The EU Has the Google in Targeting Range for 2023
January 10, 2023
Unlike the United States, the European Union does not allow Google to collect user data. The EU has passed several laws to protect its citizens’ privacy, however, Google can still deploy tools like Google Analytics with stipulations. Tutanota explains how Google operates inside the EU laws in, “Is Google Analytics Illegal In The EU? Yes And No, But Mostly Yes.”
Max Schrems is a lawyer who successfully sued Facebook for violating the privacy of Europeans. He won again, this time against Google. France and Austria decided that Google Analytics is illegal to use in Europe, but Denmark’s and Norway’s data protection authorities developed legally compliant ways to use the analytics service.
Organizations were using Google Analytics to collect user information, but that violated Europeans’ privacy rights because it exposed them to American surveillance. The tech industry did not listen to the ruling, so Schrems sued:
“However, the Silicon Valley tech industry largely ignored the ruling. This has now led to the ruling that Google Analytics is banned in Europe. NOYB says:
‘While this (=invalidation of Privacy Shield) sent shock waves through the tech industry, US providers and EU data exporters have largely ignored the case. Just like Microsoft, Facebook or Amazon, Google has relied on so-called ‘standard Contract Clauses’ to continue data transfers and calm its European business partners.’
Now, the Austrian Data Protection Authority strikes the same chord as the European court when declaring Privacy Shield as invalid: It has decided that the use of Google Analytics is illegal as it violates the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Google is “subject to surveillance by US intelligence services and can be ordered to disclose data of European citizens to them’. Therefore, the data of European citizens may not be transferred across the Atlantic.”
There are alternatives to Google services, including Gmail and Google Analytics based in Europe, Canada, and the United States. This appears to be one more example of the EU lining up financial missiles to strike the Google.
Whitney Grace, January 10, 2023
UK Focused on Apple and Google in 2023
January 6, 2023
While there continues to be some market competition with big tech companies, each has their own monopoly in the technology industry. The United Statuses slow to address these industry monopolies, but the United Kingdom wants to end Google and Apples’ control says Mac Rumors in the article: “UK Begins Market Investigation Into Apple and Google’s Mobile Dominance.”
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will investigate how Apple and Google dominate the mobile market as well as Apple’s restrictions on cloud gaming through its App Store. Smaller technology and gaming companies stated that Google and Apple are harming their bottom lines and holding back innovation:
“The consultation found 86% of respondents support taking a closer look at Apple and Google’s market dominance. Browser vendors, web developers, and cloud gaming service providers said the tech giants’ mobile ecosystems are harming their businesses, holding back innovation, and adding unnecessary costs.
The feedback effectively justifies the findings of a year-long study by the CMA into Apple and Google’s mobile ecosystems, which the regulatory body called an “effective duopoly” that allows the companies to “exercise a stranglehold over these markets.” According to the CMA, 97% of all mobile web browsing in the UK in 2021 happened on browsers powered by either Apple’s or Google’s browser engine, so any restrictions can have a major impact on users’ experiences.”
The CMA will conduct an eighteen-month-long investigation and will require Apple to share information about its business products. After the investigation, the CMA could legally force Apple to make changes to its business practices. Apple, of course, denies its current practices promote innovation and competition as well as protect users’ privacy and security.
Whitney Grace, January 6, 2023
Google and Its View of Copy and Paste: Not Okay, No, No, No!
January 4, 2023
Another day, another hoot. Today (January 4, 2023) I read a “real” news story from the trust outfit Thomson Reuters titled “Google Alleges India Antitrust Body Copied Parts of EU Order on Android Abuse.” Yes, that’s the title. Google. Copying. India. Abuse.
I ran through my mind a few instances of allegations of the Google doing the copying. First, there was the online advertising dust up. My belief is that most people are not aware that Google paid Yahoo to make a dispute about online advertising technology go away. This was in 2004, and the Saul Hansell (who?) story is online at this link. To make a long story short, for me the deal allowed the Google to become an alleged monopoly in online advertising. It also made clear to me that innovation at Google meant copying. Interesting? I think so.
Then there were the hassles with newspapers and publishers about Google News. Wikipedia has a summary of the jousting. You can find the “Controversies with Publishers” thumbnail at this link. I would summarize the history of Google News this way: Others create timely information and Google copies it. Google emphasizes its service to users; publishers talk about copying without payment. The dismal copy paste drama began in 2002 and continues to this day.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Google’s scanning of books. I think of book scanning as similar to my photocopying a journal article when I was in college. I preferred to mark up the copy and create my University of Chicago style manual approved footnotes sitting in a cheap donut shop miles from the university library. After a decade of insisting that copying books was okay, the courts agreed. Google could copy. How are those clicks on Google Books and Google Scholar going in 2023. You can read about this copying decision in “After 10 Years, Google Books Is Legal.”
Copying is good, true, high value, and important to users and obviously to the Google.
Now what did the Reuters’ article tell me today? Let’s take a look:
Google has told a tribunal in India that the country’s antitrust investigators copied parts of a European ruling against the U.S. firm for abusing the market dominance of its Android operating system, arguing the decision be quashed, legal papers show.
Google is objecting to a nation state’s use of legal language copied from a European Union document.
Yep, copied.
Does Google care about copying and the role it has played at Google? In my opinion, no. What Google cares about is the rising tide of litigation and the deafening sound of cash registers ringing as a result of Google’s behavior.
Yep, copying. That’s a hoot. How does Google think laws, regulations, and bills are made? In my experience, it’s control C and control V.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2022
Tech Transfer: Will Huawei Amp Up Litigation for Alleged Infringement
January 4, 2023
Those patents can be tough to read. However, there are legal eagles who have engineering degrees and industry experience, to determine if one firm is infringing on another outfit’s patent. What do the legal eagles for the allegedly intellectual property misdeeds do. I am no lawyer, but I think the basic objective is to figure out the alleged infraction and then do as much research as possible to learn. Ultimately the exercise can lead to patent litigation. In some instances, however, owning a patent opens the door to some fascinating analytic technology. Relationship maps, documents authored by the inventors or the engineers snared in the research, and a reason to ask questions, take stuff apart, and determine the appropriate action. In some cases, there will be a wham bam patent lawsuit. But in other situations, the outfit which feels as its it crown jewel was torn from its well formed head, just gets smarter.
Ah, has. Could this desire to get smarter or just ask a lot of questions be part of the Huawei plan for the Samsung patents?
“Samsung Transfers 98 of Its US Patents to Huawei” reports:
a new report from The Elec claims that Samsung has just transferred 98 patents it owned in the United States to Huawei last month. This includes the 81 patents that Samsung transferred to Huawei in 2019. So far, the South Korean company has transferred a total of 179 patents to Huawei.
What about the sanctions? Well, what about them? Armed with legal eagles, Huawei may obtain some useful information if it pursues alleged infringement investigations. The legal work can take place in the US. But what about the data harvested by the Huawei legal team? Could that information find its way to the China-affiliated firm?
Birds fly don’t they information going to be helpful? Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2023
Google: Do Small Sites Need Anti Terrorism Help or Is the Issue Better Addressed Elsewhere?
January 3, 2023
Are “little sites” really in need of Google’s anti-terrorism tool? Oh, let me be clear. Google is — according to “Google Develops Free Terrorism-Moderation Tool for Smaller Websites” — in the process of creating Googley software. This software will be:
a free moderation tool that smaller websites can use to identify and remove terrorist material, as new legislation in the UK and the EU compels Internet companies to do more to tackle illegal content.
And what institutions are working with Google on this future software? The article reports:
The software is being developed in partnership with the search giant’s research and development unit Jigsaw and Tech Against Terrorism, a UN-backed initiative that helps tech companies police online terrorism.
What’s interesting to me is that the motivation for this to-be software or filtering system is in development. The software, it seems, does not exist.
Why would Google issue statements about vaporware?
The article provides a clue:
The move comes as Internet companies will be forced to remove extremist content from their platforms or face fines and other penalties under laws such as the Digital Services Act in the EU, which came into force in November, and the UK’s Online Safety bill, which is expected to become law this year.
I understand. Google’s management understands that regulation and fines are not going away in 2023. It is logical, therefore, to get in front of the problem. How does Google propose to do this?
Yep, vaporware. (I have a hunch there is a demonstration available.) Nevertheless, the genuine article is not available to small Web sites, who need help in coping with terrorism-related content.
How will the tool work? The article states:
Jigsaw’s tool aims to tackle the next step of the process and help human moderators make decisions on content flagged as dangerous and illegal. It will begin testing with two unnamed sites at the beginning of this year.
Everything sounds good when viewed the top of Mount Public Relations, where the vistas are clear and the horizons are unlimited.
I want to make one modest observation: Small Web sites run on hosting services. These hosting services are, in my opinion, more suitable locations for filtering software. The problem is that hosting providers comprise a complex and diverse group of enterprises. In fact, I have yet to receive from my research team a count of service providers that is accurate and comprehensive.
Pushing the responsibility to the operator of a single Web site strikes me as a non-functional approach. Would it make sense for Google’s tool to be implemented in service providers. The content residing on the service providers equipment or co-located hardware and in the stream of data for virtual private systems or virtual private servers. The terrorism related content would be easier to block.
Let’s take a reasonable hosting service; for example, Hertzner in Germany or OVHCloud in France. The European Union could focus on these enabling nodes and implement either the Google system if and when it becomes available and actually works or an alternative filtering method devised by a European team. (I would suggest that Europol or similar entities can develop the needed filters, test them, and maintain them.) Google has a tendency to create or talk about solutions and then walk away after a period of time. Remember Google’s Web Accelerator?)
Based on our research for an upcoming presentation to a group of investigators focused on cyber crime, service providers (what I call enablers) should be the point of attention in an anti-terrorism action. Furthermore, these enablers are also pivotal in facilitating certain types of online crime. Examples abound. These range from right-wing climate activists using services in Romania to child pornography hosted on what we call “shadow ISPs.” These shadow enablers operate specialized services specifically to facilitate illegal activities within specialized software like The Onion Router and other obfuscation methods.
For 2023, I advocate ignoring PR motivated “to be” software. I think the efforts of national and international law enforcement should be directed at the largely unregulated and often reluctant “enablers.” I agree that some small Web site operators could do more. But I think it is time to take a closer look at enablers operating from vacant lots in the Seychelles or service providers running cyber fraud operations to be held responsible.
Fixing the Internet requires consequences. Putting the focus on small Web sites is a useful idea. But turning up the enforcement and regulatory heat on the big outfits will deliver more heat where being “chill” has allowed criminal activity to flourish. I have not mentioned the US and Canada. I have not forgotten that there are enablers operating in plain sight in such places as Detroit and Québec City. Google’s PR play is a way to avoid further legal and financial hassles.
It is time to move from “to be” software to “taking purposeful, intentional action.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
The AI Copyright Wars Are Underway
January 3, 2023
Adobe develops great software for a high price tag. It really stinks when Adobe slaps the SaaS sticker on software and demands a yearly licensing fee. Adobe is making a smart, yet controversial business move says Axios: “Adobe Will Sell AI-Made Stock Images.”
Adobe decided to open its stock image service to AI-generated images. Adobe sees it as a smart business move, because the company believes AI-generated images will complement human artists. Humans will not be replaced by programs.
Adobe will accept these images as long as they are properly labeled. Getty Images, another stock photo supplier, says differently because they do not want to deal with the legal risks. Adobe is happily proceeding forward, because it means more money in their pockets:
“Adobe, by contrast, seems comfortable with the legal risk. Although it is requiring creators to affirm they have proper rights to the works they submit, it will indemnify buyers of stock images should there be any legal challenges.”
There are also the questions:
“That’s significant given that there are a number of unanswered questions around generative AI, including whether people whose works have been part of training the AI systems have any legal claim to the systems or the works they produce.”
It is a future fact that copyright trolls will legally go after people who use AI software to create substantially similar images. We cannot wait to see that litigation.
Whitney Grace, January 3, 2022
Another Lilting French Cash Register Chime
January 2, 2023
An outfit call SC Magazine reported that the French cash registers — you know the quaint one with brass letters and the cheery red enamel — has chimed again. “Microsoft Fined $64 Million by France over Cookies Used in Bing Searches” reports:
France’s privacy watchdog fined Microsoft €60 million ($64 million) for not offering clear enough instruction for users to reject cookies used for online ads, as part of the move to enforce Europe’s tightening data protection law.
The write up noted:
Microsoft has been ordered to solve the issue within three months by implementing a simplified cookie refusal mechanism, or it could face additional fines of €60,000 a day…
It seems that some US companies do not take those French and EU regulations seriously. My suggestion to the Softies: France in not the US. Get on a couple of special lists and you may find some quality time in a glass room at CDG next time you visit. The good news is that US embassy personnel can visit you without too much red tape bedecking those gray suits.
Stephen E Arnold, January 2, 2023
Need a Human for Special Work? Just Buy One Maybe?
December 29, 2022
Is it possible to purchase a person? Judging from the rumors I have heard in rural Romania, outside the airport in Khartoum, and in a tavern in Tirana — I would suggest that the answer is “possibly.” The Times of London is not into possibilities if the information in “Maids Trafficked and Sold to Wealthy Saudis on Black Market” is accurate. Keep in mind that I am mindful of what I call open source information blindspots. Shaped, faked, and weaponized information is now rampant.
The article focuses on an ecommerce site called Haraj.sa. The article explains:
[The site] Saudi Arabia’s largest online marketplace, through which a Times investigation shows that hundreds of domestic workers are being illegally trafficked and sold to the highest bidders.
Furthermore, the Times adds:
The app, which had 2.5 million visits last year — more than Amazon or AliExpress within the kingdom — is still available on the Apple and Google Play stores despite being criticised by the UN’s Special Rapporteurs in 2020 for facilitating modern slavery.
If true, the article is likely to make for some uncomfortable days as the world swings into 2023; specifically:
- The Saudi government
- Apple
- Assorted law enforcement professionals.
If the information in the write up is accurate, several of the newspaper’s solicitors will be engaged in conversations with other parties’ solicitors. I assume that there will be some conversations in Mayfair and Riyadh about the article. Will Interpol become curious? Probably.
Let’s step back and ask some different questions. I am assuming that some of the information in the article is “correct”; that is, one can verify screenshots or chase down the source of the information. Maybe the lead journalist will consent to an interview on a true crime podcast. Whatever.
Consider these questions:
- Why release the story at the peak of some countries’ holiday season? Is the timing designed to minimize or emphasize the sensitive topic of alleged slavery, the Kingdom’s conventions, or the apparent slipshod app review process at controversial US high technology companies?
- What exactly did or does Apple and Google know about the app for the Haraj marketplace? If the Times’ story is accurate, what management issue exists at each of these large, but essential to some, companies?
- Is the ecommerce site operating within the Kingdom’s cultural norms or is the site itself breaking outside legal guidelines? What does Saudi Arabia say about this site?
To sum up, human trafficking is a concern for many individuals, government entities, and non-governmental organizations. I keep coming back to the question “Why now?” The article states:
Apple said: “We strictly prohibit the solicitation or promotion of illegal behaviour, including human trafficking and child exploitation, in the App Store and across every part of our business. We take any accusations or claims around this behaviour very seriously.” Google declined to comment. Haraj, Saudi Arabia’s human rights commission and the government have been contacted for a response.
Perhaps taking more time to obtain comments would have been useful? What’s the political backstory for the disclosure of the allegedly accurate information during the holiday season? Note that the story is behind a paywall which further limits its diffusion.
Net net: Many questions have I.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2022
Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching: The Unforgettable Tune Haunting Meta
December 26, 2022
What’s the sound of the European cash registers? Ka-ching, ka-ching. The melody of money.
I spotted two allegedly true real news stories this morning that sound like previous write ups about the Zuckbook, oops, Facebook, oh, darn, Meta.
The first is “Meta Settles Cambridge Analytica Class-Action Lawsuit for $725 Million.” The story reports:
Parent company Meta has agreed to pay $725 million to settle a long-running class-action lawsuit accusing Facebook of allowing Cambridge Analytica and other third parties to access user’s private information…
Cambridge Analytica. Four years ago. Links to possible intelligence activities in a certain special operation favoring nation state. Lies. What’s not to love? The is writing a check for $725 million. In terms of fellow traveler Twitter that’s peanuts. No big deal. Guilty? “Senator, thank you for that question….”
The second write up is “EU Tells Meta That Facebook Marketplace Breaches Anti-Trust Rules.” This write up explains:
In yet another demonstration of the new aggressive stance of European regulators, the EU has lodged a notice accusing Meta of ‘abusive practices’. The allegation relates to the fact that Facebook Marketplace currently ties its online classified ads service to the Facebook social network. The European Commission alleges that the company imposes unfair trading conditions on rivals to its Facebook Marketplace, in order to gain a commercial advantage.
How disrespectful! The Zuck has worked to bring people together. The Marketplace does that. I live in rural Kentucky. One of my neighbors was killed meeting a person to purchase a mobile phone. The connection making mechanism seems to have been a certain social network. It is clear to me that I don’t understand the bridge building, good vibe generating mechanisms of social media. That’s okay. I am a dinobaby.
Let’s get back to the music of ka-ching, ka-ching.
I have some expectation that the European Union will be ringing its cash registers in 2023. Some US high-technology companies output cash when the tune ka-ching, ka-ching sounds. That may be a conditioned reflex similar to Ivan Pavlov’s demonstration of conditioning. Yes, ka-ching may be a suitable substitute for dog treats. Woof.
In my opinion, the ka-ching, ka-ching thing suggests:
- A pattern of behavior that flaunts expected business practices
- Management attitudes that encourage behavior some lawmakers consider illegal
- An increasing perception that some of the societal pressure points are becoming more sensitive because of certain social media practices.
Fair or unfair? True or false?
Well, just listen: Ka-ching, ka-ching.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2022
In France, Tipping in Restaurants, Non. Showing Appreciation to the Government, Oui
December 23, 2022
Ah, France. Land of 200 cheeses, medallion bedecked chickens, and fat American high-tech creatures. Go to a French restaurant and order (in French certaInment) a cooked bird. Chow down. Do not tip the waiter. Say “merci” and smile. But if you a very fat, super large, very unpredictable American technology company tipping is mandatory.
Don’t believe me?
Read “Microsoft Hit with €60 Million Fine by France for Not Offering Cookie Opt Out on Bing.” Mais oui. The write up reports:
In addition, CNIL will fine Microsoft €60,000 per day within three months if it doesn’t ask users for consent to use an ad fraud detection cookie.
Will Microsoft’s paying up make the governmental doubt about Microsoft become like the mist in Verdon Gorge?
Ho ho ho.
In order to do business in France, American outfits have to go through a number of hoops. Some are easy; others require some bureaucratic finesse. One example is for an American company to sell something to the French government. There are hoops for American cheese. I have been informed that canned American cheese propelled by carbon dioxide is a hoot at some French parties. Mon dieu! Aerosol fromage. Interesting.
With the EU chasing some firms who say one thing and do another, fining some big tech companies is a way to get an allowance from mom. Amazon appears to decided to just pay up.
Microsoft may enter the fascinating French legal system to explain that its tracking devices are different. Oh, well. Some French judicial officials can use a mobile phone. But the cookie thing? Maybe not so much.
What’s the sound I hear? It is ka-ching.
Finding reasons to take legal action against US big tech companies is easy. The regret, as I understand it, is that it take a long time to get the money from the Americans.
What’s the outlook for 2023? That’s a softball question. The answer is more lawyers pecking on the confused Americans. The Monaco Grand Prix is in France right?
Stephen E Arnold, December 23, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
