Resurfacing or Perhaps Resurrecting

Hello again! I know, it appeared as if I had fallen off the face of the planet. Close, but not quite.

I have completed my course requirements for my Master of Sciences in IT and Privacy Law from The John Marshall Law School and was so engrossed in legal issues surrounding Second Life that I forgot about this blog. Checking my stats, though, it seems none of you forgot about it. Thanks! The most popular post is one I wrote more than a year ago, about the pros and cons of emails v. letters. As technology continues to permeate everything we do, the post remains applicable. There may be a generation that will grow up not knowing to write a formal letter, using pen and paper.

It occurs to me that of all the businesses that exist in Second Life, and there are quite a few, none of them sell writing utensils or writing objects. I came across a couple that sell books, or digital books, that your avatar can purchase and read, or simply browse in-store. Authors have taken to publishing works in Second Life, too, along with artists, directors and screen writers.

Second Life is a pretty fascinating place. You can literally build anything, and be anything you want. The only limit is your imagination. Tim Guest has an excellent book out, called Second Lives: A Journey Through Virtual Worlds, that provides a very interesting perspective on Second Life, and other virtual worlds.

I plan to write more about Second Life, and some of the legal issues I spent the semester researching and studying, namely dispute resolution, the practice of law in virtual space and the concept of "personal use" in virtual space. It can be a little tricky to wrap your head around in the beginning; it seems rather outlandish, but it holds promise.

Given the current economic climate, and the reality that things may get much worse before they start getting better, Second Life presents an opportunity to do more than simply survive.

An Historic Election

Tonight, the American people elected the first African-American male to the Presidency.

I'm watching the live stream of the Grant Park rally on the Obama website, which has the feel of being at a rock concert. Music is playing in the background, like they do before the warm up band appears, and again before the headliner band comes out. Just goes to show how much the Internet has played a role in this election. I agree with other opinions that have compared this election, and the use of the Internet, to the TV in the 1960 election. But the similarities do not stop there.

Kennedy was young and vibrant, Nixon was old and set in his ways. Kennedy was a dynamic speaker, Nixon less so.

It's amazing, really, what America did tonight. Clearly America believes Obama is the man to bring about change, and set this country a new course. The question now is, can he deliver?

McCain deserves some props as well. He fought a long, hard campaign. He hung in there. For a 73-year-old man, he has quite a bit of energy! He's a believer, a man who takes action. He put himself out there, twice, and though defeat both times now, he has shown grace and civility; qualities that should be associated with being American.

And Bush, well, he destroyed his party. He let Cheney run the show, and Cheney ran it into the ground. The Republicans will have to sit out for the next 4 years, and attempt to rebuild. I think the events beyond their control cost them this election, but some of those events slipped form their control because of Bush. America tonight did not forgive and forget, and the Republicans will have a long battle ahead of them.

Obama is about to speak...

Helping My Brother Out

My brother started posting video commentary on the financial crisis. He is a banker, and very knowledgeable on the subject. He's a great story teller, and since he's just getting started with the whole blogging thing, I'm helping him out.

You can view his video commentary at his blog, Wall St. WTF.

The financial crisis is taking a toll on everyone, but few seem to be able to explain it. He does a pretty good job of putting the whole mess in terms normal, non-Wall Street people can understand, and he spices it up with a bit of humor.

So check it out!

Brief Update

Things have been quite crazy so I haven't blogged in awhile. Summer school, job hunting, final semester, moving...oh yes, and the financial turmoil.

I've joined Twitter (http://twitter.com/econwriter5) and am exploring SecondLife. Joining Twitter is more to satisfy my curiosity. SecondLife, on the other hand, is school related.

Online dispute resolutions have come up in both my Cyberlaw class and my Technology and the Ethical Practice of Law class.

Larry Lessig, in his book "Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0," raises the issue of online disputes in virtual worlds like SecondLife. And there is the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution.

The subject requires more investigation...so stay tuned.

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

It is wonderful to see Joss Whedon embracing technology and having the balls to release it to the masses...for free. Though you can download it from iTunes, and it is completely worth it.

It's smart, creative, witty, and the whole cast can sing! Watch it. You'll enjoy it.

Another bonus point to Hulu, too. I am more and more a fan.

Internet For Everyone? You Mean Every American

On its Public Policy blog, Google talks about joining the "The Internet for Everyone," campaign, which, just from the title, I took to mean the whole world. Since the announcement was coming from Google, it didn't strike me as that outlandish. What better company to strive for bringing Internet access to everyone? We live in the age of globalization, so naturally we think outside our own borders, or so we like to believe.

Then I read the first paragraph, which says:

Today Google joined a national initiative of public interest, civic and industry groups to help launch the Internet for Everyone campaign, whose goal is to make ubiquitous and open broadband access for every American a priority in the next administration.

Notice how the title says "Internet for Everyone" but that "everyone" is narrowed down to "every American." So the rest of the world is going to be left out? Perhaps there was a three word limit in naming the campaign, so "Internet for Everyone" was more logical, and gave a sense of something greater than "Internet for Americans" or "Internet for America" or "Internet for All Americans" if there was no three word limit.

Maybe, one day when "every American" has Internet access, the campaign will expand beyond US borders and fully embrace its title, actually bringing Internet access to everyone.

Google Tentacles Grad Hold of Healthcare

Ars Technica formally announced it's acquisition by Conde Nast, which seems to tilt it more in favor of Ars Technica staying as is, only with deeper pockets. A hint of hiring, too, perhaps...

But the big news today is the public (beta) launch of Google Health, which, you can imagine, has added more fuel to the privacy fire. There are posts from the usual suspects, the Official Google Blog, Tech Crunch, Ars Technica, NYT, Tribune via AP...list goes on. Google Health was being tested by the Cleveland Clinic, and not surprisingly, there was a waiting list for the limited number of open slots for the test. The thinking seems to be that Google has built a strong brand, a trusted brand, so people will flock to the service without giving it a second thought. Those who do stop and think for a second ask: what about HIPPA?

Most people have heard of HIPPA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; it's impossible to see a doctor without signing something about it, but few understand exactly what it does. In a nutshell, it protects your health care information by setting standards for electronic transmission or exchange of data, it protects your health insurance coverage if you find yourself out of work or change jobs and has various other rules, such as privacy, transaction and code sets, etc. You can read a simplified version from Wikipedia, or the whole statute. There is also a section on the HHS Office of Civil Rights website.

HIPPA, you'll notice, is mysteriously, or perhaps purposefully, missing from Google Health. Actually, you can't even access Google Health without a Google Account, which makes sense after you've read the first point of their Privacy Policy:

You control who can access your personal health information. By default, you are the only user who can view and edit your information. If you choose to, you can share your information with others.

So unless you have my login information, you can't access my health information, or any other Google service normally accessed through a Google Account. Makes me feel slightly more secure, but then there is point two:

Google will not sell, rent, or share your information (identified or de-identified) without your explicit consent, except in the limited situations described in the Google Privacy Policy, such as when Google believes it is required to do so by law.

That makes me nervous. Having studied Google's Privacy Policy as part of my grad school education, I'm leary about Google products that store rather personal information. Yes, I use Blogger, I use Gmail, I use Google Docs, but not for anything I consider to be sensitive information. I don't, for example, keep track of my expenses through Google Docs. I don't do more than share and collaborate on documents that have little or no value if my account were to be compromised.

So its privacy policy is a little too open-ended for me. I like how it explicitly states that it will notify users of acquisitions, mergers and the like that may involve the transfer of personal information, but it says nothing about notifying users if the government, or some legal entity requests user information. I also find the wording of the "consent" phrase interesting:

We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.

It says "we have your consent" and then says opt-in is required. Not that opt-in is required and therefore, once you have opted-in, you have granted consent. Just the first phrase implies that once you create a Google Account, you have given them consent. How's that for being blunt.

Anyway, back to Google Health. The Privacy Policy for Google Health lists out the ways in which you, the user, control your information. You can delete information, and grant access, which basically means you open the flood gates. Surprise surprise. It expands on this, stating that if a website makes a copy of your information and stores it, then your information is now subject to that website's privacy policy, including HIPPA if the site owners must abide by HIPAA. Sounds as if you might be safer going with those that must abide by HIPPA. And, naturally, Google has its disclaimer about third-parties and not being liable..blah blah blah. I'd be curious to see how well that holds up if a site is infiltrated, and that infiltration leads to the hacking of Google Health. Imagine the treasure trove of information available. Yikes! Only need to think about the banking system to see how one might position oneself into such a situation.

It does seem as if Google Health is positioning itself as nothing more than a platform, but I'd wager this is only the start. It's too early to see what will really happen with Google Health. The privacy issues are expected, but people seem rather willing to trust Google, to a point. And there is something attractive about being able to access your health information from a central location.

And it may stay that way, for awhile, until a breach occurs or something happens that requires legal action but, alas, there is no legal recourse. Some creative lawyering may be needed.

The more I think about it, the more Google seems like the online equivalent of the Walt Disney Corporation: a country unto itself.

Ars Technica Has Been Acquired

I've been a fan of Ars Technica since I started studying IT and Privacy Law. The website has some excellent in-depth articles on current legal tech issues, as well as some really in-depth technical articles. I always learn something new when I visit the website, or gain a deeper understanding of something I already know.

There were a few moments when I caught myself wondering how Ars Technica can stay independent. It's a treasure trove of information, who wouldn't want to acquire it? But there was solace in the fact that it was independent, free from the corporate media tentacles that have acquired a taste for sucking the life out of free speech. There seems to be an agenda, and it is sold to the highest bidder.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this article on TechCrunch discussing the acquition of Ars Technica by Conde Nast/Wired. When the shock passed, and I read the post, it does make some sense. I've always thought Ars Technica the more...how should I put it...smarter version of Wired. Nothing against Wired, I read that too, there was just something more inviting, less busy, about Ars Technica. I'd read it first before Wired.

It's too early to do anything more than speculate, and speculating wouldn't do Ars Technica, or Conde Nast, justice. It will be interesting to see, however, what happens. It's possible there is now more fuel to add to the argument of media no longer being independent, even with the advent of the Internet.

But who knows. Perhaps Ars Technica will remain as is, just with deeper pockets which will allow it to improve and expand its offerings. So where do I send in my application for employment?

ZoHo Just Gets Better

I was browsing TechCrunch this morning, and came across this post about ZoHo now letting you login with your Google or Yahoo ID. That's awesome!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, ZoHo is a better suite of online apps than Google Docs. ZoHo is more feature rich, and it continues to demonstrate that it can use others APIs and applications more efficiently than companies than create them. ZoHo beat Google at its own game by using Google Gears to bring offline capability to its products before Google Docs. Now it is using other Google APIs and Yahoo APIs to make the process of logging in easier, and my guess is this only the start.

Perhaps ZoHo has improved its email feature now, too. The nice thing about Google Docs was that I could email my paper in Word to any email address. With ZoHo, I could only email it to myself, which then meant I had to forward that email to a professor; an extra step that made using Google Docs more worthwhile.

OK. Must go try logging in to ZoHo with using my Google account.

Another Take on Data Portability: Job Apps

I never really paid much attention to the noise of data portability, I kind of like having my information in separate places, even if it is redundant information. But at least if one is compromised, the whole pyramid doesn't collapse. Reminds me of that eBay account comprise post. But now that I've put out roughly 100 job apps, and had to type the same information roughly 100 times, I'm starting to rethink this whole concept of data portability.

Sure, it seems to apply mostly to social networks, and it's hard to think of good reasons regular people should care as this Social Web post explores, but for the 350,000 people like me who suddenly find themselves unemployed, data portability starts to make some sense.

Job applications, regardless of whether filled out in paper form or online, all require the same information. And, if you pay attention to the small number of companies that are used, like Brass Ring, you would think people would catch on. Instead of having to enter your information repeatedly for each job at a different employer that uses Brass Ring, or some such company, why not be able to enter your information once, and if it meets criteria, send an alert to the respective HR person.

This is basically a half baked idea in my head at the moment, but I'm convinced there is a better way to send out job applications, a better way to fill out what amounts to the same form, regardless of employer. You'd think, by now, Brass Ring would be able to fill in my information for me. About the only thing that varies is the cover letter.

I'm finding it difficult to grasp that in this age of "automization," no one has figured out how to automate the job application process. There really must be a better way, and perhaps data portability is a way, or a means to a better way.

Perhaps after about 100 applications, this will become a more concrete, coherent thought.

Plenty of Time to Ponder

OK. So it has been a few months since my last post. Working full time and going to grad school part time really does eat into one's, well, time.

But, due to circumstances beyond my control, I now have plenty of time on my hands, and time to sit and ponder. There is quite a bit to consider. Take, for example, this TechCrunch article showing that people spend most of their computer time using Microsoft products. Not really a big surprise there, but what is interesting are things that are missing, and things I used (and use even more now) every day.

Meebo, for example. It's a pretty nifty online application that lets you manage all of your instant messaging clients right from a Web browser. I have friends you use AIM, others who use YIM, GTalk and even ICQ. Since downloading any of those apps would violate company policy (while on a company laptop), Meebo made it possible for me to communicate and without violating company policy. I'm such a fan, I use it on my own laptop as well. Now if only there was a mobile version...

And it seems as if communication tools beat out all others in the battle for time. From a business perspective, this makes sense. Business is communication, and in this tech-driven age with remote offices and telecommuters, communication tools are even more essential. I, for one, am a bigger fan of chat and email than phone calls. It's easier to multi-task when communicating via chat or email.

In other news...Facebook and 49 states (Texas being the only hold out) struck a safety and privacy deal, according to TechCrunch. That will be very interesting to watch. Firing of associates is big news over on the WSJ's Law Blog, which is an enjoyable blog, as is the WSJ's BizTech blog. They are waging a small war over tech jargon. Just goes to show how writers are starting to forget that search engines are not the primary audience, and that the semantic Web does, indeed, exist. Simplicity of language is still the best route, so best of luck to the BizTech blog and it's fight against tech jargon, or mumbo-jumbo.

And how can anyone forget the recent dissolution of the Microsoft-Yahoo deal, dubbed MicroHoo. I still don't know what to think about Yahoo outsourcing its search advertising to Google. Anti-trust implications, possibly. Helpful to Yahoo but hurtful to the search market, possibly. Is Microsoft finished? Certainly not. It does need to improve its Office Live application as it is not nearly as easy or intuitive as Google Docs or ZoHo. Personally, I think ZoHo is one of the best kept secrets on the Web.

Big Think: The Best Combination of New Technology?

I was browsing the New York Times this morning and came across this article about Big Think, a "YouTube for ideas," the article states.

The tag line on Big Think is "We are what you think," not "WE are what WE think," but "WE are what YOU think." Interesting phrasing.

The concept seems to combine the best features of the latest technology from sites like YouTube and Digg. You can post multimedia opinions and comments, or just text, and rate other peoples opinions. "Welcome to the conversation" indeed.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and who from the common people, the masses, if you will, posts to Big Think. Will people embrace such an open concept usually reserved for discussion groups in college as much as they have embraced the absurdity of every day life on YouTube?

More ruminations to follow....

BigString: No More Sender Regret

I saw the founder and CEO of BigString on CNBC's "The Big Idea" and thought, hey, awesome.

It's an email service, with a twist. Not only can you send and receive email, but you can also send "self-destruct" email, which is Mission:Impossible style email as they describe it on the website, recallable/erasable email and a variety of other means, including video email.

There have been numerous instances of emails being sent on the fly, causing mischief and mayhem as the contents were, well, less than civil. Emails fired off in the heat of the moment instead of taking a few to chill. And email sits out in the ether of the Web, stored somewhere and never really erased. There's always the possibility, however remote, that a particular email will come back to haunt you.

BigString, therefore, is on to something. The ability to make a troublesome email go poof is enticing, and removes any incentive to think before you type.

Too bad Enron didn't have such a service at its disposal, though it seems as if the White House does since emails are still, ahem, missing.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how BigString and its email elimination business does. No doubt there is a market for it. And who knows what could be next. Now that people are understanding that the Web is public domain, plenty want information removed and have discovered that it is not quite that easy; information is never completely removed.

Perhaps this will lead to a solution, and more privacy and ethical battles are sure to ensue.

Why a Search Engine Company Needs to Fix LexisNexis

Most of us, at this point, especially people my age and younger, take searching on the Internet for granted. We've grown up with the technology, we have little issue with freely posting information (damning or not) for the world to see and generally assumed that if we type in keywords into a box, we'll get the results we want.

If you go to law school, you'll be given access to the well-known legal research tool called Lexis-Nexis, which will remain your archaic friend for as long as you pursue a legal career. And within your first few minutes of training, you'll discover that Lexis-Nexis is a horrible search tool by today's technology standards. You have to memorize a list of archaic commands, commands that used to be second nature when you had to use the library computer to figure out where on particular book was located in the millions of stacks. But, you have to string the commands together just right in order to get the result you want, which takes practice and lots of trial and error. And that is assuming you have started your search in the correct category.

Needless to say, finding anything in Lexis-Nexis is a time-consuming, tedious task. But as it is the definitive research tool used by the legal profession, using it is a necessity. And since technology permeates so much of the world today, and as the legal staffs of technology companies continue to expand, I am surprised that none of them, not even search engine companies, have done anything to improve the search capabilities of Lexis-Nexis.

If you think about it, Lexis-Nexis is a treasure trove of information. Any case from anytime, anywhere, is in Lexis-Nexis. Legal definitions. Statues. Ordinances. Any legal document at all, can be found in Lexis-Nexis. Now isn't that a database worth creating useful search algorithms? Think of the hours (as in $$) that would be saved by legal departments and law students everywhere if Lexis-Nexis had the search smarts of Google, Yahoo or even MSN behind it, not to mention how much more 21st Century Lexis-Nexis would be.

Everyone is on the hunt to organize information, which usually involves trying to talk various groups of people into sharing information so it can be compiled and indexed in one spot. Why not start in an area that already has the information complied and indexed, and improve the indexing process? What good is a wealth of information in one place if you can't easily find anything?

Semantic Language Search....

I stumbled upon Powerset while reading a post on the New York Times blog Bits. Naturally I had to check out the Powerset Blog where I was delighted to read posts from Marti Hearst, an associate professor in the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, and Doug Cutrell, a Powerset engineer.

Language has always been fascinating to me, and one of the things that has been frustrating with search engines is having to think through a series of search terms in order to find useful information. I got a crash course in search terms when I worked in online marketing, and after you do it enough, it becomes second nature. You start to wonder what is wrong with people who can't seem to find useful information on the Web. One word searches are out! It's the two, three, sometimes four-word phrases that bring up the results you want. The trick is to find the right combination, or search phrase.

Now working as a communications consultant, language has taken on a different meaning. Writing procedures requires being exact in language, directing the end user through a specific set of steps to achieve a specific end result. A systematic execution, if you will. Search, if you think about it, is random. You have an idea of what you're looking for, and type in words you think apply to the idea and continue doing so until you find useful information. Most people call that trial and error. With practice comes improvement, but in the end, it is still trial and error.

Powerset seems to me to be taking a more systematic execution approach to search, first by removing the guesswork involved and second by appealing to the natural use of language, as in full statements, questions, etc. instead of a random mix of keywords that may or may not produce the desire result.

Makes me wonder if the days of audio search, where I will be dictating a procedure and have to search for something online simply by speaking the phrase or sentence, is closer than originally thought.

Google Book Sharing Not the First

There's this post on the Google Blog about enhancements to its book search, namely the ability to create a "virtual bookshelf." That's all fine and dandy, and it being Google, undoubtedly the searchability is good.

But this isn't the first "virtual bookshelf" that you can share with others, and I doubt it will be the last. There is another website called Sheflari that lets you find, collect and share books in a "virtual bookshelf," and exchange comments, reviews and suggestions with other users. You can embed your Shelfari into your website, blog or online profile as well.

I've been using Shelfari to being a digital catalog of all the books I have read. It's turned out to be a bit of an undertaking as I have lists strewn about of the 100s of books I have read, and a journal of sorts I received as a gift to chronicle the books I have read, favorite passages, books I want to read, etc. There is something more gratifying about updating my Shelfari page and then seeing who else has read the same book, what they have to say about it and making a connection.

Google's addition to its Book Search has the same potential, and is yet another example of Google knowing anything and everything about you. Maybe you don't mind, but I have second thoughts about putting all my eggs, as it were, in one basket. That, and there isn't the information overload with Shelfari as there is with Google Books.

Time, Money and Resources

Google and the American Blind and Wallpaper Factory have settled the trademark infringement lawsuit. And then there is the article about news wires like the AP agreeing to license news feeds to Google.

All of this fits well with an article in The Economist: Who is Afraid of Google?

The answer seems to be no one. Google has demonstrated, on more than one occasion, it has enough time, money and resources to fight any and every lawsuit hurled at it. Google also has the time, money and resources to impose its will on governmental agencies, and play an increasingly larger role in the shaping of public policy to fit its own agenda, only under the guise of improving information flow for the masses.

There is its post on patent reform, its lengthy posts on the telecom spectrum, all of which sounds very much like running commentary on governmental policies that pertain to technology, except that the commentary is coming from a source that millions of people blindly trust.

This issue came up on the "L" ride home from class last night, and at a dinner party I attended over the weekend. My generation and younger have no qualms about freely posting information about ourselves to the Internet, or freely sharing information via searches with engines like Google. And, if you think about it, if you use any of Google's free services, Google has even more information about you. I have yet to read somewhere that says something along the lines of Google employees not being able to read your documents or your email or access Google Checkout account information.

Makes you wonder exactly what kind of security, if any, they use to monitor employees access to customer information, as it were. For all I know, a Google employee has been joyfully reading my email, and checking every so often to read the next chapter of my novel.

What it boils down to is that people in my generation and younger have decided to make a trade off: less control over personal information for convenient accessibility anywhere. Using something like Google Docs & Spreadsheets, or ZoHo (which actually has a much better interface, more options and is more user-friendly) gives me the convince of being able to work from any computer with a browser and an Internet connection, but in return, I have to provide what amounts to personal information to which ever online document client I choose.

With all the news in recent weeks about databases being hacked, such as Monster and Loyola University-Chicago, I wonder if a few of these aren't warm-ups, testing hacks to get at the wealth of information stored in search engines. Some might say no place is safe, and that it is only a matter of time.

Which makes you wonder, would search engines notify you of the possibility of compromised information, or are we really better off using Google Docs & Spreadsheets just to keep notes or reminders, and not to keep anything useful or important? Afterall, with Microsoft Word documents, you're major security concern is just your laptop, which is more often than not completely in your possession.

Delta's Blog: Under the Wing

I read about this first from the Freakonomics blog on NYT, and after performing a search on the Delta website, it's true.

Delta has joined the blogosphere with Under the Wing.

The big problem, at least for me, was finding the blog on the website in the first place. There isn't a link on the home page, and none of the drop down menus were of any help. Neither was the Site Map. I had to perform a search using "under the wing" to find it. There isn't much up there at the time of this posting, but there is an interesting post on its boarding music. It never fails that I hear a song I like but have no idea the title nor the artist, and end up repeating a phrase over and over again so I remember it when I have the opportunity to sit down at a computer and search for the lyric to find the title of the song and the artist.

Delta, in its drive for better customer service, has created an iMix in iTunes for its boarding music. What an awesome idea. I check play lists of radio stations such as Q101 to figure out what song was playing, or what the name of a particular song is when I know the artist. Song titles don't always follow logic.\

The blog itself looks professional and adheres to the design sense of the Delta website. The blog is created using WordPress, which seems to be the favorite blogging tool for businesses.

It will be interesting to see if other airlines enter the blogosphere, if they haven't already. The constant string of poor airline customer service and just horrific airline travel in general has been buzzing around the blogosphere for awhile, certainly causing damage to online reputations.

We shall have to see what comes of airline blogs....

Brief Update

So it's been awhile since I've posted anything. Things have been rather crazy all the way round since my acceptance to the M.S. program in Information Technology Law at John Marshall. I forgot how much preparation goes into school, not mention the fact that it is graduate school so there is even more paperwork and stuff to do. And work has really picked up with large projects and roll outs happening.

Plenty has been going on, from the release of the long anticipated iPhone to the broadband issues (posted everywhere on the Official Google Blog and then the Google Public Policy Blog. Talk about duplicate content!) and the frenzy of media acquisitions. The Internet, for now, seems to be the only place where more than one voice is heard. Certainly not in newspapers or magazines since, well, they are all owned by Murdoch and 4 other people. Limited perspective anyone?

A guy I know said that Google should start acquiring large media giants so, at the very least, information is all in one spot, even if it ends up being the same information. He thinks Google will shift to being more of acquisition company and less of a technology company. As gigantic corporations continually demonstrate, why do the work yourself when you can buy people to do it for you? Or so he says.

Just as Google's slogan "Don't be Evil" is taken cum grano salis, so must its blah blah blah about search being its top priority. Isn't the company about innovation, which requires change and adaptation? To organize the world's information, won't it need to change and adapt?

Oops. Right. We're talking about Google. The world is supposed to change and adapt to it. My bad.

Google Public Policy Blog...with Comments!

I was reading The Caucus blog on the New York Times website this morning, and apparently YouTube's "redesign" has replaced user's picks with editor's choices, no doubt because of the flood of copyright infringement notices it receives every day. Editors have a much more discerning eye (we hope) for potential copyright infringement or potential lawsuits, so it only stands to reason that the glory of user-generated content would be muffled a bit by people paid to keep popular but illegal videos off the front page, as it were, and stash it somewhere in the back of the paper so people really have to dig for it. Given the short attention span of today, if it's not on page 2, it's of little interest.

Not surprising, really, as YouTube and Google have said they are working on filtering out copyrighted material. What better way to catch more of it than to remove the choice of the people?

Anyway, what caught my attention on the Google Blog while looking for some comment about YouTube's "redesign" was the Google Public Policy Blog. With articles in the news recently about immigration, and Google being a tech company it relies heavily on foreign workers, it doesn't surprise me Google has created such a blog. What surprises me is how long it took! Though, apparently, it was an internal blog and only recently went public.

The difference between the public policy blog and other Google blogs, however, is that the public policy blog allows comments. Comments! Interesting, don't you think? You can comment on Google's public policy. Not a hint of irony in that at all.

The blog touches on a range of issues you expect: immigration, censorship as a barrier to trade, the always popular debate on net neutrality and it's, how should I put this, unwillingness to support one candidate or party in this upcoming election. The Googleplex, as the blog makes readers know, has hosted both Mayor Bloomberg and potential Democratic candidate John Edwards. Sort of makes you think that Google will support a candidate, just before the election, who will make Google's policies law. Google's policies law, as in, for the USA.

Google and politics could turn out to be rather interesting. If you think about, big corporations always choose sides, and they always choose the side that best suits them. Little wonder that with a Republican president and, up until the this year, a Republican Congress, the broken up Bell companies are forming into one again. Mergers are occurring all over the place, giving big business back to the few.

Some see it as necessary against the onslaught of competition from abroad. Safety in numbers, as it were. Larger corporations have a better shot of staying competitive against overseas corporations than smaller ones, so it only makes sense to build up again. I believe the term for that is cycle.

At any rate, the Google Public Policy Blog ought to be very interesting, espousing the wisdom of Google and it tries to makes its public policy law. If it succeeds, I doubt those laws will stop at the US borders. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if international standards become more than a whisper, and other countries take Google's public policy at face value and adopt it as their own.

Hopefully people will stop and think, weigh the options, see if Google's policies will in fact be helpful rather than hurtful, but, well, that just might be asking too much now, don't you think? Why think for yourself when Google does the thinking for you?

Then again, with the comments enabled on the public policy blog, it gives the impression that people are still allowed to have independent thought. You don't agree with what has been posted, then, by all means, leave a comment. Google will take your comment into consideration and then figure out a way to spin the idea so that it sounds exactly like that you wanted to hear in the first place!

Maybe. Maybe not. Course, you can also think of Google's enabling of comments on its public policy blog as caving into its users who have clamored to comment on Google blogs but have been forced to do so in blogs like this one.