video considered insulting to the nation's king. (The clip showed a pair of women's feet -- considered the most offensive part of the body -- above the king's head.) And citizens in a number of other countries, including Syria, United Arab Emirates and Morocco, have reported YouTube outages after sensitive content was posted.

The clashes have implications for YouTube's growth abroad, potentially forcing the company to choose between bending to censorship and losing business opportunities.

"This is a situation that the company and all Internet companies will be facing in many countries with all types of political systems as the Internet matures and millions more people log on," says Robert Boorstin, Google's director of policy communications in Washington. "At all times, our goal is to maximize the amount of information available to citizens around the world."

Nowhere is the issue more pressing than in China -- home to the world's largest population of Web users -- where agreeing to government censorship has been a basic condition of doing business for years. YouTube is still a relatively small player in China, lagging behind homegrown competitors like Tudou.com and Yoku.com. But it has a loyal following among young urban Chinese, who use it to find cutting-edge animation clips from Korea and Japan. Many Chinese also know YouTube as a place to find sensitive clips that have been removed from other Chinese sites.

The site has been blocked in China several times before, including for an extended period in October. That was around the time that YouTube launched a site in Taiwan, the U.S. Congress awarded the Dalai Lama its gold medal and the Chinese Communist Party congress was under way. YouTube has localized versions of its site in Taiwan and Hong Kong, but not one hosted in China itself, a move that would require an Internet-content license from the Chinese government. Google has said it doesn't plan to host user-generated content, such as video, blogs or email, on computer servers in China. Such materials would be vulnerable to seizure by the government if located on servers there.

Google previously grappled with censorship issues in China when it released a Chinese search service in January 2006. At the time, it decided to censor its search results to comply with Beijing's strict limits on access to information, concluding that was better than not offering any regularly accessible service at all. On Thursday, a Google search for "Tibet" and "riots" turned up few results. The same search on Google's U.S.-based English search site produced some 461,000 results.

So far, YouTube is taking a similar approach, despite ongoing debate at Google over the strategy. In Thailand, in order to be accessible, it agreed to block Thai users from seeing clips deemed insulting to the king in violation of Thai law. In Turkey, YouTube has suspended the account of the person who uploaded the Ataturk video, though the site remains banned there. In Myanmar, YouTube was banned after clips of protesting monks appeared on the site. In that case, YouTube declined to remove the clips and remains banned.

Media analysts say YouTube's string of censorship flare-ups -- and the site's sometimes inconsistent responses -- indicate it needs to develop a more transparent strategy for dealing with these issues. YouTube's community guidelines state the site encourages "free speech and defend[s] everyone's right to express unpopular points of view." But the site also reserves the right to remove content it deems inappropriate, which gives it significant discretion when it comes to politically sensitive content.

"We have a delicate balancing act between being a platform for free expression and also obeying local laws around the world," says YouTube spokesman Ricardo Reyes.

YouTube reviews videos when they are flagged by users to determine whether they violate its terms of use, which prohibit such content as graphic violence. YouTube users can appeal the removal of videos, which can trigger a secondary review.

After being alerted by users last month, YouTube removed a video clip that appeared to document abuse of prisoners at a Russian prison camp that YouTube determined violated the site's graphic-violence policy. It eventually restored the video but required viewers to click to consent to watch a clip that "may contain content that is inappropriate for some users." YouTube says its staff hadn't initially been aware that the video was meant to document alleged human-rights abuses.

The stakes are high because material distributed on YouTube is affecting some of the world's most incendiary political situations. "It's actually changed the whole political scenario in Pakistan," says Shahzad Ahmad, an activist with the civil-rights group Bytes for All in Pakistan, who believes the site played a role in the defeat to Pervez Musharraf's party in recent elections.

Google has reached out to the U.S. State Department for assistance with the censorship issue in China, says a person familiar with the matter. The company, along with Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and others, has been working for more than 18 months with human-rights groups, academics and socially responsible investors to develop a code of conduct for operating in countries that limit free expression and individual privacy. A bill to be considered by Congress would require U.S. companies to provide the U.S. government with details of any compliance with censorship in Internet-restricting countries.

-- Juliet Ye contributed to this article.

Google Knol

“Knol”, just announced a the official Google blog, is a currently private, invitation-only knowledge sharing service. Google says that a Knol is a “unit of knowledge,"* and in the style of the old-school About.com website, experts are invited to the service to write an introductory article on a subject of their expertise. Google wants to provide all the tools to write this, and host the content and so on, so that experts can focus just on the content. Then, ad revenues those pages generate can be shared.

Knol pages will be made available for indexing by search engines, Google announced, including appearing in Google search itself. Google’s Udi Manber says, “Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results.” (It’s not 100% clear from that statement if Google will treat Knol pages as just another organic web source, or give them some kind of special onebox, or special organic result formatting.)

Also, Knols can be released under a Creative Commons license, if the screenshot** is right. It’s good to see Google finally starting to utilize this type of licensing (as many of their services still lack it).

Group efforts vs single authors

One key aspect of Knol, according to Google’s Udi Manber, is that the authors of articles will be prominently displayed:

Books have authors’ names right on the cover, news articles have bylines, scientific articles always have authors – but somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors names highlighted. We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content.

That’s partly a strawman argument – author names are included in many blog posts and news articles already today. However, if Udi is talking about Wikipedia, he may have a point.

On systems like Wikipedia, which already serves great introductory articles for a multitude of subjects, the page is a true group effort with no single author being credited as lead. Knols (one knol, two knols...?) seem to take a different route. This could become a problem with Knol, too: if a single author takes the lead, and all edits must go through that person, the article may not end up as fact-checked and up-to-date as a Wikipedia counterpart may. Even with peer reviews and potential edit suggestions that may be submitted to the author – the screenshot provided by Google, as pictured above, Wikipedia-style “Edit” links, and Google says people will be able “to submit comments, questions, edits, additional content” – the incentive to edit someone else’s article may be much lower than to help edit an article that is disclosed to be a real group project.

Then again, Knol seems to want to offer incentive for experts in terms of recognition, and money as well, two aspects lacking in Wikipedia. Also, if projects like Wikipedia get some good large-scale competition, it might help Wikipedia too. At this time, Wikipedia’s editing tools for instance are somewhat cluttered and don’t have the best usability. If Google takes away experts from Wikipedia because they provide easier tools, then maybe it helps improve Wikipedia in return.

(Not that experts of a subject would really need a new service badly – they can already create a website on their domain using a variety of tools, and throw in some ads. What may make Knol better for this, depending on how well it’s implemented, is the kind of tool set offered for editing... and potentially, the way Knol results are highlighted in search results. For those who care about search results neutrality, that part may become an area to watch in the future.)

Google claims they won’t be playing moderator

In terms of what content is appropriate for the Knol project, Google claims “Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content.” Past projects of this nature at Google have shown however that is not completely the case; there’s usually a policy disallowing certain content, sometimes leading to banned pages... think Google Page Creator, Blogger, or Google Groups***.

One of the last times Google tried to unite experts around the world for a project of theirs was for Google Answers, a paid Q&A service that has been canceled in the meantime. Let’s see how “Knol” fares.

[Thanks Beussery and Mathias Schindler! Screenshot by Google.]

*Sounds more like the name of planet from a sci-fi novel. Not that that’s bad.

**If the screenshot’s fonts are indicative of the final layout, I think the main text is too small.

***Quote from the Google Groups terms of service: “If Google discovers Content that does not appear to conform to the Terms of Service, Google may investigate and determine in good faith and in its sole discretion whether to remove the Content.”

Mambo	21 hours ago #
Hmmm... Knol sounds a bit too Orkut-like to me. Probably never take off because they'll never push it, so what's the point of it existing?
jilm	21 hours ago #
Knol.com is already taken... Mambo: Orkut is a absolutely different case. Knol is going to gain so much visitors as much content it will have. So if they pay money for creating articles, people will come through the search. There is no effective model how to convert search users into social network users. Thats the reason why Google is so weak in "social" space.
Mambo	21 hours ago #
jilm: I guess you're right. Writers don't have a common place for publishing their work, without either launching their own service or using non-free services. It does look fairly interesting.
Roger Browne	20 hours ago #
Apart from one key detail, this is not much different from what helium.com already does. The articles are by named writers, and are peer-ranked and also algorithm-ranked, and are supported by advertising. But here's the key difference: > People will be able to submit comments, questions, edits, > additional content, and so on. I hope this means that anyone would be able to "edit" the article – but then the edits would then be sent to the page-owner to be accepted, rejected or modified. That aspect would be quite exciting, and truly different from what is offered by Helium, Wikipedia, About, etc. A hint of that functionality is the "revisions" tab near the top of the screenshot. Also note the four-line summary section at the top. Just right to be included in the search results, isn't it? My only negative comment: the sample article on insomnia is too long and too detailed for a "knol"; a single unit of knowledge.
Philipp Lenssen	20 hours ago #
> Knol.com is already taken... Maybe Google already acquired the permission to get hold of this domain in the future? Doesn't seem like a super huge site, maybe the right amount of money would make the domain owner willing to give it up... If the Knol domain owner does't know about Google's project Knol though, I bet he'll be seeing a huge surprising spike in his traffic today :)
Philipp Lenssen	20 hours ago #
> I hope this means that anyone would be able to "edit" the article > – but then the edits would then be sent to the page-owner > to be accepted, rejected or modified. Wonder if those who submit edits will then get micro-percentages from that page's ad revenue, too. I also wonder if this set-up will cause big disputes for popular articles, e.g. when an editor is not approving good edits, abusing power.
Philipp Lenssen	20 hours ago #
Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan talked to Udi Manber and says that Google may release a Knol API; that they may not necessarily nofollow outgoing Knol links; and that Google may use internal database factors, like Knol ratings, when ranking a Knol (hinting it's not completely organic). From the article at searchengineland.com/071213-21 ... : < Manber offered a number of reassurances that this is not the case: * The content will be owned by the authors, who can reprint it as they like * Authors can link out at will (and links might NOT have nofollow attributes on them, allowing reputation to flow from Knol pages to others) * APIs will allow Knol information to be used by others * Allowing ads other than Google's might be a possibility (though this was something I raised, rather than Google suggesting itself. Personally, I highly doubt this would ever happen) * Google will give no special weight to these pages; if they rank, they rank because they compete with other pages and win the algorithm race Of course, Manber did say that Google could better tell which of the Knol pages were of high quality by looking at signals such as ratings. Because the content database is hosted at Google, it could easily pull the rating info in without having to "guess" or "scrape" it off pages. My concern in hearing this was that other pages with ratings might not have their information taking in as a quality signal, since Google couldn't as easily harvest it. Thus, Knol pages might get an unfair advantage. To that, Manber stressed that he didn't see such signals being used at first, and if they were down the line, Google might seek a way for others to provide similar signals to its search engine.>>
Roger Browne	19 hours ago #
> Google might seek a way for others to provide similar > signals to its search engine. Well duh, Google already offers the possibility for others to use sitemaps to indicate the relative usefulness/importance of each individual page within their sites. We don't know whether Google pays any attention to that data, but hey the mechanism is there already.
Veky	17 hours ago #
OMG. How many people will, first thing they do when they get a Knol invitation, start copying Wikipedia articles as knols, with their names as authors? The only question is who will be the fastest in this – probably someone who automatizes the process. ;-)
Hashim Warren	17 hours ago #
Why does it have to look so ugly? Is that on purpose?
Keith Chan	17 hours ago #
I won't say it looks ugly .. at least I like this layout more than the Wikipedia one where all the [edit] links are so annoying ... I'm pretty excited about this feature and I'm sure it reinforces the saying "Knowledge is Power" ... if you know what I mean ;)
AussieWebmaster	16 hours ago #
The fact that that suggest there may not be a no follow is the big thing. This one will be getting some serious viral marketing in the coming year. I see it as hot as the initial GMail invites... who wouldn't want to be a listed "authority" at Google. If you are in business it would be better than any other type of award or recognition given the cache of Google at all levels of society right now.
Eugene Villar	16 hours ago #
I'm surprised no one mentioned Mahalo. Jason Calacanis' "human-powered search engine" he says will compete with Google, but some insightful person (I forgot which) says that Mahalo actually competes with Wikipedia. Now with Knol, Google competes with both Mahalo and Wikipedia. Additionally, Knol completely and utterly destroys any notion of Google not hosting any content and being just a simple traffic source.
James Xuan	15 hours ago #
I think if it was pronounced kin-all and not nall it would be a great name. Sorry I can't do the proper pronounciation thing but I mean if you pronounced the k it would be cool...
Oren Goldschmidt	13 hours ago #
Now _this_ is a Google Alpha/Beta I want in on. I Haven't felt this way in ages, kudos to Google for piquing my interest again (Although I see many, many potential pitfalls for this venture).
Charlie Perry	12 hours ago #
Did this news catch everyone by surprise? I hadn't heard any rumours. Also, there's no reason why a group of people couldn't come together to write a knol from what I've seen.
Rich	12 hours ago #
This is silly and thoughtless. The two things that distinguish it from a wiki will also bring it to failure: ad revenue and once-and-for-all creator/moderators. It will result in a huge "title grab", for control of all the popular article titles, and then include edits from knowledgeable people. Those of low moral character will get all the ad revenue. A similar situation will develop with the contentious articles; Islam, Christianity, Iraq, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein, etc. Who gets the revenue? The person who started the article? Not to mention all the vanity articles that will result!
JeffJonez	11 hours ago #
Still sounds like Googlepedia to me, with an elitist spin.
orhan	10 hours ago #
what I understand it is that knol will basically be an all-round easy tool for writers who want to get published. it will be author-oriented service rather than being reader-oriented one. knol is a very good name by the way.
SQ89	9 hours ago #
Heh, knol.com/ now reads (in Dutch): -- Knol Steam cleaning systems wants to thank, among others, the following sites: - Google - 040 Hosting - nu.nl - Webwereld - TechCrunch The attention really is overwhelming!
Joey F	7 hours ago #
Where can I get an invite? Anyone?
drtimofey	4 hours ago #
i think that all blogoscopedoholics shoud receive an invite!!
Reto Meier	1 hour ago #
The service it sounds most like to me is Everything2. Similar concept where authorship is key, with the community able to comment and rate writeups for a given subject. 'Authors' gain reputation which in turn gives them more power to rate other people's articles. If Knol follows the E2 philosophy I'll be more than happy with it. I always preferred it in concept to wikipedia which had a very elitest air. The problem with wikipedia is that it assumes that people who have been around a long time and made lots of edits are somehow a better authority on a subject than someone with actual knowledge in the area. Which by itself is fine, except those people can actually change the text! It always bothered me in Wikipedia that I didn't know who (in real terms, not a login name) authored or edited an article. I'd rather have three well written, conflicting writeups with details on the authors than one constantly changing 'authoratative' article edited constantly by anonymous users.
stefan2904	1 hour ago #
if someone gets an invite,please send me one too. Thanks! ;-)
ladybroadoak, virginia simson	3 minutes ago #
Ditto, if someone gets an invite, please send me one, three. My items get posted on google blog searches constantly, but will google consider my content as "expert" .. on many topics I am the only blogspot author posting on such things and analyzing them in terms of a "bigger" picture. Are they taking into account the changing nature of journalism with its intense focus on bloggers as REAL journalists as opposed to government operatives posing as journalists ..? I am sorry to inform everyone but Operation Mockingbird is alive and well and very very busy today. So some of us "non experts" are actually MORE expert, if you see what I mean. 'When the San Jose Mercury and the NY Daily News got sold this year, investigative journalism went basically down the drain in the mainstream press. Kaput. So this is all highly interesting indeed.