Prompt's TechBlog
Google Street View upsets privacy group.
07 July 2008
Posted by Duncan Heaney
Aieee! Everyone hide if you value your privacy - Google cars have reached Britain. The camera-equipped black cars have been seen on the streets of London, snapping photos for Google's Street View project.
Google Street View lets users see photos of any street in a surveyed area. Google has been facing down protests and complaints over the photo-mapping tool as of late. The problem is that many people are unsure as to the legality of what Google is doing. The images often contains people or private property and many question if this constitutes an invasion of privacy. A couple in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania sued Google over photographs of their swimming pool, and now the organisation is under fire from UK group Privacy International.
Google Street View lets users see photos of any street in a surveyed area. Google has been facing down protests and complaints over the photo-mapping tool as of late. The problem is that many people are unsure as to the legality of what Google is doing. The images often contains people or private property and many question if this constitutes an invasion of privacy. A couple in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania sued Google over photographs of their swimming pool, and now the organisation is under fire from UK group Privacy International.
The BBC reports that the surveillance and privacy watchdog is concerned that Street View could breach data protection laws if people's faces are shown. Google assures people that it will use face blurring technology to preserve the identity of individuals captured in the photos. Privacy International is unconvinced that the face-blurring will work and wants Google to reveal details of the technology. If Google does not comply, Privacy International will ask the UK Information Commissioner to get involved. Google has responded by pointing out that the technology has been deployed in the US already, and it works pretty well.
Personally, sarcastic introduction aside, I don't have a problem with Street View. From what I have seen the face blurring seems to work well enough, and so long as all photos are taken in a public space, then its fine with me.
And not everyone is concerned about privacy, as the woman in this revealing Street View image proves.
Labels: google, privacy, Street View
Google's NASA relationship goes into interstellar overdrive
09 June 2008
Posted by Dave Wilby
Once your precocious start-up has become a multi-billion dollar global phenomenon, it takes a truly out-of-this world technology partnership to rocket business to a new level and bring the competition crashing back to earth.
If you haven't kept tabs on Google and NASA's mutual wooing over the past year, recent news is excuse enough for a quick refresher.
It all started out seemingly innocently enough last September when the media noticed NASA had let Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Bri share one of its company parking spots. A simple enough agreement you might think, until you read in the Herald Tribune that the parking spot in question was a much coveted federally-managed runway in NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffet Field, California (so very handy for Google HQ in Mountain View) and the company vehicle was a refurbished private wide-body Boeing 767-200...
At the time, Lenny Siegel, director of the Pacific Studies Center, a local non-profit group that has opposed proposed expansions of civilian flights at Moffett Field, had said: "If they are doing science missions, that's OK. If they are doing it just because they are rich and popular, it is not OK."
Anyway, a few months later a deal was inked between NASA and Google that enabled the search giant to access detailed 3D images of the Moon and Mars and use them in their web applications. The two organisations confirmed they would collaborate in a variety of areas including enriching Google Earth and launching Google Mars and Google Moon.
Finally to bring you completely up to date, Google last week signed a 40-year lease to build a 1.2 million square foot high-tech office campus on land owned by NASA, once again at the Ames Research Centre near Mountain View.
The BBC reports that over the last four years, Google has added more than 17,000 employees to boost its payroll to 19,156 workers and now needs the extra space for ever more ambitious expansion plans.
Building work is expected to get under way before 2013 with the final phase of work starting in 2022. After the 40-year lease expires, the agreement could be extended by as much as 50 more years.
The next stage of this friendship is anyone's guess.
Care to share your wildest dreams?
If you haven't kept tabs on Google and NASA's mutual wooing over the past year, recent news is excuse enough for a quick refresher.
It all started out seemingly innocently enough last September when the media noticed NASA had let Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Bri share one of its company parking spots. A simple enough agreement you might think, until you read in the Herald Tribune that the parking spot in question was a much coveted federally-managed runway in NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffet Field, California (so very handy for Google HQ in Mountain View) and the company vehicle was a refurbished private wide-body Boeing 767-200...
At the time, Lenny Siegel, director of the Pacific Studies Center, a local non-profit group that has opposed proposed expansions of civilian flights at Moffett Field, had said: "If they are doing science missions, that's OK. If they are doing it just because they are rich and popular, it is not OK."
Anyway, a few months later a deal was inked between NASA and Google that enabled the search giant to access detailed 3D images of the Moon and Mars and use them in their web applications. The two organisations confirmed they would collaborate in a variety of areas including enriching Google Earth and launching Google Mars and Google Moon.
Finally to bring you completely up to date, Google last week signed a 40-year lease to build a 1.2 million square foot high-tech office campus on land owned by NASA, once again at the Ames Research Centre near Mountain View.
The BBC reports that over the last four years, Google has added more than 17,000 employees to boost its payroll to 19,156 workers and now needs the extra space for ever more ambitious expansion plans.
Building work is expected to get under way before 2013 with the final phase of work starting in 2022. After the 40-year lease expires, the agreement could be extended by as much as 50 more years.
The next stage of this friendship is anyone's guess.
Care to share your wildest dreams?
Labels: google, NASA, partnerships, space, valet parking
Google to "Fingerprint" Videos
17 October 2007
Posted by Zach
An article in yesterday's New York Times tracks the development of Google's new "fingerprinting" system for its Youtube videos. In theory, Google's internal developers have created a way to encode videos with a digital fingerprint that can identify uploaded items that violate copyright law.
Google's actions stem from a long list of complaints from media companies, generally claiming that Google's video service, Youtube, makes it far too easy for anyone to upload video and violate copyright laws. Youtube's current user interface makes it possible for anyone to upload content and takes only a few clicks. The current system used to determine if the material is copyrighted requiresthe media companies to review the site and request it to be removed retroactively.
The fingerprint system being tested would require media companies to submit their content to Google, to have it automatically encode the files. If any future attempt to upload a video that matches the fingerprint is made then the content is denied.
The surprising twist to this article is the response from the media companies: they aren't impressed. One legal representative for a media company is quoted: "I think this is a completely inadequate solution, it is too late in coming; it offers too little protection." A Viacom Exec claimed: "We obviously have suffered significant damages in the past", indirectly referring to Youtube's dominance over the online video market.
It seems that when it comes to online video clips the media companies have a bigger problem and they are just using copyright infringement as a scapegoat: they can't seem to win the popularity contest and they know this is costing them money.
Most media companies which are listed as testing this new service (including NBC, CBS, and Viacom) have their own distribution sites for online downloadable content. It's not that NBC doesn't want you searching for Saturday Night Live clips, they just want to make sure you go to their site for them first.
Through Google's robust brand "Youtube" is becoming as colloquial as "iPod". Currently NBC has "NBC 24/7 Video" and CBS has its "Innertube", online portals to download the same type of clips that are being removed from Youtube regularly.
This seems like a case of 'Keeping Up with the Googles', where media companies are doing everything they legally can to keep a hand in the competition. Google beat them all to the digital video punch when it acquired Youtube, and the media companies have been back peddling ever since to pick up online market share.
Maybe the media companies should be a little more appreciative of what Google has done here. Google currently claims that it works within copyright law, by removing any content that is found to be violating copyright law. Media companies have complained that retroactive removal hasn't been enough, so Google has stepped up and found a preemptive way to address this.
If Google is going to offer this service, the media companies should be grateful to have the option, at least until they can come up with a better solution on their own.
I am an employee at Prompt and this post reflects my personal views, and does not necessarily represent those of Prompt Communications or its clients.
Google's actions stem from a long list of complaints from media companies, generally claiming that Google's video service, Youtube, makes it far too easy for anyone to upload video and violate copyright laws. Youtube's current user interface makes it possible for anyone to upload content and takes only a few clicks. The current system used to determine if the material is copyrighted requiresthe media companies to review the site and request it to be removed retroactively.
The fingerprint system being tested would require media companies to submit their content to Google, to have it automatically encode the files. If any future attempt to upload a video that matches the fingerprint is made then the content is denied.
The surprising twist to this article is the response from the media companies: they aren't impressed. One legal representative for a media company is quoted: "I think this is a completely inadequate solution, it is too late in coming; it offers too little protection." A Viacom Exec claimed: "We obviously have suffered significant damages in the past", indirectly referring to Youtube's dominance over the online video market.
It seems that when it comes to online video clips the media companies have a bigger problem and they are just using copyright infringement as a scapegoat: they can't seem to win the popularity contest and they know this is costing them money.
Most media companies which are listed as testing this new service (including NBC, CBS, and Viacom) have their own distribution sites for online downloadable content. It's not that NBC doesn't want you searching for Saturday Night Live clips, they just want to make sure you go to their site for them first.
Through Google's robust brand "Youtube" is becoming as colloquial as "iPod". Currently NBC has "NBC 24/7 Video" and CBS has its "Innertube", online portals to download the same type of clips that are being removed from Youtube regularly.
This seems like a case of 'Keeping Up with the Googles', where media companies are doing everything they legally can to keep a hand in the competition. Google beat them all to the digital video punch when it acquired Youtube, and the media companies have been back peddling ever since to pick up online market share.
Maybe the media companies should be a little more appreciative of what Google has done here. Google currently claims that it works within copyright law, by removing any content that is found to be violating copyright law. Media companies have complained that retroactive removal hasn't been enough, so Google has stepped up and found a preemptive way to address this.
If Google is going to offer this service, the media companies should be grateful to have the option, at least until they can come up with a better solution on their own.
I am an employee at Prompt and this post reflects my personal views, and does not necessarily represent those of Prompt Communications or its clients.
Labels: google
Google announcement: More PR than Privacy
17 July 2007
Posted by Sean McManus
The BBC reports that Google has dramatically shortened the life the cookies it issues, from 31 years to 2 years.
Cookies are small text files that websites can put on a user's computer so the user can be identified when he or she looks at different pages on the site or returns to the site later. It's what makes it possible to visit Amazon on different days to tinker with your wishlist without having to log in again, and what enables you to pop in and out of ebay all Saturday without repeatedly logging in to bid.
Privacy advocates have been concerned about how long Google tracks people for, and the data it holds. If you want a mild fright, try logging in to Google and viewing your web history. Unless you've specifically opted out, Google will have kept a record of everything you've searched for and all the sites you've visited while logged in to your Google account.
The cookie potentially enables Google to track your activity across websites that host Google adverts or use Google for visitor tracking, which represents a lot of the internet.
So Google's representing this cut of 31 years in the cookie life as a big deal. But it's not really because if you use a Google service, the counter is reset. The cookie only ever expires if you don't use Google Search, Blogger, Gmail, Adwords, Adsense, Reader or any other Google service for two whole years. And if you have a one-off engagement with Google, it'll reserve the right to track you for two whole years afterwards.
Google says it wants to stop people from having to log in all the time, but most people would consider once a month or once a week to be reasonable. Indeed, ebay users must provide their password once a day.
This announcement appears to do a lot more to improve Google's public relations profile than it does to actually change how it uses personal data.
Cookies are small text files that websites can put on a user's computer so the user can be identified when he or she looks at different pages on the site or returns to the site later. It's what makes it possible to visit Amazon on different days to tinker with your wishlist without having to log in again, and what enables you to pop in and out of ebay all Saturday without repeatedly logging in to bid.
Privacy advocates have been concerned about how long Google tracks people for, and the data it holds. If you want a mild fright, try logging in to Google and viewing your web history. Unless you've specifically opted out, Google will have kept a record of everything you've searched for and all the sites you've visited while logged in to your Google account.
The cookie potentially enables Google to track your activity across websites that host Google adverts or use Google for visitor tracking, which represents a lot of the internet.
So Google's representing this cut of 31 years in the cookie life as a big deal. But it's not really because if you use a Google service, the counter is reset. The cookie only ever expires if you don't use Google Search, Blogger, Gmail, Adwords, Adsense, Reader or any other Google service for two whole years. And if you have a one-off engagement with Google, it'll reserve the right to track you for two whole years afterwards.
Google says it wants to stop people from having to log in all the time, but most people would consider once a month or once a week to be reasonable. Indeed, ebay users must provide their password once a day.
This announcement appears to do a lot more to improve Google's public relations profile than it does to actually change how it uses personal data.