Wednesday, September 05, 2007

search plus Economist on Google. The Economist devotes this weekend's cover to Google, asking the question "Who's afraid of Google?" Readers of my blog will know that I've got a healthy fear of the company, but I was pleased to see the Economist ask the question I've been asking for quite some time (if privately to not appear over-paranoid). Google is often compared to Microsoft (another enemy, incidentally); but its evolution is actually closer to that of the banking industry. Just as financial institutions grew to become repositories of people's money, and thus guardians of private information about their finances, Google is now turning into a custodian of a far wider and more intimate range of information about individuals. Yes, this applies also to rivals such as Yahoo! and Microsoft. But Google, through the sheer speed with which it accumulates the treasure of information, will be the one to test the limits of what society can tolerate. Indeed. It's no secret that Google is in the data business; between your search history (Google search), your mail (Gmail), browsing history (Google toolbar), your financial transactions (Google payments), your blog habits (Blogger + Feedburner) and all other behaviors reported by Adsense cookies and Google analytics, it can be argued that Google has a "complete" view of many of our online behaviors. Now, imagine what would happen if your "Google Dossier" got out? If a branch of the federal government had as much data about as many of us as Google does, how would we feel about it? This is not to say that Google plans on releasing our Dossiers. As the data gets more complete, more centralized and more wide ranging, the cost of the accidental (or non-accidental) release increases exponentially. The Economist points to the example of Nick Leeson, a trader who single-handedly brought down the Bearings Bank. Imagine how much a political operative would pay for the search logs for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney's home or offices. Google would rather us not think about this possibility. According to the Economist, millionaire managers are forced to abide by a proletarian dress code to play up Google's friendly image. [A former executive] started receiving detailed e-mails “enforcingâ€� Google's outward informality by reminding her that high heels and jewellery were inappropriate. Before the corporate ski trip, it was explained that “if you wear fur, they will kill you.â€� Of course, the folksy dress and casual image are all constructed, tuned precisely and framed to make Google appear as our "corporate friend". As we buy into it, our willingness to share data grows. When will our moment of comprehension come, and how many of us will it touch? I think we all want to avoid that day, but as Google's size and appetite for data grows, it appears increasingly inevitable. [Unit Structures] 7:29:09 AM    comment [] biotech Grow Your Own Heart Valves. jcr writes "Medical researchers in Britain have succeeded in growing a heart valve from adult stem cells taken from bone marrow. The research is being reported in the journal of the Royal Society today. Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue."[Slashdot] 7:25:36 AM    comment [] econtent Scientist Must Pay to Read His Own Paper. Glyn Moody writes "Peter Murray Rust, a chemist at Cambridge University, was lost for words when he found Oxford University Press's website demanded $48 from him to access his own scientific paper, in which he holds copyright and which he released under a Creative Commons license. As he writes, the journal in question was "selling my intellectual property, without my permission, against the terms of the license (no commercial use)." In the light of this kind of copyright abuse and of the PRISM Coalition, a new FUD group set up by scientific publishers to discredit open access, isn't it time to say enough is enough, and demand free access to the research we pay for through our taxes?"[Slashdot] 7:21:35 AM    comment [] econtent Pink, Blue, and Bad Science. DocDJ writes "Ben Goldacre writes an excellent column in The Guardian called Bad Science, which regularly demonstrates how poor the mainstream media are at reporting science. He recently pointed out the flaws in the reporting of research that purported to show the evolutionary basis of 'blue for boys, pink for girls'." Another Guardian writer, Zoe Williams, has an even more acerbic take on the research.[Slashdot] -- This is really a serious problem when combined with information overload and web dependence because there is no easy way to check as many of the scientific journals are still subscription only.  The shortcomings of science news impacts science teaching of current findings which are important in the context of publication lag compounded by the pace of developments. -- BL 7:19:41 AM    comment [] security Comcast Forging Packets To Filter Torrents. An anonymous reader writes "It's been widely reported by now that Comcast is throttling BitTorrent traffic. What has escaped attention is the fact that Comcast, like the Great Firewall of China uses forged TCP Reset (RST) packets to do the job. While the Chinese government can do what they want, it turns out that Comcast may actually be violating criminal impersonation statutes in states around the country. Simply put, while it's legal to block traffic on your network, forging data to and from customers is a big no-no."[Slashdot] 7:09:36 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Bruce Landon. Last update: 9/9/2007; 8:12:14 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.