Knight Crawler

The Google Master Plan Video, And Gulliver

noreply@blogger.com (Knight Crawler) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:33:00 +0000

Secretly working with the CIA? Quietly and actively doing DNA research? What kind of clandestine operation is this? Why, it's everybody's favorite search engine, Google.

If you have not seen the video, Google's Master Plan yet, it is a short clip that is long on implications. Its creators even have a web site, masterplanthemovie.com with the heading on the site, "Master Plan. About the power of Google."

This video and the site are well done and worth a peek if you happen to be one of those sentries who are concerned about uncontrolled, omnipotent power. If you, however, are quite content with all your free stuff from the search giant, and do not want to be bothered by another voice crying, "Wolf!" well, go ahead, move along; there's nothing to see here. But don't forget the meaning behind the western proverb that says, "Nothing is free."

The content on the site and video is obviously the brainchild of of some fellow watchers who are doing the math, an endeavor that many have blissfully ignored lest it get in the way of all the 'free,' convenient gadgets...

For you see, the following conversation was heard Once Upon a Time:

"What harm can come from Google simply scanning my emails? Why is it a problem if Google puts spyware, er, tracking cookies on my hard drive?"

You are correct, now, Gulliver, for what can a harmless little strand of tiny little rope possibly do to you? You are free, and strong, and surely can easily break free from its simple hold. Why, you should just sit back and enjoy the gifts we have given you.

"So what if Google can read my docs and spreadsheets? Who cares if Google monitors and records my search history?"

Exactly, Mr. Gulliver. There is no threat here at all. Why, we're enjoying this as much as you are. Never mind all the ropes we are carrying, we just want to be prepared for anything. It is all just part of the process to make us feel secure. We are cooperating with you, you are cooperating with us, we are working together to help each other out. Now raise your arm a little so we can tie a tiny little knot. There. That wasn't bad at all, was it?

"And my Google phone, with its gps ability, why, that is extremely helpful, is it not? They just found a missing lady in Washington using her cell phone's position to find her. Is not the future glorious?"

Why, yes, Gulliver, the future indeed is glorious, and surely it has arrived. And you are most deserving of all of its benefits. Why, if you will just extend your other arm out, to over there near that rock, and keep it still, we will put some more free stuff in your hand. It is really cool stuff that can work with all of the other things we have given you. But you must hold it still.

"And Google Earth, my goodness. I can see my house from there! Heh-heh, I can also see my neighbor's. They sure do have a messy back yard. And their back gate seems to be broken."

Oh, Gulliver, that is pretty sly of you to peek over the hedge without even having to step away from your computer! Say, would you like a pillow for your head?

"And so Google is going to customize my search results based on what my interests are, what I have searched for before, what web sites I visit and what my emails and docs are all about?"

Why, yes, all of it will be designed just for you. It will be individualized to fit your very tastes, wrapped, as it were, as a gift personally to you, the great Gulliver!

"That is fantastic. I cannot wait to use all of these things. They will be so helpful. Say, what are you wrapping around my legs and my feet?"

Oh, nothing serious, Mr. Gulliver. You do trust us, do you not? Why, we have given you so many nice things, is that not an indication of our kind intentions and good will? Oh, have you seen the new Presentations ability in Google Docs? It is fantastic! And you can run it remotely!

"Really? You mean like Power Point? And others can collaborate with me and help me set it up? Wow, that will make things so much easier!"

We are only thinking about you, Mr. Gulliver, and we are doing this all for you.

"Wow, that is really nice of you. I feel, well, I feel indebted for all you have done for me to help make my life easier. By the way, who is that man in the tan trench coat coming over here? Is that Fantomaster?"

No, it is not Fantomaster, for Fantomaster's trench coat is invisible. Whenever he comes over, nobody sees him. This guy coming over here now, he is nobody. Jut a consultant. You can call him Mr. Langely, he is from Virginia.

"What is he carrying? And why are all of your helpers rolling up my sleeve?"

Mr. Langely is bringing a needle here so that we can take a very tiny sample of your blood. You might have a genetic disease that has not manifested itself yet, and we want the very best for you, so if we find something known to be harmful, we will let you know immediately, and your doctor too.

"That is so thoughtful and kind of you! How forward-thinking! Can you take a sample from my daughter and my son as well? Here, I want to show you their pictures, they are in my wallet, but... I... can't... seem to move at all to be able to reach it!"

Do not worry, Mr. Gulliver, there is no need for you to be able to move. We have thought of everything. As for your children, we already know who they are. And as for your wallet, our people know exactly how to get that out of your pocket and we are bringing things that you like to buy right here in front of you to see. In fact, we can buy them for you if you would like.

"You mean I can just lay here and you will handle everything?"

Yes, Mr. Gulliver. Close your eyes and take a little nap. We have everything under control.

All Your Content Are Belong To Us

noreply@blogger.com (Knight Crawler) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:40:00 +0000

So there I am sitting around minding my own business. I happen to glance at Google's Propaganda Assault blog (sometimes referred to as their Public Policy blog). I had no ax to grind. I'm not looking for a fight. Just checking things out and drinking some dark roast.

But all of a sudden, as I'm reading along, I realize that someone is pitching manure at me. Loads of it. What the heck is this? I wonder. Why is someone pitching this stuff at me? I'm not even aware that there is an issue or a controversy here. But I figure that if someone is going through the trouble to pitch this much manure my direction, it must be either to build a wall so I can't see what they are doing or a fortress for themselves that they can defend. And you know what? I don't like getting manure pitched at me.

So I put my special bs glasses on ( I was a boy scout, you see) and begin to wade through what is before me.

First of all, I read this: "Millions of people use Google’s search engine every day but don't realize that the balance inherent in U.S. copyright law helps enable it to exist. Here at Google, we strongly support the intellectual property rights of content creators and the protection of copyright. We think creators deserve to be rewarded for their work, and support the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity."

What is this stuff? I ask. But then through my special bs glasses I begin to see some themes. The first pitchfork of manure, "Millions of people use Google’s search engine every day but don't realize that the balance inherent in U.S. copyright law helps enable it to exist," is saying that what is to follow applies to all of us; in other words, it is attempting to get us to believe that it is in our own individual best-interest to support whatever balance is required for us to enjoy searching on Google. But it also says that whatever balance it intends to discuss is itself supported by US copyright law. And more than being supported by US law, the fact that the Google spinbot (writer) is actually invoking the law as a foundation upon which to make its coming argument, reveals the nature of the the real issue in the spin to follow.

OK, so what are they saying so far? They are saying Google is a good thing; the copyright law is a good thing and balance is a good thing. Alright. Sock it to me...(some free retro for ya.)

Then comes the second pitchfork of manure hurled at me: "Here at Google, we strongly support the intellectual property rights of content creators and the protection of copyright. We think creators deserve to be rewarded for their work, and support the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity." Ahh. Feigned support with the obligatory twist. They say they support: 1.) intellectual property rights of the content creator; 2.) the protection of copyright; 3.) reward to the deserving [content] creator; all fine and good; typical patronization. But what is the fourth concept that they support? 4.) the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity. Here again is that balance-of-copyright-law plea. This is the twist. This is the portal wherein Google wants to make an inroad, wedge its way in and stake a claim.

But why? What is motivating Google to even bring this up? Why throw manure into a perfectly good cup of coffee? What do they have on their Googagenda that necessitates this discussion?

Let's see if another mouthful of pitched manure gives us any indication: "While protecting the rights of creators, the Constitution and the courts place limits on the rights of copyright holders." OK, I see. Google is conceding that [content] creators have rights of protection. They say creators indeed have rights, BUT there are LIMITS to those rights. Not only are there limits, but the CONSTITUTION and the COURTS themselves have placed limits on [content] copyright holders. Oh, my. Where do I begin? Let me first of all confess that I am somewhat bewildered at Google's sudden patriotism. Why, all of a sudden they are hiding behind the Constitution of the very country who's laws they are trying to change regarding immigration so that more foreign nationals, who, unlike ordinary Americans, are qualified to work for Google, may get into this country. Let's make up our mind, Google; is this country restrictive to you or is it protective? I thought you loathed the laws of the US. Now you want to hide behind them? (Did someone forget to take their Riddilin today?)

But more than a fickle citation of Constitutional authority, herein we see the place where Google intends to drive its nail to stake its claim. It's all about LIMITATIONS of copyright protection. Yes, Google intends to build upon this foundation. (Kinda figures that with that much manure pitched, eventually the spinbot would have a big enough hole wherein to start to lay a foundation for a fortress...)

So naturally, Google brings forth a witness on this staked claim, "For example, copyright laws encourage others to make use of content in limited ways without seeking anyone's permission through the doctrine of "fair use." Yes, you see, there is precedent for using the content of others without their specific permission. But more than protected tendency, Google then takes it a step further to being an absolute right: "By enabling journalists, scholars and the general public to quote from and comment on others' writings, the fair use doctrine underscores basic rights of free expression." OK, so fair use enables people to quote from and comment on other people's copyrighted work. I myself am doing as much right here and now.

But it is at this point that a mystery begins to develop. Usually around this time in one of their spins, after a foundation has been laid and a fortress constructed, the Google spinbot will launch a diatribe at a particular enemy (concept, value, idea, law, roadblock, etc.) This time, however, while (assuming to be) possessing solid ground, instead of hurling an offensive, Google uncharacteristically decides, rather, to paint its walls!

Have a look at the next paragraph, "Fair use also assures that technological innovations such as the Internet itself can operate without violating copyright law. For instance, Google crawls the web, analyzes and indexes its content and makes a copy of each page on our servers. Our index is made up of the content of every web page which is crawled, optimized and stored in a variety of locations all over the world, to deliver results to users in a fraction of a second. In this way, we provide an opportunity for content creators to promote and capitalize on their creativity." Why the indulgence? Why the crayons and baby-steps? What flag is Google trying to wave?

But it does not stop there. Suddenly the national economic benefit card is played: "We've known for a while that fair use has allowed entire new industries and companies to grow, and to bring beneficial new services and innovative devices to consumers. Now, an interesting new study released yesterday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (of which Google is a member) attempts to quantify the contribution of industries relying on fair use to the economy."

In spades: "The study -- which I encourage you to check out -- concludes that the "fair use economy" in 2006 accounted for $4.6 trillion in revenues (roughly one-sixth of total U.S. gross domestic product), employed more than 17 million people, and supported a payroll of $1.2 trillion (approximately one out of every eight workers in the US). It also generated $194 billion in exports and significant productivity growth. Using a methodology similar to a previous World Intellectual Property Organization guide, the results of the study demonstrate that fair use is an important economic driver in the digital age."

Alright, I do not know who the intended target is for this little vignette that Google has conjured up. It could be aimed at the US copyright laws. Having staked a claim, built a foundation, a fortress, and painted it, it could be that Google will use this preamble as the basis for a direct assault on DC later on. If that is the case, expect an upcoming battle against content copyright laws from Google's free use camp. And notice that Google will stretch the term, 'fair use' into 'advantageous use.' (With the advantage going to Google, of course, not to the content creator.) And also notice that were this same principle applied to PATENT laws, then this wonderful song and dance Google is performing spins completely the opposite direction. Isn't that interesting?!

Or, the target could be some countries in Europe where Google has run up against some (gasp!) obstacles. Why else would they hang out that economic carrot?

But either way, the spindar (spin-radar) is beeping loudly and it is crystal clear that the object of Google's spin here, is: CONTENT. Whether it be more liberal access to and use of American material or an attempted seduction of 'problematic' European administrations, here is what Google wants: "All Your Content Are Belong To Us."

Where they have it they want more. Where they have more they want full use of. It is in the public's own best interest; it is in the name of balance; it is to promote creativity; it is in the Constitution; it is in the law; it is a right!

And where they do not have it, this fortress they built in their blog post is nothing more than a common cat house: 'You, too, could add $4.6 trillion to your economy if you would just let All Your Content Are Belong To Us.'

Horse manure. Definitely.

The Google Propaganda Assault Hits Congress AGAIN

noreply@blogger.com (Knight Crawler) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:22:00 +0000

Why does Google call its public policy blog a Public Policy Blog? They need to stop this shameless charade and call it what it is: The Google Propaganda Assault. For, once again, Google is using this platform to attempt to clothe its greedy manipulations of our government in a garment of feigned true concern for the American people.

Spit.

You see, last week another Google spinbot wrote about how unfair the US Patent system is and how it is in desperate need of a reformation. Quite unsatisfied with how the patent system currently functions, the Google blog laments, "Unfortunately, the patent system has not kept pace with the changes in the innovation economy." And then it decries what a terrible position this has put Google in, "Google and other technology companies increasingly face mounting legal costs to defend against frivolous patent claims from parties gaming the system to forestall competition or reap windfall profits."

So because Google feels like others are 'gaming the system,' to 'forestall competition' or 'reap windfall profits,' Google is coming to the legislature to 'game the system,' to try to change things that benefit Google and, thus, 'forestall competition,' so that Google can be in a better position to 'reap windfall profits.' (Now would be a good time to re-evaluate once again WHY Google calls it a Public Policy Blog, as mentioned above...)

Spit.

But you see Google claims that there is 'evidence' of a "growing consensus that patent law needs to be rebalanced in order to protect patent owners while ensuring that patent rights are not abused." Yes, you see, this is a growing consensus. It's everywhere! Why, I found some growing in my yard this morning. (Nix that; further inspection revealed that my dog had just been out there.) Yes, this is not just Google's concern, Google is just another group of many, many concerned citizens who have come to this same conclusion that the patent process is outdated. It's a consensus, for heaven's sake! Yea, a growing consensus...it's a movement, it is! (Please refer to previous parenthetical insert to ascertain exactly what kind of movement this actually is.)

Hold nose. Spit.

And, that movement has has achieved a voice of unity, one single voice with one single message: "A growing chorus of business leaders and companies spanning the technology, financial services, and traditional manufacturing industries has joined with legal scholars, economists, consumer and public interest organizations, government institutions and major editorial boards in calling for patent reform." Yes, the chorus is deafening. It is all-inclusive. It reaches to every level of our society. And together, it is singing the song and just so happens to be the same message that Google is preaching. More than a movement, it's a wave.

Hold nose. Plug ears. Spit.

But Google is not just whistling Dixie, in fact it has already lobbied Congress in this area. It has found itself on the Coalition for Patent Fairness. Wow. Imagine that. You move out of your bedroom and mom carries your stuff right into into the Stanford dorm. (Of course, you didn't have to attend a common college, because you were an elite.) And then, you move from your Stanford dorm room directly into your cubicle at the 'Plex (also called Hogwarts). (Where you get everything you could ever need. Free food. Free cookies, just like mom's. Heck, you deserve it. You're an elite.) And then, it isn't long and you find yourself on the steps of the U. S. Capitol building in DC on this wonderful committee. (After all, things there aren't going your way and it just isn't fair and you are there to make change happen. I mean, why should your company have to spend so much time in court defending your own patents? Things must be changed so that you don't have to do that. Sure, Microsoft has to spend a lot of time in court, seems they have been in court for about 15 years, but none of them went to Stanford! They are just your average people, but you, you are GOOGLE! And there is no reason that you should have to slug through the legal system, just because everybody else in this nation does. For you are elite!)

Hold nose. Plug ears. Roll eyes. Spit.

Suffice it to say that Google's lobby points are childishly transparent:
1. Damages apportionment. Damages should be calculated based on the fair share of the patent’s contribution to the value of a product, and not on the value of a whole product that has many components. So for example, a windshield wiper found to an infringe a patent should not spur a damage award based on the value of the entire car. (KnightCrawler's Translation: limit what we, Google, have to pay others if we are caught.)

2. Restricting forum-shopping. Certain district courts have become notorious for rarely invalidating a patent, and have tilted the balance too often in favor of plaintiffs. We support judicial venue provisions to ensure that patent lawsuits are brought only in district courts with a reasonable connection to the case. (KnightCrawler's Translation: Let Google get home field advantage by getting all our cases forwarded to the 9th Circus Court in San Francisco.) (Where there is a good likelihood that a judge's kid went to Stanford, and sees the rightness of our cause.)

3. Post-grant review. The patent system should include a meaningful second chance for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review potentially problematic patents in a timely way, thereby promoting high-quality patents. (KnighrCrawler's Translation: Waaah. We want our way. And when we don't get it, we want YOU to reevaluate your decision about our way and we want you to do it now.)

4. Willfullness. Patent infringes can be forced to pay triple the damages in cases where they are found to have "willfully" infringed a patent, but that standard has been devalued. Punitive triple damages should be reserved for cases of truly egregious conduct. (KnightCrawler's Translation: We want the hammer for our competition's infractions, yet velvet gloves for our own.)

But more than just a movement, a chorus or a wave, Google describes its efforts as downright, genUine American, "Low-quality patents and escalating legal costs are currently hurting the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally, and that in turn hurts U.S. workers and consumers." That's right, Google's got nothing but the national interest of Joe U.S. Citizen in mind and at heart with every step of its lobbying activities. It's all about what's best for the "U.S. workers and consumers, " don't ya know... can't ya see... wouldn't you believe! No selfishness at all; empirically motivated to benefit the American. Yes, and in their other hand, there is a fresh jar of newly-squeezed snake oil that will heal practically any ailment you might be suffering from.

Hold nose. Plug ears. Roll eyes. Wipe snake-oil from clothes. Spit.

The main point here is that Google is ONCE AGAIN lobbying YOUR Senators and YOUR Representatives so that Google can get what Google wants. They are seeking to change OUR laws so that the situation suits GOOGLE better, not necessarily you and me. They want the way cleared for them to have an advantage, to make more profit, to build an irrevocable empire, and to spend less to defend it. And they are cloaking it all in language that attempts for you to think that they are on your side, looking out for our best interests. If this were the DMV, they would be crying for the laws to be changed so that they wouldn't have to wait in line like everybody else. Elites, you see, don't wait in line. Lines are for all the rest; who eat cake.

Hold nose. Plug ears. Roll eyes. Wipe snake-oil from clothes. Spit. Send a cake to the Google kids.

Employer Tracks Employee With GPS Phone --Like the Coming Google Phone

noreply@blogger.com (Knight Crawler) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:43:00 +0000

Welcome to your future. An article in the New York Post today provides us with this startling glimpse of what your life will be like once you sign up for your free Google phone service and get your Google phone.

Some deserving miscreant has the poor misfortune of being our first victim. Yes, as the article describes, he has been hammered by his employer for claiming to be at work in the late afternoons, when in reality he had cut loose early and was sluffing it at home, many times.

But the crucial element here is not some run-of-the-mill time-clock milking, rather it is how his employer was able to determine this guy's whereabouts. And how did they know? Well, they tracked his every movement using the global positioning function (gps) on the company cell phone that they gave him! That's right, though Mr. LeaveEarly claimed he was at the job site, the employer trumped his claim with the gps data from his phone. Case closed.

Now do I side with a guy cheesy enough to cheat his boss out of $50 a day? No. I don't care if the kid gets fired and ends up flipping burgers. But, as far as how he was tracked, I side very strongly with this guy. And we all should be hopping up and down about it. He was given a company cell phone. (Actually it was a school district cell phone because he worked for the school district.) But when he received the cell phone, he was NOT told about it's gps functionality. He did not know that he was able to be tracked.

Frankly, a person who only behaves when someone is watching is not necessarily someone I would want to personally hire; such character flaws will inevitably bite you in one way or another, but that is not at all the point here. The point is the human tracking system that has been put in play here.

Of course the justification for such a decision to issue a gps phone to an employer is based on a protection issue: the company wants to protect its assets by not paying money for services not rendered. Or maybe to prevent theft, as it were. This type of justification is always the type of reasoning that is used to add another layer of security and has certain merits. But such merits do not go nearly far enough to justify such an implementation. Not with all the implications that a human tracking system brings with it.

Why doesn't the school district, rather than to insult and threaten all of humanity with the deployment of such an ominous tool, just hire people who aren't turds? How about having a responsible structure of supervision like everybody else. Because the administration of the school cannot figure out how to supervise its employees does not mean that it needs to bring in such a threatening weapon. Its like bringing Godzilla into your house to get rid of the cockroach you found in your kitchen. Sure Godzilla eats the cockroach, but he also devours and destroys the whole city.

Yes, fear is always the justification for new protection measures. Always has been, always will be. Fear of losing possessions or fear of losing life. But I think we can eliminate the fear of losing life in this case since that was not at all a concern here. It was fear of losing possessions; money.

Well, regardless of the fear factor here, there is a much more important issue at hand. And that is the issue not of losing possessions, but of losing freedoms! We as humans are not a herd of anything that needs to be tagged and monitored. Because it is possible does not make it right. We are not fodder for some database. Our normal comings and goings on a daily basis are, frankly, no body's business.

In fact the tracked-and-busted employee might have a good case that the gps system followed him not only at his job, but on his private time as well which to me, is clearly a case of invasion of privacy. Had the employee given the company permission to track him on his actual free time, off the clock and off the job? No? Then this is invasion of privacy.

But ironically, fear will not be the hook that Google uses to justify its own implementation or spreading of this preventable disease. No, Google will invoke the Tracking Monster in the name of 'information.' That will be their sales pitch; and they will dress it up with more flavorful benefits than Baskin Robbins: free cell phone service, universal phone number, free messaging, call screening, etc., etc.

Despite how appealing the benefits are, despite how altruistic their sales pitch, 'gathering the world's information,' seems, their underlying motivation reveals that indeed, there's nothing new under the sun. For what drives and supplies Google's quest to put your movements on a database in Mountain View boils down to just plain money.

Other institutions may be seduced to implement Godzilla out of a fear to protect money. Google, (let's call it Googzilla) will drop it upon mankind to get money.

Simple greed all dressed up and someplace to go (as in -- go with you...everywhere.)

Google's CEO Gives Snow Job in Aspen

noreply@blogger.com (Knight Crawler) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:27:00 +0000

If you missed Google's CEO's recent escapade at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual conference last week you're out one job. Ya, it's good that that conference was in Aspen, which is used to a lot of snow, because what he did was give everybody present a big snow job.

Behind a dichotomous plea for freedom and openness, were four points that pretended to be discussing real freedom and real openness, but were shamelessly transparent . Remember when you used to watch your brother or your sister lie? You know, they were caught in something or were trying to get away with something, or trying to manipulate your parents, and you would stand by as they presented a version of things?

And not only were you watching, but you also knew the truth. Remember how your parent would discuss the uncontroversial aspects of the issue and your sibling spoke one way. But then when it got to the part that was about to be covered up, or manipulated, the presentation changed, and there were slight differences in how your brother or sister said things. You noticed those differences. Let's say that your Brother-Sister (BS) meter went off that day and you became familiar with subtle communication nuances as it related to truthfulness, and, a snow job.

Well, if that ever happened to you, watching Google's CEO's presentation would be a familiar experience. If it has not happened to you yet, your first lesson is just a click away.

Mr. Google started out his presentation's main points with a terrible feint. He claimed that his first concern, or point of action, for the Foundation was the importance of the Freedom of Speech. Did I fall asleep or something, and wake up in Cuba? Freedom of speech is at risk here in the USA? This is a relevant action point for the Progress and Freedom Foundation? Not only could Big Bird have made a more profound statement to the Foundation, but if General Eisenhower feinted like Mr. Google, we all would be speaking to Fantomaster in his native language.

And you could tell it was something that set off the aforementioned BS meter, because when he said it, he himself wasn't convinced. At all. The man must have a monster conscience or be a terrible poker player because the level of conviction with which he uttered this proposed action- point borders on about how excited you would be to go pick up your prom date at the Clampetts, thinking you're going to get Ellie May, and instead you get Granny. I mean Freedom of Speech is such a non-issue in this country (never mind its precepts are in the Constitution!) and that forum that he may have hit closer to home if he suggested Crayola put a little more purple in their periwinkle crayon next year.

But, you see, he had to come up with something. I mean he couldn't just stand up there and immediately start spitting out his (read: Google's) agenda (let's call that a Googagenda). He had to dress it up a little. He had to make it seem that he was interested in openness and freedom, that Google was really interested in issues that would benefit Americans, and not just in amassing its own unlimited power so it can rape the good citizens of their freedoms later on down the road.

I mean is Google really interested in free speech? Then why are those who advertise for term- paper assistance in the UK no longer permitted to use Google AdWords? Are they really interested in openness (we will get more to that shortly)? Then open up that algorithm. Be open and truthful with your real plans and agenda. Go ahead and demonstrate that walk and don't just talk about it. For your talking without you, yourself, walking, makes it seem a little bit like manipulation, Mr. Google.

So then the Foundation was treated to the second action-point, that Everyone Should Work for Universal High-Speed Bandwidth. Sure. And maybe if the president of Coca-Cola speaks next week, he will admonish us all to work to put soda vending machines in every home and classroom. I mean, I'm not against broadband for the masses, but its a little too convenient when it is suggested by the internet's Pope. And having everybody else subsidize a monopoly for Google was not mentioned, but certainly is not a very veiled implication.

Nonetheless this was an actual Googagenda point that he tried to smoothly work into his presentation. It was about as smooth as Colorado. His believability-rating that this was a proposal common to the the general mandate of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and not a purely self-serving scam, ranks about a coal mine below O.J.

But it gets better. Then, speaking with Al Gore-sincerity, he tried to say that the spirit of openness dictates that the US Government Share It's Information. I suppose having access to a Congressman's email, browsing history, location (cell phone gps) and peeking into his house is not enough for Google, now they want all of the governments information in their database. Whom do you suppose would be the master, then, if Google controlled the government's information? This idea is not only a bad one, it is extremely presumptuous, it is beyond dangerous and it is arguably treasonous. Google's been caught with its knickers down this time. Internet democracy does not a democracy make. (Not that the USA was born a true democracy...)

How DARE Google propose that we place our private government information on their servers for every enemy and terrorist to cherry-pick! But I guess that's the kind of world a bunch of 20-year olds would create if they had the chance. Little do these adolescents realize that with such information available to our enemies, their Googleplex jungle-gym would quickly be Mecca-West, Beijing-East or something similar. Google can not be allowed to be Lord of the Flies.
Besides, I do not recall them even being on the ballot in the last election.