Subscribe - Search Engine Watch

April 18, 2008

We May Not Need Standards But FTC, FCC Want To Gives Us Regulations

While the standards debate rages on, our industry is fast coming under the influence of government regulations. This week has seen discussions about behavioral marketing at the FTC and the FCC weighing in on ISPs filtering sites.

The behavioral regulations being looked at by the FTC had Google, Yahoo and Microsoft commenting from different angles.

Google wanting to make sure their method of selecting ads was not rolled into the mix stated "our AdWords program allows us to provide ads on Google.com in response to search queriesâ€¦ . We believe this type of advertising should not be considered behavioral advertising, even if such analysis takes into consideration previous search queries." (from Alan Davidson, Senior Policy Counsel and Head of U.S. Policy, Google, Inc.).

Yahoo's VP Global Public Policy David Hantman stated: "The information they will receive when they click through for more information will include an explanation of how customization works, how they can participate in the NAI opt-out, and a link to our privacy policy where they can find more comprehensive information"

While Microsoft provided a list of ways to possibly address the issue: Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Advertising - Opt-in Consent; Personally Identifiable Information Advertising - Propsective Use: Opt-out Choice; Retroactive Use: Opt-in Consent; Behavioral Advertising â€” Opt-out Choice; Multi-Site Advertising - Pass-through Notice; Online Advertising - Prominent Notice, Security, Data Retention.

Posted by Frank Watson at 3:04 PM | Permalink

March 21, 2008

Election Year Brings New Efforts to Regulate Search Engine Data Collection

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has introduced a bill aimed at regulating the way search engines collect private data of its users. Similarly, in Connecticut, the General Law Committee of the State Assembly has a bill that seeks to tighten data collection rules on companies that serve ads on sites they do not own.

State laws attempting to restrict data collection are nothing new. Both Alaska and Utah have laws on the books preventing adware from serving up targeted ads based on the behavior of searches, specifically on trademarked keywords. And California State Senator Liz Figueroa tried to stop Google from placing targeted ads in Gmail based on email content.

Eric Goldman, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law, said that states don't really have the authority to pass these laws because they involve interstate commerce. Instead, the federal government should have jurisdiction over these matters.

"My experience is that state legislators usually ignore any dormant commerce clause defects in their laws and let the courts strike down the laws; after all, I'm guessing no politician was ever voted out for passing a law that courts later declared unconstitutional."

Privacy expert Alan Chapell, of Chapell & Associates, said that state bills that are passed still have an effect on consumers nationwide. He cited California SB 1386, which requires companies to inform California citizens when a data security breach has occurred. Chapell points out that if citizens of another state find out about a breach affecting California citizens, they're naturally going to worry about their own data.

But the kind of data search engines collect is not necessarily personal information such as addresses and telephone numbers. Search engines are primarily interested in what people are searching for, and providing them with ads and search results according to historical searches. Because consumers and even politicians don't truly understand how search engines work, many of these state bills are "attempts by lawmakers to get their name in the news," according to Chapell.

Assemblyman Brodsky is up for re-election this year. Meanwhile, companies are lobbying Brodsky to preserve their best interests.

According to the New York Times, Microsoft supports - and seeks to expand - the New York bill, drafted by State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. The bill would force search engines to get permission from users before displaying ads targeted towards their search behavior.

Microsoft's intentions seem all too clear, with recent declarations by Steve Ballmer to catch Google in the search game. Yahoo sees things differently, and sent lobbyists to meet with Brodsky, apparently to express their opposition. There are obvious implications for how this will affect any merger of the two.

The software giant's ambition fails to address the question at the root of internet privacy battles: "Who owns the data?" While there are no clear answers, one thing is certain. Many a politician and businessman will attempt to climb their career ladders waging a battle in these murky waters.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:00 AM | Permalink

December 31, 2007

Network Neutrality

Back at SES Chicago, one of the keynote speakers, David Isenberg focused his presentation on the issue of Network Neutrality. One of the more interesting aspects of his presentation was how little those of us in the industry think about this issue.

Yet, if the telcos succeed in violating network neutrality, it will blow up the web experience as we know it. The consumer will no longer be in control on the web, and an era of innovation will be sorely impacted. Can you imagine Facebook being successful if the bandwidth to access it is controlled by a telco that is offering a competing service? Or, the telco will not give the service enough bandwidth to work properly unless they pay additional fees?

Additionally, in the current web environment, the consumer has virtually unlimited choice. The biggest challenge that the consumer faces is sifting through all the choices, but with choice, comes power. In a world where the consumer is loaded with power, the companies that want their business must truly compete for it. If the choice starts to become limited, then the power of the consumer will fade with it.

Greg Jarboe of SEO-PR and I spoke with Mr. Isenberg after his keynote. One thing that we all agreed upon was that the current telco companies are not well adapted to capitalizing on the web as it is, and they view the current web environment as a threat to their continued growth.

Worse still, these companies have large war chests, and the people they are working on selling their story to are the members of congress. Unfortunately, many of those in our congress are not particularly web savvy, so they may not understand the web as it exists today, and how critical that is to the innovation and growth that we are experiencing, and to consumer control (and therefore consumer rights).

Hopefully, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others have their eye on the ball on this one.

Posted by Eric Enge at 9:29 AM | Permalink

October 11, 2007

Will Accessibility Become Mandatory?

While more search marketers are becoming aware of usability and accessibility concerns, the numbers are still very small. In today's SearchDay, "Don't Ignore Accessibility," we explore how a class-action lawsuit filed in California has the potential to change that, and require Web sites to comply with accessibility laws.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 3:33 PM | Permalink

September 7, 2007

Uncle Sam Says: Thumbs Down on Net Neutrality

Yesterday, the Department Of Justice (DOJ) issued comments rejecting any Net Neutrality proposals. They are clearly siding with keeping an open economy, where the broadband providers are not controlled or regulated in any manner. DOJ says this viewpoint ultimately helps the consumers, who may then elect their preferred level of service.

Yet other consumer proponents say thatâ€™s what Neutrality does too, by enabling equal access to all online services. When Congress floated Neutrality legislation earlier this year, the main point was to keep services consistent and open. Also it didnâ€™t burden the online content providers and publishers, who might be affected by additional toll-roads.

Whoâ€™s right? As consumers, our broadband fees finance light and heavy users alike. It's nicer to get what you pay for, and vice versa. However, itâ€™s going to be hard to convince me that anyone saves money in a tiered environment. We all seem to have opportunities to pay higher tiered fees instead, much like cable or satellite bills.

If paid tiers were introduced, then they would negatively impact organic and paid search outcomes. First, searchers could find a range of gated or restricted search results, depending on access levels. Second, publishers with heavy-bandwidth requirements could experience large dips in traffic and paid search revenues. Finally, some of the larger advertisers might end up adjusting their buys, further hitting the paid search economy.

I wish the Net Neutrality debate boiled down to something this simple: free economy or free access. However, itâ€™s really about many different lobbies at this point, and I donâ€™t believe that legislation or regulation is going to progress quickly. Though the DOJ filing does prove there are high stakes here.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 3:13 AM | Permalink

May 11, 2007

Search-Related Legal Updates

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, on his Technology and Marketing Law blog, has updates on several search-related laws or lawsuits this week.

Broad Matching Doesn't Violate Injunction – In the Rhino Sports v. Sport Court case in Arizona, the courts have gotten broad matching right for once, Goldman says. Rhino Sports agreed in 2002 to a permanent injunction from using "sport court" in commerce, and last year, Sport Court saw that Rhino Sports' ad was showing up in a search for "sport court." The judge correctly pointed out that Rhino Sports was using Google's Broad Match, and was not targeting the term "sport court," and so was not in contempt of the order.
Utah Trademark Protection Act Updates – It seems Utah's legislators will hold off on implementing the state's Keyword Protection Act "for at least a couple of months." That's probably the best plan, since the law is both unenforceable and would not achieve the desired results.
Another NY Court Says Keyword Triggering Isn't TM Use in Commerce – In the Site Pro-1 v. Better Metal case, a court has determined that keyword triggering and metatag usage isn't a trademark use in commerce, so it's ok for companies to bid on others' trademarked terms. The legal debate's not over, since other courts have ruled the other way, but this is one more vote on the side of sanity.
Social Networking Sites and the Law – In preparation for an undergrad event looking at laws that pertain to social networking, Goldman has put together a brief summary of the legal issues involved. Two of the biggest issues are people creating fake profiles of others, and sexual predators on social networking sites.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:09 PM | Permalink

January 30, 2007

Apple To Pay Bloggers Court Costs

In 2004 Apple started legal proceedings against bloggers who carried information about their 'Asteroid' project. In 2005 the courts ruled that bloggers did not have the same freedoms afforded print journalists in regards to the identity of confidental sources.

Well it is now 2007 and the courts have said Apple must reimburse the legal fees of the bloggers they took to court.

Americans and others using the web should be afforded the same freedoms everyone else enjoys. To do otherwise would suggest the web should be treated differently.....

Posted by Frank Watson at 5:07 PM | Permalink

January 16, 2007

Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Search depends on net neutrality. As a searcher, you already know how it feels to be blocked from results. Who hasn't performed a search where you clicked to some blocked or paid access page? Now imagine that on a larger scale, and search becomes an exercise in ultimate frustration.

Publishers play an active role in search accessibility. While this is taken for granted by publishers, all organic and paid listings link to page content they truly control. Without neutrality, it's possible that URLs could be filtered or treated differently based on still-undefined rules set by broadband providers.

The Big Engines are ready to fight. In July 2006, Google warned U.S. legislators that if broadband providers abused net neutrality principles, it would consider anti-trust actions. Google's position is still posted today, and we're pretty sure it has not changed.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; The Neutrality Debate; Neutrality and Consumer Fees

Posted by Deborah Richman at 3:15 AM | Permalink

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns

Congress has brought back net neutrality legislation, as described by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in this You Tube video.

The legislation states that all content, applications and services must be freely accessible through broadband providers. Also it requires cable and telecom providers to offer broadband access as a standalone service, not only bundled with voice or video.

The year-end merger of AT&T/BellSouth was approved with a net neutrality concession, agreeing to freely accessible content for the next 2.5 years.

There are two political sites worth checking out. Supporters advocate a level playing field on Save The Internet. Dissenters say regulation stifles innovation at Hands Off the Internet.

Also read straighter reporting from The New York Times, Broadcasting & Cable, and CNET.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Neutrality Debate; Neutrality and Consumer Fees; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by Deborah Richman at 2:18 AM | Permalink

January 15, 2007

Neutrality and Consumer Fees

Today, most consumers pay for open internet access through broadband providers. Without net neutrality, will consumers pay more to access specific types of content or tiers of sites? In the future, will consumers be able to buy broadband alone and at reasonable rates?

Perhaps there is an opportunity for more affordable broadband access. The free municipal wireless providers are promising, and have a built-in advertising stream that users see when they sign in. So there might be other consumer options down the road.

However, net neutrality is not about free internet access. According to Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, "If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; The Neutrality Debate; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by Deborah Richman at 6:35 AM | Permalink

The Neutrality Debate

Thereâ€™s frothy debate taking place about regulation and its impact on broadband providers and web publishers.

Lawrence Lessig has an interesting take on regulation, saying those who oppose neutrality regulation should also oppose regulation for the last mile.

In a recent Wired column, Lessig asks: "Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn't rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?"

Whether regulation or market forces drive things, we see real publisher challenges ahead without net neutrality.

If neutrality vanished, web publishers might have to "pay to play." This is an old cable industry term, used when cable networks (aka publishers) made payments to access cable systems (aka providers).

If faced with additional costs, publishers would start finding other places to scale back. It's not a big leap to say they'd examine their discretionary marketing spends -- and that impacts the whole search industry.

More Net Neutrality Postings: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act Returns; Neutrality and Consumer Fees; Without Neutrality, What Happens to Search?

Posted by Deborah Richman at 6:35 AM | Permalink

November 7, 2006

Australia's Proposed Copyright Rules Would Make Search Engines Impossible, Warns Google

AFP reports that Google has warned Australia that if they pass certain a new copyright law that it will set the country back to "the pre-Internet era." Google's senior counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, "If such advanced permission was required [to index pages], the internet would promptly grind to a halt." I believe the issue here is that Australia wants Google to get copyright owners to opt in to having their content indexed, archived and cached, as opposed to opting out via a robots.txt file. Australia is not alone here; Belgium newspapers are fighting Google over similar copyright issues. This all just amazes me, seriously.

Postscript From Danny: See also my Google's Belgium Fight: Show Me The Money, Not The Opt-Out, Say Publishers piece that goes into great depth about how this is effectively already the law in Belgium, due to a court ruling there. The appeal on that case will happen later this month, but the threat alone also already caused Micrsoft to back out of some indexing.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:29 AM | Permalink

October 30, 2006

Google Appeals Federal Judge's Orkut Ruling

The International Herald Tribune reports that Google has appealed a federal judge's order to hand over the IP address information to Brazilian authorities. Google claims the "federal civil court did not have the proper authority" for such information. But Google spokesperson, Debbie Frost said Google will help Brazilian authorities identify individuals accused of illegal activities on Google's social networking platform, Orkut. This history goes way back, just start from here and keep clicking those links back to the previous stories. This amazes me that it is still going on since early this year.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:13 AM | Permalink

Google "In Bed" With The CIA?

Threadwatch spots a disgrunt article named Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA. Robert David Steele, a former CIA agent, "confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with â€œthe agency." Steele said, â€œI think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and Iâ€™m hoping theyâ€™ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off." Scary, very scary.

Postscript: Statement from Google on this, "The statements related to Google are completely untrue."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:36 AM | Permalink

October 23, 2006

Google's NetPAC Begins Donating Money

Mercury News reports that Google's NetPAC has begun handing out small $1,000 donations to three different Republicans. Google has given to Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Deborah Pryce of Ohio and Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Google also gave two donations to Democrats, Rep. Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:15 AM | Permalink

October 10, 2006

Court Issues Notice To Google For Allegedly Spreading Hate In India Via Orkut

The Times of India reports that Google is in hot water over Orkut once again, this time for allegedly spreading hatred for India. The article says, "The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to issue notice to Google for the alleged spread of hatred about India by its social network service Orkut." The problem is over a "We Hate India" community in Orkut that posted a picture a burning Indian flag.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

October 3, 2006

Get 20 Years For Meta Tag Abuse

Via Google Blogoscoped, Meta tag abusers face 20 years in prison from The Register covers how a new law in the US might land some people using meta tags in trouble, if they are trying to mislead children.

Specifically, the law says "whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years."

Meta tag controls were added to the Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth (SAFETY) Act. Now we all know, meta tags have almost no impact on the rankings of a page, but anyone putting those types of keywords in their meta tags most likely are trying to do it with the intent of improving their rankings for those keywords.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

September 28, 2006

Google Not To Deliver Orkut Data To Brazil Authorities

Google won't hand data to Brazil judge from the Associated Press reports that Google will not be meeting the deadline to provide Brazilian authorities with the data they requested on specific Orkut users. This comes after Google saying they will hand over the data to Brazil. So the question is, will Google be fined $23,000 per day by the Brazilian judge until they comply? Google has promised to issue a court explanation as to why they cannot provide the data Brazil requested. The AP article also quotes Debbie Frost of Google saying, "We have and will continue to provide Brazilian authorities with information on users who abuse the Orkut service, if their requests are reasonable and follow an appropriate legal process."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:55 AM | Permalink

September 19, 2006

Google's Political Action Committee: Google NetPAC

Via Threadwatch, Google will flex political muscles PAC to raise money for causes, candidates; lobbyists on board from the San Francisco Chronicle covers how Google has created its own Political Action Committee named Google NetPAC to to support candidates backing "an open and free internet." Google has some small footprints in Washington already, hiring a lobbying firm in the past to help push public policy in the direction Google wants it to go.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:43 AM | Permalink

September 18, 2006

Belgian Court Orders Google To Remove Content From Google News & Cache

Reuters reports the big news of the day that Google has been ordered by a Belgian court to remove all articles, photographs and graphics from French-speaking newspapers. Copiepresse issued the complaint and won the court ruling on September 5th. Not only does this require Google to remove content from Google News, the court order requires removing the content from the Google cache. ChillingEffects.org has a link to the full court order.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:23 AM | Permalink

September 4, 2006

Google Says They Will Give Brazil Orkut Data

The Washington Post reports that Google will give over the Orkut data of specific users including; IP addresses with time and date stamps that can help trace a specific user and registration information including names and e-mail addresses. This comes after Brazil gave Google 15 days to comply or else be fined $23,000 per day.

Why turn over data to Brazil when Google famous resisted the US government earlier this year for a data request? Reports the Post:

"What they're asking for is not billions of pages," said Nicole Wong, Google associate general counsel. "In most cases, it's relatively discrete -- small and narrow."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:16 AM | Permalink

September 1, 2006

Google Has 15 Days To Provide Data To Brazil Or Be Fined $23,000 Per Day

AFP reports that Brazil has given Google Brazil 15 days to turn over the data on the Orkut users they have been asking for. If Google Brazil does not comply, they will be fining them $23,000 per day. Google has said that they would work with Brazil to shut down Orkut some communities but according to the court filing in Sao Paulo yesterday, those requirements have been 'unsatisfactorily met.'

We have a good historical round down of this whole Google & Orkut & Brazil issue here. Business Week also has a nice write up on the issues named Google's Brazil Headache, highlighting why Google is saying they'll comply if only the requests were sent to Google in the US, rather than Google Brazil.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:20 AM | Permalink

August 22, 2006

Brazil To Close Google Brazil's Offices Over Orkut Issues?

A post in our SEW Forums and a report from Xinhau says that Brazil's federal prosecution service is moving to close Google's operations in Brazil. So far, there is no other news about this that we've seen. An injunction is apparently being requested ordering the release of information from Orkut, with a threat for closure of Google's Sao Paulo office if they don't comply.

Postscript From Danny: Reuters has a story up now here: Google refuses to hand over data to Brazilian authorities. It covers that prosecutors want permission to file a civil lawsuit against Google, with a $61 million fine and the threat of closure if it fails to comply with the information request.

Postscript From Barry: For an historical line up of these events over time, see the links below:

- Aug. 16, 2006 :: Orkut Causing Trouble In Brazil Again - Jul. 21, 2005 :: Drug Pushers Using Orkut Arrested In Brazil - May. 25, 2006 :: Google Works With Brazil To Shut Down Orkut Communities - May. 18, 2006 :: Google Faces Criminal Charges For Child Porn & Racial Material - May. 3, 2006 :: Google & Brazil Fight Over Orkut User Data Rights - Mar. 10, 2006 :: Brazil Asks Google To Help Orkut To Stop Organizing Organized Crime - Mar. 9, 2006 :: Al-Qaeda Likes Orkut

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 5:21 PM | Permalink

August 17, 2006

Human Rights Group & UK House of Commons Demand Google, Yahoo, & Microsoft To Stop Censorship

Earlier this week, GameShout.com published an article reporting that Human Rights Watch group in New York told Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to be upfront with their users about the censorship and stand up to the political pressure China places on them. The quote says it all pretty strongly, "It was ironic that companies whose existence depends on freedom of information and expression have taken on the role of censor, even in cases where the Chinese government makes no specific demands for them to do so." The Inquirer soon after reported that the committee in the UK House of Commons has slammed Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for "collaborating with Chinese authorities to censor and police the Internet."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:44 AM | Permalink

August 16, 2006

Orkut Causing Trouble In Brazil Again

Komfie Manalo reports that Brazil has threatened to bring Google to court over their social networking application, Orkut, again. Yesterday, the Federal Prosecution Service of Brazil, said Google refused "to cooperate with authorities about user information" on Orkut. Google said in the past that they would work with Brazilian officials to shut down Orkut communities that were participating and helping criminals traffic drugs and distribute pedophilia. Google says they have cooperated with Brazilian authorities, stating, they have "provided information to eight investigations, and kept secret information regarding 60 other cases since June."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 2:33 PM | Permalink

August 15, 2006

EFF Asks FTC To Limit How Long AOL Can Store Search Records

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate AOL's release of search records last week and prevent the company from storing search data for longer than two weeks.

The formal complaint (PDF) asks for the FTC to:

order AOL to refrain from collecting or storing logs of its usersâ€™ search activity except where necessary incident to the rendition of AOLâ€™s services or the protection of AOL rights and property, and to refrain in any case from storing logs of its usersâ€™ search activity in personally identifiable form or for more than fourteen (14) days;

The EFF also wants all those whose searches were revealed through the data to be notified by AOL, which sounds like a good idea and something you'd think AOL would already want to do. Other things are requested, such as one year's worth of credit monitoring to protect against identity theft. That seems far-fetched, but I suppose you never know.

Coinciding with the complaint, the Wall Street Journal has a debate between the EFF and an internet lobbying group NetCoalition that apparently represents Yahoo and Google, among others.

The debate, Should Web Search Data Be Stored?, is free to anyone to view. It's well worth a read, if only to read that the US Department Of Justice is apparently arguing that access to search records might not require a search warrant, as the EFF says the Electronic Communication Privacy Act requires.

Overall, I'm much more on the side of the EFF in the debate. Some highlights from it and my remarks about them.

NetCoalition: Search queries are stored and used by Internet companies for internal purposes.

Me: Search queries have been shared by various companies in different ways with third parties over the years. More important, even if these are stored for internal purposes, there's no guarantee that they'll be perfectly protected. Leaks, accidental or intentional, do happen.

NetCoalition: There are good, legitimate reasons why an Internet company would use historical search queries for internal uses. For example, search query information can be used in research and development to make improvements to search technology, to better tailor and make more efficient users' online requests. Companies also analyze historical query information to detect and protect against click fraud -- an activity that involves faking clicks on Web advertisements to drive up costs.

Me: Excellent points, but the major search engines are going to have to step up now with better proof that there's no way data can be tied back with an individual, even when made "anonymous" in the way AOL has shown doesn't work. Click fraud refunds typically aren't given for activity longer than 60 days, so that provides a time horizon for how long data might be associated with actual users/IP activity.

NetCoalition: Search queries are essentially "directory assistance" requests from users to companies that help them find locations on the Internet. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is meant to protect communications between and among users -- not to protect requests from customers for directions on the Internet.

Me: Wow, I think the search engines need a new lobbying group that understands search better. Searches can be directory assistance and much more than that. Search engines are confidents, trusted friends that we effectively tell secrets to in order to get advice. They aren't about getting location. They are about getting information.

NetCoalition: The Video Privacy Protection Act is a bad analogy. Internet companies do not match up the user's personal information (e.g., name, address and phone number) with search queries the way a video rental record would.

Me: Except they do. If you're logged in to a search engine, then any personal information you've provided is associated with your search query in some way.

EFF: The public needs to know the facts about how their data is being stored and used before they can make informed decisions as consumers as to whether and how to use a particular search engine, and to make informed decisions as citizens as to whether and how Congress needs to update the law. I think the best route would be hearings in Congress to get to the bottom of the issue.

Me: I think the best route would be for the search engines themselves to act in conjunction with privacy groups right now to get protections and standards in place. But if they can't act, then hopefully laws covering the entire search spectrum -- from ISP to search engine -- will be enacted.

NetCoalition: Search queries are not being linked to users' personal information and shared for marketing purposes.

Me: Except they are. Showing ads in response to a query, while long-standing and generally accepted, is a marketing purpose. Showing ads based on search profiles, such as the New York Times wrote about today, is a more extreme example.

EFF: My organization also strongly opposes proposals by the DOJ and Congresswoman DeGette that would force companies to store this kind of sensitive data for government use. That's like asking the post office to keep copies of our mail, or phone companies to keep recordings of our phone calls, just in case investigators might find it useful. The bottom line is that Americans deserve the same privacy protections online that they've always had offline, and that includes the ability to be able to speak and consume speech freely and privately, without fear that their deepest secrets might be shared with the government or published to the world. Yet when search engines accumulate this kind of data, such disclosures are bound to happen, as this week's news has demonstrated.

Me: Well said!

Postscript: I'd sent some questions over to the EFF and just got answers back from EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston. Here they are:

Q. Why just AOL? Why aren't you asking for all search engines to be limited? I did see that you want federal laws to expand to cover them, but what happened with AOL could happen with the others as well.

A. Why aren't we asking the FTC to investigate and take action against other search engines? Because we can't, just like we can't go to court and demand that Google pay for AOL's mistake. The FTC isn't a suggestion box. We had a specific complaint about AOL--we think this disclosure violated their policy and therefore constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice--and we filed that complaint with the FTC. If other companies engaged in similar disclosures, we'd file similar complaints.

If you are familiar with our work, you know that we've been complaining about the logging practices of search engines as a category for a long while. In fact, I'm usually the one trying to explain to Google-hungry journalists that your Yahoos and AOLs and MSNs and other multi-service portals pose most if not all of the same privacy threats, so it's funny to be accused of singling out one of them for some sort of special mistreatment. We're merely reacting to a specific incident that happened to involve AOL rather than Google or Yahoo or MSN.

We want strong, clear legal rules that cover all the search engines; we want all the search engines to limit retention.

Q. Why just the search engines? Many ISPs are recording the same data but aren't being limited on data retention. It's actually more worrisome to me in that many ISPs are happily selling this data to third parties.

Again, if you are familiar with our work, you know that we are generally concerned about data retention by all stripes of online service providers (see, e.g., our white paper on best practices for online service providers, http://www.eff.org/osp/). So, in short, we share your worry. But again, we are reacting to a specific incident concerning a search engine, so our discussion right now is focused on search engines.

BTW, if you are specifically aware of any ISP that routinely collects the searches its users submit to other search engines, we'd love to hear more about it. I think that without very clear consent from the customer, that would be an unauthorized interception of your communications, and therefore a felony.

Q. How long does the EFF retain search data? You've got a search box. People do sensitive searches on your sites. I want to ensure AOL isn't being held to a higher standard than the EFF itself meets.

We don't retain search terms. Of course, since we use Google, Google does undoubtedly retain them. But we proxy everyone's requests so that their IP addresses and cookies are not transmitted to Google, therefore individual search terms are only identifiable to EFF visitors as a population and not personally or uniquely. In fact, we call this out on our site: if you click on the link next to our search box that says "about EFF's search," you'll see a pop-up that says "EFF uses Google for search functionality on www.eff.org. To protect your privacy, EFF proxies search requests to Google with a special CGI script on our server, thus hiding your IP address and your Google cookie (if any) from Google's servers."

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:02 AM | Permalink

July 27, 2006

French Court Preventing Greenpeace France From Displaying Crop Data On Google Maps

BoingBoing spotted an interesting case where a French court ordered Greenpeace France to remove a site using the Google Maps tool to display "locations of commercial, genetically engineered corn fields in France." Greenpeace France overlaid an X in the spot of those corn fields. They have removed the site, but plan on appealing the order. "Greenpeace argues the online maps should not be censored because an EU law requires the French government to make the crop site information public anyway," Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing writes.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:36 AM | Permalink

July 26, 2006

New US Child Protection Law Might Make Webmasters Second Guess What They Write

Via Threadwatch, Congress spanks naughty sex sites from News.com covers how the US is likely to gain a new law making it illegal to send people to porn by using misleading text.

From the bill:

2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

(a) IN GENERAL.â€”Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

(b) MINORS.â€”Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

Hmm -- and source code means meta data? Body copy? Both:

the term â€˜source codeâ€™ means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.

And what's obscene or harmful to minors? I didn't find that defined in the copy (PDF file) of the bill News.com is pointing at. Section 2252B covers the part about minors, and that's here.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the term â€œmaterial that is harmful to minorsâ€ means any communication, consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its contextâ€”

(1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;

(2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and

(3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term â€œsexâ€ means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial [1] contact with a personâ€™s genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

The News.com article goes into more depth on how a lack of clarity could mean that a porn site showing things like Barbie dolls having sex could potentially fall into trouble.

As a parent, I certainly appreciate an effort to protect my children and those of others. But I also get worried about laws that potentially are overly broad. What's "obscene" isn't well defined, for example, from what I can see. We'll see how it goes.

FYI, even without this law, the US government has already been able to stop sites that are misleading. FTC Steps In To Stop Spamming covers how in 1999, the US Federal Trade Commission did exactly this in a case of a porn site trying to mislead people to it.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:24 PM | Permalink

July 20, 2006

Amnesty International Asking Users To Pressure Google, Yahoo & Microsoft Over China Policies

BBC News reports that Amnesty International is urging users of Google, Yahoo and MSN in the UK to email the search engines opposing the way each operates in China. Amnesty International says that the search engines are aiding the censorship. The search engines say that Chinese users are more well off then they were prior. More on the Amnesty campaign can be found here from the organization.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:24 AM | Permalink

Amnesty International Asking Users To Pressure Google, Yahoo & Microsoft Over China Policies

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:24 AM | Permalink

Amnesty International Asking Users To Pressure Google, Yahoo & Microsoft Over China Policies

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:24 AM | Permalink

Amnesty International Asking Users To Pressure Google, Yahoo & Microsoft Over China Policies

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:24 AM | Permalink

July 6, 2006

Myanmar Enables Access To Google After Blocking Gmail & GTalk

Mizzima News reports that Myanmar (also known as Burma) has opened up access to Google again, after blocking it about a week ago. Reportedly Myanmar blocked Google and Gmail/GTalk because they want to control the revenues earned from the state-controlled telephone companies. Myanmar has been known to block web-based email accounts because they want to only allow state-controlled email usage.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Enables Access To Google After Blocking Gmail & GTalk

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Enables Access To Google After Blocking Gmail & GTalk

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Enables Access To Google After Blocking Gmail & GTalk

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 11:18 AM | Permalink

July 5, 2006

Google Warns U.S. Legislators On Anti-Trust Complaints Over Net Neutrality

The Washington Post reports that Google has warned the United States, that if telecoms abuse net neutrality principles it backs, through a new law that might go through, it could consider an anti-trust action. If you want all the details, check out the Washington Post.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:46 AM | Permalink

Google Warns U.S. Legislators On Anti-Trust Complaints Over Net Neutrality

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:46 AM | Permalink

Google Warns U.S. Legislators On Anti-Trust Complaints Over Net Neutrality

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:46 AM | Permalink

Google Warns U.S. Legislators On Anti-Trust Complaints Over Net Neutrality

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:46 AM | Permalink

June 30, 2006

Myanmar Government Blocks Google & GMail?

The Times of India reports that Myanmar government has blocked Internet users from reaching Google.com and Gmail. They claim users trying to reach Google and Gmail for the past week have been received "Access Denied" responses. Myanmar's largest ISP, Bagan Cybertech, confirmed the issue that the sites were "inaccessible but declined to comment further."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:58 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Government Blocks Google & GMail?

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:58 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Government Blocks Google & GMail?

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:58 AM | Permalink

Myanmar Government Blocks Google & GMail?

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:58 AM | Permalink

June 26, 2006

Google To Also Lobby In Europe

Pandia covers that Google is looking to hire a "senior European government affairs and public policy leader," to lobby in Europe. Google has hired a lobbying firm in the states a few months back. More details on the story at Pandia.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:37 AM | Permalink

Google To Also Lobby In Europe

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:37 AM | Permalink

Google To Also Lobby In Europe

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:37 AM | Permalink

Google To Also Lobby In Europe

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:37 AM | Permalink

June 23, 2006

Child Porn Suit Dropped Against Google

The Associated Press reports that the suit brought against Google for profiting on child pornography has been dropped. Jeffrey Toback, of the Nassau County Legislature, filed the suit in early May. Toback said he dropped the suit because "Google has offered to sit down and discuss the issues. They didn't want to do that while litigation was pending, so we're taking them up on their offer."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:35 AM | Permalink

Child Porn Suit Dropped Against Google

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:35 AM | Permalink

Child Porn Suit Dropped Against Google

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:35 AM | Permalink

Child Porn Suit Dropped Against Google

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 8:35 AM | Permalink

June 16, 2006

Yahoo China Highest Censorship Enforcing

Wired News reports that Yahoo China is the strictest at censoring out politically sensitive results when compared to Google China and MSN China. Reporters Without Borders, an advocacy group, conducted tests by querying ten "politically-sensitive keywords" including “press freedom” or “human rights." Editors & Publisher adds the group found Yahoo's censorship was shocking, for example, as when a keyword search on "subversive" brought back 97% pro-Beijing results. More from Reporters Without Borders is here, explaining how six keywords were tested and the first ten results analyzed.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:17 AM | Permalink

Yahoo China Highest Censorship Enforcing

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:17 AM | Permalink

Yahoo China Highest Censorship Enforcing

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:17 AM | Permalink

Yahoo China Highest Censorship Enforcing

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:17 AM | Permalink

June 15, 2006

Google Relaunches US Government Search, Now With Personalized Home Page

Google launched its search engine for US government information, informally known as Google Uncle Sam, many years ago. It's been running since at least 1999. But now the service has received an update giving it a personalized home page and formal branding as Google US Government Search.

By default, the new home page shows the weather in Washington DC (outlook: political infighting, with mudslinging later in the week) and headlines from the US White House, top government stories out of Google News (though a concocted query string), Washington Post headlines, headlines from the American Forces Information Services and headlines from Government Executive magazine.

As before, you can search and have results come back just from US government web sites, along with state and local government sites in the United States. Google's help page explains more. Try net neutrality on Google US government search, and you'll see how compared to a regular Google search, listings disappear from Wikipedia, political groups supporting net neutrality, news organizations reporting on the issue and other sources. Instead, it's just information published on government web servers in the US. And that's a good thing, for those who just want to home in on official government materials.

There's at least one glitch. The search result pages still show the old red, white & blue Google American Flag-styled logo on the government search site, and clicking on the logo takes you back to regular Google rather than the government search home page.

Already have a personalized home page? One nice thing is that you can personalize the US government search page independently of your other page. However, searches on the US government search site do flow into your main search history, if you have the feature enabled.

The relaunch comes on the heels of Google political moves last week. Google tried a last-minute lobbying attempt for net neutrality by cofounder Sergey Brin and an effort to rally Google users to lobby for net neutrality plus harvest their names for future political pushes.

It's hard not to see the updated US government search service as a way to attract government workers and insiders to a place where Google can influence them. Google ultimately controls the personalized home page and can choose to insert material on it any time it wants. That's a powerful tool if many people involved with the government start tuning into the page.

Certainly giving the Washington Post an exclusive on breaking the news helps fuel the idea that Google's doing a push along these lines. The Post is the only media outlet to have been prebriefed on the release, that I can tell. That helps ensure the story gets good play, plus causes competing print media outlets to give the story a second day of coverage doing catch-up stories. Of course, the Post also gets prime space on the new site, as well. That probably won't please some competing political news publications, though anyone can add anything to that page manually.

By the way, to add material, look for the Add Content link in the top left-hand side of the page. Opening that allows you to add the URL of any publication producing an RSS feed with content, or you can also search for matching sites of interest. Google also looks to have added a new Government category of recommended selections, which offer a range of official sources. See also the help page for more on personalization.

Google to Launch Government Search Site is the Washington Post's story on the launch, with Google quotes on seeking to serve government employees and average citizens better with it. The story also list competing government search engines, including the official one at FirstGov.gov. That's powered by Microsoft. We covered this recently here: New Firstgov.gov Search Database Goes Live.

By the way, let's clear up some URL confusion:

http://usgov.google.com is the main URL for the new site.
http://www.google.com/ig/usgov also works. It's where the official URL redirects people to.
http://www.google.com/unclesam is the address of the old service, which is still live and works just like the new service, but without the personalized components. You also find it still listed on Google's special searches page. I expect Google will eventually redirect this URL to the new service when they realize it's still live.

Looking for more about government search engines? See the Search Types: Government category of our Search Topics section, available to Search Engine Watch members.

Postscript: Google now has a press release on the launch up here, though it is fairly sparse. The Google Blog also has a short post here. And Google tells me the Washington Post was the only major daily/wire outlet prebriefed, though some small government trade publications also got info.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:35 AM | Permalink

Google Relaunches US Government Search, Now With Personalized Home Page

By the way, let's clear up some URL confusion:

http://usgov.google.com is the main URL for the new site.
http://www.google.com/ig/usgov also works. It's where the official URL redirects people to.
http://www.google.com/unclesam is the address of the old service, which is still live and works just like the new service, but without the personalized components. You also find it still listed on Google's special searches page. I expect Google will eventually redirect this URL to the new service when they realize it's still live.

Looking for more about government search engines? See the Search Types: Government category of our Search Topics section, available to Search Engine Watch members.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:35 AM | Permalink

Google Relaunches US Government Search, Now With Personalized Home Page

By the way, let's clear up some URL confusion:

http://usgov.google.com is the main URL for the new site.
http://www.google.com/ig/usgov also works. It's where the official URL redirects people to.
http://www.google.com/unclesam is the address of the old service, which is still live and works just like the new service, but without the personalized components. You also find it still listed on Google's special searches page. I expect Google will eventually redirect this URL to the new service when they realize it's still live.

Looking for more about government search engines? See the Search Types: Government category of our Search Topics section, available to Search Engine Watch members.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:35 AM | Permalink

Google Relaunches US Government Search, Now With Personalized Home Page

By the way, let's clear up some URL confusion:

http://usgov.google.com is the main URL for the new site.
http://www.google.com/ig/usgov also works. It's where the official URL redirects people to.
http://www.google.com/unclesam is the address of the old service, which is still live and works just like the new service, but without the personalized components. You also find it still listed on Google's special searches page. I expect Google will eventually redirect this URL to the new service when they realize it's still live.

Looking for more about government search engines? See the Search Types: Government category of our Search Topics section, available to Search Engine Watch members.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:35 AM | Permalink

June 14, 2006

Japan To Build Own Search Engine With 30 Japanese Companies & Government Help

The Mainichi Daily show that Japan is going to be building out their own search engine after conducting a focus group on the idea. Thirty organizations in Japan and the University of Tokyo will be working to develop the Japanese based search engine. Part of the group includes big brands such as Hitachi, Fujitsu and Nippon. The Japanese government plans on providing a subsidy for the project. Why? "Many people in Japan fear that the domination of the three firms will prevent Japanese companies from entering the market." The European Union, led by France, is doing something very similar.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:40 AM | Permalink

Japan To Build Own Search Engine With 30 Japanese Companies & Government Help

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:40 AM | Permalink

Japan To Build Own Search Engine With 30 Japanese Companies & Government Help

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:40 AM | Permalink

Japan To Build Own Search Engine With 30 Japanese Companies & Government Help

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:40 AM | Permalink

New York State Sends Warning On Google Video Service

ResourceShelf notes a Red Herring article about the New York State Consumer Protection Board (CPB) warning parents about Google Video. The warning discussed that Google Video enables children to "easily access and view videos with sexual themes and off-color material" all for free. ResourceShelf also notes that the only video service mentioned in this warning is Google Video, not YouTube or Yahoo Video.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:18 AM | Permalink

New York State Sends Warning On Google Video Service

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:18 AM | Permalink

New York State Sends Warning On Google Video Service

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:18 AM | Permalink

New York State Sends Warning On Google Video Service

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:18 AM | Permalink

June 8, 2006

Google Calls On Users To Lobby For Net Neutrality

Google cofounder Sergey Brin might not have been able to lobby all the US senators he wanted earlier this week to stop a bill that threatens net neutrality. But Google still has a big stick to wave -- its users. The Debate over Net Neutrality on the Official Google Blog urges Google users to call their representatives and ask that the bill be stopped (it's up for a vote this week).

The blog points to an open letter Eric Schmidt has written to Google users, bulletpointing three action steps -- call, sign online petitions and sign-up for a new Google Policy Alert list. That list is notable. It will give Google the ability to mobile users for future policy fights -- assuming they jump in on it, of course.

The really big gun has yet to be rolled out. There's nothing I see on the Google home page about the call to action. C'mon Google, if you're that serious about it, put something out where your users will actually see it, on the home page.

Searches on net neutrality don't bring up any Google house ads that target those in the US. They do bring up ads for the two online petitions Google is promoting: ItsOurNet and SaveTheInternet.com. No idea if these are free or discounted ads -- I'll check on this and postscript if this turns out to be the case. I suspect not.

Unofficially, Microsoft calling for action. At least Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble is, in his Key network neutrality bill up for vote tomorrow.

Postscript: Net neutrality failed in a US House Of Representatives vote yesterday, sadly.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:01 AM | Permalink

Google Calls On Users To Lobby For Net Neutrality