Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected 214
An anonymous reader writes "Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online, this time defending Hotfile from copyright infringement accusations. [Quoting the article]: 'Google takes a sort of hard-line approach via the DMCA, telling the court that however the MPAA may try to mislead them, Hotfile is in fact protected under safe harbor provisions. And furthermore, Google suggests that the MPAA's approach is contrary to the language in and precedents surrounding the DMCA. The onus is on copyright holders to alert a service to the nature and location of an infringement, and the service's responsibility is to alert the user if possible and remove the material within a reasonable period of time.'"
The full brief has been uploaded to Scribd. The MPAA, naturally, has requested that the amicus brief be rejected by the court: "Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage — as well as an effort by Hotfile (whose counsel also represent Google) to circumvent its page limits. Google is acting as a partisan advocate for Hotfile, making arguments that Hotfile has or could have made in its own opposition to summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although Google purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, Google unmistakably seeks a ruling against plaintiffs. Google's motion should be denied"
Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the part that stuck out with me too.
It's a nice microcosm of our current legal/political system.
"Accuse your opponent of the same bad shit you're doing"
Hypocrisy as a pointer to particular bad behaviors (Score:3)
That's amazingly common: IMHO, the folks who accuse others of X are often terrified that they will be accused of X, and strike out at other without realizing what they're implying.
This has the pleasant effect of making it easy to discover what they're doing, and afraid of being called on (;-))
--dave
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The MPAA's brief appears to be more stupidity than hypocrisy (or they're just milking their client). Their argument against the amicus brief is a presentation of the best reason why the amicus brief should be accepted.
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The legal system isn't about fairness, and those who are involved don't even seem to pretend it is any more. The goal of the lawyers is to win the case. If that involves making an argument that contradicts the one they made the previous week in every way, that's just how the game is played.
Re: (Score:2)
It never has been about fairness. The US has used an adversarial system since its founding. The process is fair only to the extent that all litigants have equal access to the process. That being said, what you and your attorney make of the process should not aim for fairness, but for winning. That's the whole point of an adversarial system.
If you want to argue against the use of an adversarial system and why an inquisitorial system (or some other system) would be more "fair", have at it. But the adversarial
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
More to the point: This is what they did with the DMCA. The irony here is that the MPAA's lawyers are arguing against the law that they or their cronies wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony here is that the MPAA's lawyers are arguing against the law that they or their cronies wrote
They're trying to make the case that the current law as it stands right now is insufficient to protect their industry. So yes, they're arguing against their own law, in favor of one that favors them even more strongly.
Re:Hypocrisy much? (Score:5, Insightful)
...Which has been their tactic all along with this kind of legislation. They start with the foregone conclusion that stricter copyright legislation is the solution. Once it's passed into law, things can go one of two ways:
1) If the MAFIAA's bottom line improves, then the stricter copyright law worked, so more/stricter laws are required to garner even more improvement for them.
2) If their bottom line continues to drop after the law is passed, then it obviously wasn't strict enough, so more/stricter legislation is required.
On a side note, how long until Disney blames the flop of John Carter on piracy, I wonder?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this the only reason everyone everywhere has ever filed an Amicus brief? I mean, how many lawyers are spending their time and money telling making arguments to courts on cases that they DON'T care about?
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, I think that's not the MPAA's actual viewpoint and they're simply trying every trick and maneuver to get the results they want, b
Google should fight the Copyright Alert System... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone should be trying to protect their revenue stream on this one, it's google...
If enough users hit their 5th or 6th strike, that would impinge on googles money.
We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap. Also, it couldn't hurt Microsoft to gain a little positive press.
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The "hardline" is with respect to the 512(c) safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. That is, the "Neener neener, you can't sue our deep pockets" part. And in that, Google takes a very hard line indeed, since reinterpretations here could cost them tremendous amounts of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially Youtube is great because it can do all of this as well as being a window on the world that dictators like Assad cannot control. Hopefully the asshats at the MPAA and the RIAA will finally wake up and smell the coffee before the real potential of what is happening leaves the great parts of industry they control in the dust.
Why? They see the control exerted by the dictators and dream of a world where they have that power too.
MPAA: Accusing others of what they do themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
Re: (Score:3)
[Begin MPAA Mode]
Why, of course it is! How dare they bring up facts that run counter to the MPAA's case! Don't they know that piracy costs content creators eleventy bazillion dollars every nanosecond? Don't they know that piracy results in twelve thousand lost jobs per second, cancer of the ear lobe, muggings, global warming, and the hiccups? Google should be immediately turned over to the MPAA to operate for the
Re: (Score:2)
Poster beware: pasting here out of the filing... (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting legal argument (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our opponents are trying to defend their interests, therefore their request should be denied"
Well played, MPAA lawyers.
Seriously. How much are these guys billing per hour?
Re:Interesting legal argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting legal argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer
I'm sorry but I'm not following you.
AFAIK the amicus curiae contacts the court by his/her own will; it's not forced by any force or law. It's implicit that there is a personal motive behind that action. Are there other possible motivations?
Or are you arging that the "correct approach" is never the parties' or filer's?
MPAA/RIAA becoming increasingly shrill (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
"Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage"
Talk about projecting your feelings...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What we have Google to THANK for... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have Google to thank for helping our congress figure out that the Entertainment industry isn't the only private interest with money to spend... er--uh-- contribute. When you have pro-corporate politicians on BOTH sides of the isle coming against SOPA and PIPA when both measures formerly enjoyed so-called elusive bipartisan support, that can only mean one thing:
It started raining money on the other side of the issue.
The tech companies are now large enough and rich enough to make themselves both felt and heard. It's only a matter of time before the entertainment industry stops their offense and goes for a negotiated settlement. Their business models are in jeopardy and as they lose their ability to rig the game in their favor their days are only going to get darker not brighter. They're scared and they should be.
Proposed reply (Score:4, Interesting)
Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template:
Re: (Score:2)
Making a joke at the expense of the MPAA/RIAA on Slashdot is trolling?
Wow. We must have some RIAA/MPAA supporters with accounts logged in today. :D
Yeah, but...Google is right (Score:2)
There seems to be a lot of discussion about Google's motives and how the MPAA is acting. But at least from my understanding of the law, Google is right. The safe harbor provision to DMCA was made for exactly the reason Google says, and the MPAA is trying to grab more legal power, beyond the vast powers DMCA already grants them.
I'm not a knee-jerk Google fan-boy, and I understand Google has a dog in the fight, but in this case, Google is right.
Fixed a mis-wording (Score:3)
"MPAA's lawsuit appears to be part of a systematic effort by MPAA, itself a plantif in ongoing lawsuits, to influence the development of the law to MPAA's own advantage."
There, fixed that for them.
Apple (Score:3)
Where is Apple? They are no longer the poor, dying company they were so many years ago. They profit handsomely from both sides of this debate (selling content companies' media for a profit and selling devices to consumers at a profit). They have power, influence, and some money.
I think it is time for Apple to step up. For the company of record with the '1984' and 'Lemmings' commercials, I find it distasteful that Apple has seemingly only used their financial fortunes to engage in trifling patent wars. One letter from Steve Jobs changed the course of DRM on music. Yet Apple has sat quietly by as Google and Amazon have waded head-first into the DMCA battle royal. No, that's wrong, they have NOT sat by, in fact Apple has quietly worked to sign deals with the DMCA-abusing content providers that covers over the questions being debated. Apple is paying iTunes Match money as "streaming royalties" to RIAA on music that was already legally purchased and for which royalties were paid. Surely double-dip paying the RIAA isn't in the consumers' or artists' best interests. The basic assumption is that ALL music that gets matched (that wasn't from the iTunes store) was pirated...and that is both a lie and a dangerous precedent to Google's (consumer friendly) position. Apple cannot allow their animosity towards Google distract them from maintaining what is right for THEIR supporters and customers.
Apple needs to make their position on the DMCA known: does the consumer have fair-use rights or not? Because I, for one, known where my money goes based on the answer.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda
PERHAPS?!?!!
Great. Now I have coffee all over my monitor, thanks to you...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd
Then you are delusional. Google is acting in the interests of Google. The MPAA is acting in the interests of... no one actually, but they think they are acting in the interests of the MPAA. The interests of Google at the moment align vaguely with the interests of the population at large (actually, so do the interests of the MPAA members, they just haven't worked this out yet so keep fighting themselves), but there is nothing altruistic about either.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's interests align with mine about 100x more often then the MPAA or RIAA's do, and this case is no exception. That may not make them less evil, but it does mean that in cases like these, where I feel they are unequivocally correct in their arguments, they'll have my support. In fact, the most evil thing Google's ever done to me is collect my information and use it to sell advertising space, which given the quantity and quality of the software and services I receive in return I fell is well worth it. If only congress would enact legislation that guaranteed my right to a delete button on that information (in case Google's behavior changes in the future) I'd be 100% happy with the arrangement.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.
In fact, the Google Amicus brief is quite candid about Google's interest in the case. It's clearly explained in the very first section, right after the tables of contents and authorities, and before any of the brief's arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean "Google owns several services that allow user-submitted content".
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.
Yeah. Have you seen the argument they're using now? It basically goes like this: Sites where the most popular material is infringing are illegal.
Now let's think this through. The MPAA owns most of the copyrights on the most popular material. Which means all they have to do is not license it, and most of the most popular material users post will be infringing. What they are actually arguing, then, is that all user-generated content sites not licensed by the MPAA are illegal. They get a veto over technological innovation because all they have to do is do nothing, and not license their stuff to the new technology, and then the site immediately becomes illegal because the users post it anyway, and the MPAA can sue and destroy the site at will.
It seems pretty obvious why that should not be the law.
Re: (Score:3)
There's still the compulsory licensing option. Not a great option, but it works around your argument. Even if we take your MPAA argument to the logical extreme, they can't engage in total censorship at will. They can just make speaking expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's still the compulsory licensing option. Not a great option, but it works around your argument.
You're ignoring the part where it doesn't exist. If not, please name the compulsory licensing body for motion pictures so that I can start a Netflix competitor that has 100% of all copyrighted content legally.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:4, Informative)
[citation needed]
This whole thread is already overrun with AC's, all posting bad stuff about google in sync and their are only 19 posts at present. Please do not respond to them, it is a waste of time and if they had any real interest in posting here they would set up an account and make constructive contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they work in the industry and don't want to get caught talking crap publicly about their competitors/vendors.
Just saying...AC has its place.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, it seems to be a lot of astroturfing going on here by people afraid to risk their karma. I also would bet that a lot of the AC's are from the MPAA or its client states.
Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/ [youtube.com]
http://picasa.google.com/ [google.com]
http://plus.google.com/ [google.com]
Three enough?
Ah hell, I'll throw one more in for free: Google Music (specifically, the "locker" feature) - remember, they never got official signoff from the labels that the music locker service was legit and they were okay with it. Labels could still go after Google for that service, though it's not clear that they'd actually win.
You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content?
It's cool that Google is advocating for this, but make no mistake: filing this brief is also serving their own interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am realistic or cynical enough not to believe Google acts solely from altruistic principal. But I do believe that their motives are far closer to enlightened self-interest than that of the MPAA. The
Re: (Score:2)
And they'd be even bigger money sinks if suddenly Google had to shut them down, or start paying fines, based on vague assertions by RIAA/MPAA and similar organizations about copyrighted material being uploaded to those sites. And Youtube at least was on track to be profitable by late 2010 or early 2011, last I heard. Google has spent quite a bit of time working ads into that servi
Re: (Score:3)
They own a number of storage locker facilities. Of course they don't want the power or the burden of rifling through everyone's stuff. It's a burden and the customers certainly don't want it.
A tenant rightfully expects some degree of privacy and control over the space they've rented.
That's a very dangerous thing for one particular tiny industry to push just for it's own benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine. Let's take it a step up:
Court fines and successful injunctions against Google relating to copyright infringement. With links to said cases.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
Not anymore. Now it's "due process is not the same as judicial process", and you are free to go about your business until we drone you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's rephrase entirely.
There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.
Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to G
Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.
Which is why we need to fight them, obviously. Because YouTube is useful to us, as people. Making it go away would be very bad for us, as people.
I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!" Who cares? They're helping us, aren't they? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
> So are we just going to be nitpicking?
The law is just like programming. The little details matter. You can't ignore a single comma or semicolon. You certainly ignore "bigger" things.
So, yeah those nits are important.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of analysis depends on experience, intuition, a knowledge of history, a knowledge of technology, a knowledge of business, an understanding of corporate relations and the impact of the law.
That is what a citation is - a demonstration that other people understand can relay experience, intuition, history, technology, business corporate relations and the law.
An example for you:
Chambers Online Dictionary:
citation noun
1 the quoting or citing of something as example or proof.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google Gov (Score:4, Insightful)
Can corporations serve jail time or be put to death?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the same. Penalties for breaking laws are established to discourage unacceptable behavior. I think most would agree that the death discourages behavior more than disbandment.
Re:Google Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's push that whole analogy a little farther:
One of the arguments against the death penalty being a deterrent is that many of the people it gets applied to are not capable of looking ten years or so down the road and seeing themselves in the position of a condemned killer actually strapped into an electric chair or on a lethal injection table. Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences. They severly lack the empathy to put themselves in another's position, whether it's with their victims, or with other killers who have gotten caught and punished.
Sounds like a corporation - relentless focus on a point no father away than the next quarter's profit statement, little or no concern for the long term consequences of their actions... The very act of calling disbandment a corporate death penalty says corporations have the mentality of criminals, and we are hoping we have come up with something severe enough to get them to look past the immediate gratification mode they are in.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing for or against the death penalty. I see your point and agree somewhat. Yes, some corporations exhibit criminal behavior. However, corporations aren't people. Corporations are run by people that make the decisions and create the corporate culture yet the people in the corporations are too insulated from the punishment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'd love to agree, except sadly, by the law, they seem to be people.
Mind, this also makes them immortals. They're basically Highlanders, really - only way to kill them is decapitation. Upon which, if you're a fellow corporation/immortal, you steal their power.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a corporate death penalty—an easier way to dissolve a corporation for committing crimes—would be a great win. Here's why: corporations are ultimately beholden to stockholders. If the government dissolves a corporation and seizes its assets, the stockholders are screwed. And unlike the greedy corporate CEOs who can't see anything farther out than short-term profits, most of the largest stockholders—mutual funds and the like—are looking to hold, not for a few weeks or months, b
Re: (Score:3)
I need only point at the recent resignation of "Greg Smith" from "Goldman Sachs" [nytimes.com] that the men in charge of business today, this very day, in many areas of the public sector are interested in only one thing. Protecting their huge salary and stock shares (though the systematic process of squeezing profit out of any damn thing they can.) The will turn on their own customers (tell me that's not a sign of profound insanity), they will lie and cheat and steal to the ultimate death and dismemberment of their own s
Re: (Score:3)
Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences.
True, but bankers never even go to jail, let alone get the death penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Gov (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Re: (Score:2)
Or teen pregnant?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Gov (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Technically yes, if you can find a suitable company for Apple to merge with.
Suggestions, people! (Score:2)
We need suggestions!
Re: (Score:3)
Such a marriage would not last long. They would soon file for divorce claiming that the other was screwing customers on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just elect Google.
After reading this I'm seriously thinking of removing google-analytics.com from Noscript's banned site list.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason Google is doing this is because this could directly effect them. If they link to copyrighted content, they could be held liable. This has nothing to do with 'standing up for the rights of geeks everyone' or whatever drivel the summary is espousing.
I agree, the fanboi responses to this are sounding dangerous, if not outright delusional.
This is a business decision, and a smart one on Google's part. The fact that it's good for joe user is a side effect. Nothing more.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's not forget that, in general, Google must necessarily be involved in the matter at hand. You don't just start writing amicus briefs on a whim. If you want to have any impact at all, then it must be an issue that affects you and/or your company.
I'm sure Google could have their lawyers write up briefs and letters on any random topic, but if it is not relevant, why would the judge bother with it?
Oh, look! Google submitted a brief on the produce export restrictions. We'd better read it with the utmost scrutiny...
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point to good legal engineering: laws are written such that greedy self-interest tends to work toward the common good. It's a pity most laws aren't written that way....
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:4, Informative)
Because when I think "Google," I think "Oh, hey, golly, THERE's a corporation that's looking out for my rights, yes-sir-ree-bob!"
Your point is valid, unfortunately, when it comes to privacy rights (essentially nonexistent in the US).
I say "unfortunately" because it seems that on most other measures Google is probably the least evil of the large corporations (most are incomparably worse), and tries occasionally to do something we can cheer them for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I don't even understand the privacy concerns. I realize that some people hold complete control over every action and breath they take to be sacred, but at the end of the day, we have always been advertised to and we have always had our behavior in public observed to a greater or lesser extent. Traditionally, we have gotten many pointless ads wasting our time and gotten very little if anything in return for observations of our behavior. I don't see how Google's attempt to alter that balance to g
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the issue with the privacy thing.
Imagine that a corporation can track and inspect your every email, phone conversation, instant message, and footstep. They correlate it. They know who your friends are, what books you read, everything. That's an incredible amount of information. Even if you assume that the information is only going to be used for relatively harmless purposes, such as advertising. And if you think that's far-fetched, Google is trying pretty hard to get that level of knowledge of you. As are many others. And much of it is behind the scenes. Turn on Ghostery and see how many web sites pop up Google scripts. Even if you don't use any Google product, they are tracking you.
Now, imagine that they collaborate with other companies. What if they could use that knowledge of your every thought to raise prices in real time for the things you need most? Gas when you're about to run out? Use your imagination. Fair dealing is based on the notion of reasonably symmetrical information. If they other side knows everything about you, and you know nothing about them, you're at a disadvantage.
There is a legal right to privacy, which is being eroded. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org].
Now, imagine that an organization knows everything about you. And let's say the government decided it needs some information. So now the government knows everything about you, too. Do you completely trust the government? Are you sure they'll never make a mistake?
Now, imagine that people come to power who do not share your enlightened views on humanity. They think that there's a problem with, oh, left-handed people, people who wear socks with sandals, redheads, people born in February, people not from around here, people with certain political leanings. And let's say they get their hands on the aggregated information about you. Maybe they won't lock you up. But maybe they will. Or maybe they won't lock you up today. If you behave.
Think about all of the organizations, both real and fictional, that want unlimited knowledge of the general public. Not one of them inspires confidence. Think Big Brother. Spanish Inquisition. Total Information Awareness.
In my mind, unlimited personal knowledge aggregation leads straight to political repression. It is, in fact, evil.
Re: (Score:2)
See, it's the imagine them cooperating with other companies that is where I run in to an issue. Google has no financial interest in sharing their data, they sell a product that depends on them being the only one that has the information and they take lots of safeguards to make sure they don't lose exclusive access to that information. They have a privacy policy that states basically the same thing that they will not disclose the info about you that they gain and will only act as a service provider to othe
Re: (Score:2)
You can go on and on about privacy and it's supposed sacredness, but at the end of the day, everything Google knows about me is information I freely gave them using services they provided to me for no financial cost. And what do they do with this information? They collate it to both better serve me and also to better generate revenue through advertising that is more meaningful to me than the advertisements I would have otherwise gotten.
They also share it with the government.
Part of the problem is that the average person does not understand the amount of digital breadcrumbs they leave behind when they use a computer and surf the net. All of these things we do - email, status updates, liking, +1ing, clicking on links, visiting websites, apps we buy - all of that information is slowly (or not so slowly) accumulating. Google has a pile, Facebook has a pile, Apple has a pile, your ISP has a BIG pile, and the NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI all have pi
Re: (Score:2)
I can see some legitimacy to that concern, but I see that as more an issue of government corruption than an inherent issue with Google as a company. As a private company, they have to obey the law in regards to requests for information from law enforcement and such. Is it something we should monitor, yes, but I don't link it to a problem with Google as an organization.
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:5, Informative)
And when they aggregate that information and sell it to a background checking company who manages to establish a near-monopoly that flags you as a high-risk employee because a photo that's identified as you that you can't get taken down includes a gun and a liter of vodka?
You know that new privacy policy they have that everyone has been complaining about? It says they can't do anything like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Because when you elect politicians you are not indirectly electing an other set of companies?
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
DuBois?
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Which is brings to mind another old canard: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Charles de Gaulle, I think. Also attributed to George Washington and Henry John Temple (3rd Viscount Palmerston), but I can't find any direct references. 5 points, maybe...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yessssss, Google... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)