Into Tech

We’re running a little experiment here with our discussion on Google’s new Lively offering. Two of us at Techdirt, Mike Masnick and Mike Ho, reacted quite differently to the announcement, so we’re each posting our own take (after sharing them with each other) and we’ll let everyone has out their thoughts in the comments. We’re hoping to work on a few more “debates” like this one in the near future. This is Mike Masnick’s post. Mike Ho’s post is here.

Google’s latest product launch, Google Lively is a 3D chat room offering that has plenty of people comparing it to Second Life, though in its initial version, it seems a lot closer to IMVU, a popular 3D chat solution that is apparently growing like mad. It’s really no different than your everyday chat room other than the fact that your text chat takes place in a 3D animated room with avatars who can do a few different pre-designated actions. The Google version requires a software download, but after that apparently will appear in a browser, meaning that it can be included as parts of any site. It’s still not clear what the actual advantage of such an offering is beyond traditional chat — or what sort of advantage Google may have in providing a similar solution to what’s already out there, beyond just the Google brand name. Perhaps there’s more to this offering, but at a first pass, this seems like a me-too effort by Google without any significant advantage (yet).

This isn’t say it won’t get usage, but I’m having trouble figuring out what about this is really all that useful compared to other solutions out there. Google’s successes all seem to be about a new and different take on something out there that makes is significantly more useful: Google search made search better, faster and cleaner. Gmail massively increased storage while providing a much cleaner, faster and more useful interface. Google Maps took the tired interface of internet mapping and made it (again) cleaner, faster and more useful. It’s not clear that Lively really does any of that. It requires a download, and seems to merely copy what else is already out there without a significant advantage over any of them. Perhaps people will use this just because it’s from Google — but it still seems like it should be more compelling then just adding 3D avatars to chat.

As for Mike Ho’s claims that this follows the same path as Gmail and Google Maps, I disagree. Both of those were instant sensations that attracted instant attention and usage do their differentiation. I also disagree with the assertion that Google is doing this just to add in contextual ads. While that may happen, contextual ads on chat seem a much more difficult proposition than on email, where there’s a lot more content. Plus, it’s difficult to see how ads would fit unobtrusively into such a scenario. Despite what some assert, Google doesn’t try to stick ads everywhere, knowing that too many ads will often upset users. Finally, it’s difficult to see how ads stuck into a synchronous process such as chat ad value. It would seem like they do more to detract value.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Slashdot points us to the amusing story of technology “solving” a theft of an irrigation controller on a farm, thanks to a wireless connection. The irrigation controller was stolen, which was first noticed when it sent an error message to the guy who runs them. A few weeks later, though, he was surprised to get a signal from the controller, and he was able to communicate with the device and get the company that supplied the wireless connection to triangulate and reveal the general location of the unit (the guy had the maker of the controller, who obviously contracts with the wireless provider, request this info to make sure the request was legit). From that, the guy used Google Earth to figure out where the controller must be — and went to the local police. After investigating the person whose property it ended up on, the controller went missing again… only to turn back up in its original location a few weeks later.

While it’s a neat story of technology thwarting a theft, there are a few questions raised by the story. To be honest, the full writeup so pumps up this particular brand of irrigation controller system, that it almost sounds like an apocryphal story made up to hype up how much better this controller is than competitors (look, it’s theft proof!). Also, despite the “happy ending” — the actual thieves were not apprehended, and future thieves will simply learn to disable the wireless communications ability. In the meantime, though, it’s a reminder that technology is making the job of the ordinary thief somewhat more difficult these days.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We were surprised that politicians in Sweden approved a highly questionable bill that allowed rather widespread spying on all sorts of internet communications, despite widespread protests. Of course, now that the bill has become law, it seems that the protests are only getting much, much louder, going beyond the initial group of bloggers complaining to the mainstream press, and including large companies like Google and Telia moving servers out of Sweden to protect their users. Plus, nearby Belgium is threatening to sue, pointing out that Belgian citizens may be spied on without any apparent reason. Amazingly, the politicians who approved this bill are staying largely silent, despite the growing clamor about it. They originally tried to brush off the complaints from “spirited amateurs” who just need to just need to “calm down.” But that doesn’t seem to be working very well.

While it’s unclear what will happen here, this is just the latest in a long line of recent efforts to bring together people to call attention to questionable political moves that politicians in the past have been able to sneak through with little public scrutiny. While there is always some risk of misdirecting the potential “mob mentality” that can arise in these situations, it should make politicians start to think twice before believing they can just sneak through any law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It was just a couple weeks ago that we (skeptically) noted that there were a bunch of companies trying to create systems to use things like a “FriendRank” to use “influence” to help advertise. However, it looks like those companies may have to deal with a bit of a patent block. Slashdot points out that Google has applied for a patent on just such a process to establish a sort of “FriendRank.” Of course, the fact that there are a bunch of companies all trying to do this (prior to this patent application being published) certainly suggests that this is hardly the sort of breakthrough that requires a patent (though, it seems likely that those other companies are also applying for patents, meaning we may soon have yet another patent thicket).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Well now that Google’s dealt with one ridiculous privacy complaint, it appears it has another to deal with. As Google is preparing to launch its “Street View” offerings in Europe (which let people see photos of the streets they search for on Google Maps), some privacy groups are complaining how its a violation of people’s privacy. Apparently the fact that they were photographed out in public hasn’t occurred to the privacy group. Even more to the point, as Google has pointed out in response, despite the fact that anyone caught in these photographs was in public, it’s recently rolled out a system to automatically blur faces of people who end up in the Street View photos. Overall, the whole complaint seems to be much ado about nothing from privacy advocates who have much more important things to focus on.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It’s the merger story that never dies. Despite however many times that Yahoo and Microsoft have insisted that any potential deal between the two companies is over and done with (despite trying a few times), there’s indications (once again) that Microsoft isn’t out of this yet, and could potentially come back in and do a new deal if Carl Icahn gets the board slate that he wants. Again, though, it seems like Icahn’s talkative nature actually devalued the deal a bit. In talking about how much he wants to sell Yahoo (if he gains control over it), he’s making it that much easier for Microsoft to buy at a lower price than otherwise. It’s difficult to see how that’s possibly in Icahn’s own best interests. Still, the longer this goes on, the more of a mess it becomes — and the happier Google gets.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

One of the more idiotic accusations thrown at Google of late was this idea that it was somehow a problem that it didn’t link directly to its privacy policy from its home page. It had a privacy policy. That privacy policy was easy to find. Almost no one actually reads its privacy policy — but a bunch of privacy groups who surely had more important things to spend their time on got all upset that Google refused to link from its front page. It appears that Google has now given in and agreed to link to the privacy policy, oddly removing the word “Google” from its copyright notice and replacing it with a link to the privacy policy.

Perhaps more idiotic is the response from a bunch of privacy groups claiming that this somehow makes a difference. It doesn’t. It’s privacy theater. It looks good, but it means nothing. People still won’t read the privacy policy — and even if they did, they probably wouldn’t even remember what it said. Where a privacy policy is linked from a website is meaningless compared to what a company actually does to take the privacy of its users seriously. Getting up in arms over whether or not Google links to the privacy policy from its front page is a joke. And, oh yeah, some are noticing that just linking to the privacy policy probably does not fulfill the legal obligation required by California’s law on linking to privacy policies. Perhaps these “privacy advocate” groups have something else to complain about now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A little while ago we saw Bill Gates demonstrate Microsoft’s Surface technology, which followed on from the touch-sensitive Table that seemed to attract a fair amount of ridicule in tech circles.

Perhaps slideshow presentations and spreadsheets weren’t the best approach to show this off then, because a similar technology developed by UbiqWindow looks far cooler.

Mark Cuban has a weird obsession with trying to convince people that YouTube is illegal, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. His latest discussion on the topic is a real stretch. In response to the bad ruling that gives YouTube log files to Viacom, Cuban is saying that Viacom can now wipe out Google’s DMCA safe harbors by showing that the company filters porn.

This is simply incorrect. The DMCA safe harbors do not claim that if you filter any material you must filter it all. Filtering out porn is a different beast than filtering out infringing content. You can tell that porn is porn simply by looking at it. But you cannot tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. It could be put up there on purpose by those who own the copyright. It could be fair use. It’s not as simple as just saying that because YouTube removes porn it loses its safe harbor provisions. Also, while not specifically concerning the DMCA, other lawsuits involving the similar safe harbors in the CDA have found that intervening with content on a site does not mean that the safe harbors go away. Having knowledge that some content is porn is quite different than having knowledge of what content is infringing on someone’s copyright.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In the ongoing trainwreck that is Viacom’s misguided lawsuit against YouTube (the one they would be better off losing) a judge has come out with a ruling on evidence that Google has to hand over to Viacom — and it’s being portrayed in the press as both a win and a loss for Google. On the “win” side, Google does not have to hand over the YouTube source code (or the source code of its filtering system). This makes sense, as the source code is rather meaningless here, and this request was clearly a reach from the start.

However, much more troublesome is the judge’s ruling that Google does need to hand over log files including the IP address and usernames of people who viewed YouTube videos. This represents a huge violation of privacy and a clear violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). This was the law we were just discussing, due to a lawsuit concerning Blockbuster revealing rental info via Facebook’s Beacon program. It was originally passed after the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was released in the press. The idea is that what movies you rent should be private info not to be shared.

The court pretty much ignored this law, only mentioning it in a footnote, suggesting that it only applies to video tapes. But, as the EFF points out in the link above, the law actually says “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” But, more to the point, it is not at all clear why Viacom should need this specific information. If it wants to show numbers of people who viewed certain videos, it seems that aggregate info should be sufficient. Having Google hand over much more info doesn’t seem to serve any purpose related to the legal questions involved in the case. Update: There are now claims that Viacom will be very limited in how the data can be used — with the threat of a contempt of court charge if anyone other than the lawyers involved in the case and specific experts see the data, but that’s really not sufficient for privacy purposes. There’s no way to make sure the data only stays in those hands, and even so it’s still a violation of the privacy of users.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story