Google Power

In my last post I mentioned that I would be following Google’s plans for world domination very closely, and I have done just that. Google has been all over the news recently for various reasons, including their failed attempt at their social network “Buzz”.

Through all the mess of Google Media (I should pitch that idea), I finally found something worth being concerned over. The FERC, or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has granted Google Energy the right to buy and sell energy at bulk cost, essentially giving Google Energy the right to not only cut their cost of paying for energy down to at cost rates (wish I could do that), but also granting them the ability to sell consumers energy as if a utility company. On the surface, and without much in the way of research, I originally thought it was simply a ploy to reduce company cost of operation, seems like a perfectly capitalist thing to do right? As it turns out I am sadly mistaken, a recent article from Cnet paints a pretty telling story.

2007: Google dedicated more money than Michael Jackson acquired after he died, towards scientists in attempts to create a platform that can generate 1 Jigglywatt of clean energy and make it cheaper than, well technically carbon dirt. 1 Gigawatt-hour (meaning a platform capable of generating 1GW and maintaining that power for an hour) could power roughly 750,000 to 1,000,000 homes for an hour.

2008: Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google and former board member of Apple, presented a plan to save the US billions to trillions of dollars on energy cost by switching to clean energy, and could eventually get to 100% clean energy use from renewable energy sources.

Google has invested in everything from Wind to Hybrids in the energy market and doesn’t show any signs of slowing that attempt, Google has been “going green” for a long period of time now, something I could consider commendable, they have also released software to help consumers track their energy use.

Google has also been gobbling up start-up energy companies and started running a few tests of it’s own. eSolar, a company that google funded from IdeaLabs, has already created a few “energy plants” producing clean energy.

All of this clean energy talk makes me want to frolic in sun flowers and daisy fields. Don’t get me wrong, clean energy and going green is nothing to take lightly, it’s something we can all benefit from. However, do you want to pay your monthly utility bill to google? Maybe they will create a universal billing software so all your bills will be lumped into one sum and sent to you via text and email. Or maybe it would just be easier for them to already own every company you may be billed from.

Recent Google activities are starting to all clip together in one giant eWorld capitalist companies version of communism. Google is currently in court for Google’s book scanning venture, with attempts being made to monetize the entire project by using Orphan Works, works that the author is unknown, or MIA. Google is still going forward with it’s ISP idea, as well as laying it’s own fiber trails. Google is still working with the NSA, which is starting to frighten others a bit (good!), but that has yet to have a real impact on anything.

Overall our Google eWorld (another good one I should take to Google) is looking like it may just come to fruition. They widely control the interwebs, are going to control Power, and our ISP (which it’s looking like telecom companies are considering switching to data only and using VoIP services instead of phone lines, this includes cell phone companies). Next they will be selling us hybrid cars, planes, boats, and anything else they can place a hybrid engine in. Why go to sears when you have google?

I’ll provide more on our eWorld as it starts to unfold later.

Our country ‘tis of… Google?

I’m a fan of Google, always have been, but even I can tell that Google is well overstepping it’s bounds lately. First was the Google – China issue (which is still underway), you all remember that from my little bet right? This seemingly appears as a front for an NSA – Google partnership. Obviously since the NSA is involved not much information is available about the true intents and possible deals made with that little infringement on freedom. There is plenty of speculation, as well as many government conspiracy theories. This was one partnership that even got me thinking, but like a good little Google monkey, I pushed my fears aside on this one, even though the entire thing prompted EPIC to start an investigation into this matter.

Even more recently, Google has announced, and launched, “Buzz”. Buzz is Google’s new attempt at breaking into the social networking market, and they seem to be purchasing a few new companies as well as integrating existing social networks to help boost their success. Google Profiles is being pushed as well, a new way to use Google search to search through your friends Social networks and information just in case they might have posted somewhere something of value pertaining to your search. The idea of Google profiles isn’t bad, but the real world use is a bit asinine.

Next in line for Google is Google’s news about needing faster internet in the US and proposing a 1Gb fiber optic network and possibly entering in the ISP wars in order to push this. I’m extremely happy that finally someone is trying to push for fiber to home networks and not just sticking with the “last mile” fiber motto. However, the more concerning thing is Google becoming an ISP.

Gmail, Buzz, Google Voice, Google Wave, Google Profiles, Google Web-pages, Google Blogging service, Google IM, Google docs, Google Calendar, Google checkout, Google Phones, Google Books, Google Chrome (web browser and soon Chrome OS), Google web search with logging history which is also under fire and being asked for 2 years of data logging, and many many more. Google effectively controls and house’s more than it’s share of information and communications online, of which most is free for user’s. I appreciate and use many of the services Google offers, however I make no preconception that any of it truly is private. By itself, that is not that big of an issue for me, I’ve nothing much to hide and I realize how truly unsecure most information through any web provider or service really is. But that doesn’t mean there is information I want to be public or controlled by any one source.

Google’s partnership with the NSA is now becoming more alarming, as Google is heavily pushing to be become the world’s information storage bin, granting any rights to the NSA that’s not already in effect and scary enough, is truly just asking for problems. It’s pretty commonly recognized that National Security for any nation, especially Cyber Security, requires extraordinary and brilliant individuals. Most of the cyber criminals we hear about are Pirates and Hackers, usually bypassing copy-right protection, or hacking into servers like Twitter and launching DoS attacks. The type of guys hired by outfits like the NSA and the Chinese Government are the ones you don’t hear about. They are the people that develop the software and control many Botnet’s or find ways to hack TPM chips with house hold cleaners and rust removers. Providing people with any access to our Google Information as dangerous - even in a controlled industry like NSA - as these hackers is beyond scary.

Again I will recount, I was willing to let that ride unless more information became known, until I heard that Google was going to get into the ISP market. By their count, it’s only for a “testbed” and they are not intending to compete, but what kind of company puts down 1.3 billion for a fiber network and enters in a “test” ISP scenario without intent and staying there. Especially when ALL information used, obtained, viewed, or submitted online MUST first go through an ISP. We have come to realize that Google is all about information, and the control thereof. Selecting them as the gateway for this information, while having the NSA lurking in their bed, really is a rather frightening thought.

I’m not huge on conspiracy theories, even though I do like to embellish a bit. However it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that Google is entering worlds that would require FCC and FTC investigation and quite possibly go directly against their “do no evil” motto. Take from that what you will, but it looks ugly.

Google is going to be hard-pressed to remain on the good side, and keep their innocent appeal with the general public. They have started a “human rights” agenda and brought Google, the US government, and now Iran into the mix. Their Internet Freedom line of defense is extremely subjective while their are tempting fate with the NSA and jumping into the ISP market. I will be closely following this outbreak of information Nazism and look forward to watching Google walk this extremely fine line. With Apple watching and exacerbating every move Google makes I’m not sure how much of their business deals will remain secret.

A prize of many

Most people remember the shock and mixed opinions when President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize very early in his presidency. His stance on nuclear weapons, foreign policies, health care, and peace negotiations in the middle east had obviously made a statement to the committee.

2010: Among the nominee’s for this years Peace Price include Svetlana Gannushkina and her human rights group, Liu Xiaobo, a chinese human rights activist currently imprisoned for "inciting subversion of state power", and of course, the Internet.

The Internet, born in the 60’s under U.S. militaristic oppression, has grown in fame quickly since it’s birth. In the mid-90’s The Internet had reached international acclaim and quickly became a house hold name. The Internet began providing every culture and every person with a voice to be heard. With countless applications and communications services release by the internet, governments, and human rights advocates alike were able to quickly communicate. By the late 90’s the internet was a force to be reckoned, and had began efforts to bring the younger generations into it’s mix, providing every user the ability to use communication devices like Instant Messaging, E-Mail, and a new trend, blogging. It’s development of LiveJournal, a social network, was a big step in collecting the masses and would soon grow at an astounding rate. By 2010 the Internet has become unstoppable. Social networking services like Facebook and Twitter have been able to stop wars and provide data for relief organizations. The Internet was a huge player in the U.S. efforts in the Iran Election. While the Internet is directly responsible for opening up a new type of crime, cyber-warfare, it’s rather minor considering all the good, and the intent mind you, the internet has brought to the world in it’s short 50 years.

We, as in the collective human race, as well as governments and committee's founded by or elected by the human race, have obviously lost touch with reality entirely. At the beginning of this year, U.S. supreme court ruled that organizations should be allowed to provide unlimited resources and funding for “special interest” in U.S. government. This includes all domestic AND foreign organizations, and basically gives them the right to do whatever they please in government and elections, granting them similar power as if their were considered “persons”.

Now, only a short period of time after this completely outrageous decision, something as broad as “The Internet” gets a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. Why the nominee didn’t consist of something a little more narrow like the founders of twitter/facebook, or the founders of Google, hell even Steve Jobs would be a better candidate, at least he can provide an acceptance speech.

Will you be looking forward to the internet’s gleeful cries if it wins the Nobel Peace Prize? How would you feel about The Internet co-hosting the Grammy’s with political figure Corporation aka “The Man” next year? Spot me your opinion, since mine is already tainted.

Social Networking – Evolution of Identity

Recently I found myself playing a few online games and noticed the API add-in for links to Facebook and Twitter. The concept was pretty basic, attach your login to Facebook to the game to instantly post game achievements to Facebook or Twitter. However this left me pondering the true scope of social networking.

Today, a friend asked me to help him with some basic information and setup on a social network. Without hesitation I began asking questions about needs and deterring from one network in favor of another, and listing a few pros and cons. That’s when it really hit me, social networking is no longer just some toy or fad. I’ve been reading a lot of articles surrounding social networks, the impacts they have, and the media attention some of the bigger name networks command. But it takes something like realizing you are somewhat of a pro when it comes to social network knowledge to really put it into perceptive.

Unlike a few others I know, I didn’t start my first profile until Myspace hit the market. I remember contemplating even joining, summing up the concept of a social network as nothing more than a waste of time and a pointless endeavor, but I joined it anyway realizing I truly didn’t have anything better to waste my time on (I was at work – graves). I began tweaking settings, adding and removing information, connecting with old and new friends and spending hours collecting information. For what? Well, at the time it was merely amusing. I was also getting into web development as a hobby and noticed that I could modify much of my Myspace profile with CSS. This led me to Photobucket and eventually Flickr, because I had to host my photo’s for my background somewhere.

Later came facebook, and facebook apps. Those wonderfully addicting games stole much of my time. I constantly see ads for Farmville, a popular facebook game. I still have my cell phone linked to facebook to get updates and comments directly texted to me wherever I go, with the ability to text in a reponse. Though I don’t use this feature as often as I once did.

Speaking of texting, next huge blocked buster was Twitter. Twitter has become so hugely popular and media effecting that the U.S. Government asked Twitter to reschedule it’s downtime last summer due to elections in Iran. President Obama sent his first “tweet” this year while pushing for relief funds for an earthquake in Haiti. Google has started displaying real-time twitter feeds in their search to help keep a constant, fresh, opinion on any matter you might be wanting to track, from politics to apple events.

Back to my original statement of connecting my game with facebook. I've been starting to see the “connect with facebook” everywhere now, from games to Digg. Usually associated is also Twitter, both performing ways to link your profile for a given site with your accounts on neither or both facebook and twitter.

Google Profiles, has recently launched and allows a user to connect facebook, along with many other social networks in order to use google to quickly search topics in the news and among friends and family. A truly scary and remarkable way social networks are influencing our internet and business experience daily. Jaron Lanier, recently published a book about how our lives are quickly becoming a blip in the net, and we’re becoming a collective hive. A very interesting, if not extreme theory. However with the advent and general push of social networks, that seems to be bringing the internet around to a very real, almost tangible feeling. Being able to not only put a face to an online persona, but also the ability to read about this person in many forms, from a simple facebook profile and friends listings to credit card purchases. I almost seems if we may be giving up TOO much of our personal information and connecting far too many of our daily habits to internet searchable media.

In a very sick and devilish way I’m almost looking forward to watching how the effect of social networks completely alter how the internet functions as the dynamic of reality and  the virtual world collide into one giant mess.

What’s your take? Do you actively engage in social networks? How do they effect you and do you see them as nothing more than a novelty, or a change of times?

Computer safety, Which OS?

A very long standing debate, both from experts, hobbyists, and general consumers. Which computer Operating System is the best? This question always ends up being synonymous with, which OS is more secure? The problem here is these two questions are completely and entirely independent of each other. Let’s look at both in more detail.

 Security:

This is a multilayer question. Hack attempts, malware, spyware, virus’s etc. generally have one common goal; to steal information and acquire access. Computer attacks mostly fit into 2 categories – Attacks for profit, or attacks to harm a large company, usually as a political statement.

Let’s start from the bottom and most basic. Physical access. Criminals with the intent to gain access to your computer by means of directly and physically accessing it usually do this in public areas, coffee shops, airports, stores, parks etc. They will either lift the entire machine, or quickly access it while if left unattended. Obviously this is not the most common, but does happen. I have worked for a company where several laptops storing sensitive information when missing or were stolen in public places.

In this scenario the thief has more tools at his disposal, but usually just wants to make a profit selling the machine. In cases that the machine has windows or linux, they will usually sell the machine as is, or reinstall the OS. However, if the thief does want access to the machine each is vulnerable, but I’d have to go with linux as the safest. Mac’s have a quick access account reset method that could be done in minutes. Holding Apple key + S while the system is rebooting will drop the user at a “root” prompt (root being system level access that is otherwise disabled on macs). After that it’s a few steps away from resetting the password or creating a new admin account. Windows has a similar vulnerability, ERD commander, which is used by many professionals to reset passwords or attempt to repair non-working windows machines.

OS and Web attacks:

This is really 2 parts, however they culminate into online based attacks. all 3 major OS’s have their flaws and security measures. Microsoft has by far added the most advanced and secure options as well as multiple ways to manage them. They now also offer free anti-virus software, which is as decent as any free and most paid subscription based anti-virus programs. The ads depicting Windows Vista with annoying Pop-ups asking for permission to run programs is NOT new to Mac or Linux users. Each ask for elevated privileges usually by asking for an Admin username and Password to run or install certain programs. Windows Vista did take it a bit farther by occasionally adding one extra security dialogue box, but nothing more intrusive then mac and linux already implement. Point being, when a virus or malware gains access to the system, it must also gain access to an admin account, making it a bit more difficult to infect. We can equate this to security measure to the protection you may have in your house. If the thief gets in your house without being detected, it’s up to your in-home security to block them, which most people don’t have. Anti-virus programs and these annoying security measures are a last resort step to prevent infection, and generally are not too effective on any platform. If the virus is new, or altered enough, your anti-virus program likely has not published a definition detection for it.

These leaves us with the entry point. The most important step in preventing attacks. there are 3 major points of entry with all 3 OS’s. Instant Messengers, E-Mail client (both web and module software), and the biggest being the web browser itself. Since there has been a major focus on security with all platforms it’s becoming more difficult for attackers to gain access to a computer, so the attackers must also adapt. Most attacks now use a form of social engineering in one way or another.

Instant Message attacks usually pop up in the form of a link. Bots are setup to spam as many contacts as possible usually with a saying similar to “Hey check this out”, or “Is this a picture of you?”. If the end user clicks the link they are directed to a site that instantly downloads Malware/Trojans, then infects the users IM account and sends the same link and quote out to everyone on their contact list. This results in getting what seems to be a legit IM from a friend saying they found a picture of them and to go check it out.

Email, or “Spam”, is a very common practice to infect PC’s. This can range anywhere from free or cheap medication, real estate properties, to something more convincing like spam appearing to be from fedex saying they were unable to deliver a package, or delta saying that a flight plan had changes. The latter usually containing a zip file with supposed information about the problem. Once the zip file is opened, or the link is clicked the computer is infected and begins spamming out messages from the users mail client as well as opening holes for attackers to use their computer in a “botnet”. Anti-virus programs are usually useless against these attacks, relying heavily on spam filters to block both executable files and harmful links, but they still can and will get through with enough effort.

Onto the browser attacks. Browser attacks are the absolute most common and devious attacks, spawning arguments, debates, and development cycles commonly known as the “browser wars”. The vast majority of attacks on a computer come from browsers and always implement a certain level of social engineering. A website may clone a legitimate website, appearing to the user to be exactly where they wanted to go. Upon entry, or clicking on a link, will start downloading and infecting the users machine. Other attempts will advertise a video, game, download, or other such material enticing the user to visit based on the user assumption that they would truly like to view or use the advertised product. There is almost no end to the number of infected sites falling in this range and often requires great care and scrutiny from the user to avoid these traps. This type of attack usually exploits a security hole in the web browser or 3rd party plug-in to gain access, especially when the site includes Flash or Java content. All browsers developers work extremely hard to prevent security holes and patch their software, but they do require the user to constantly update their software.

In the end, attacks come down to very basic elements. if a user is not allowing automatic updates, or downloading updates that require manual updates, they are more prone to attacks. Every OS, browser, mail client, and IM client require regular updates to remain safe and must be attended to. In a more fundamental aspect, since these attacks on the general public are aimed at money and pure numbers. The most common OS/browser/IM client used are quite obviously going to be the most common attacked which sheds a very real light on what advertisers would rather you not know. It’s not a matter of what OS is more secure, it comes down to what OS holds the largest user base that will be most frequently attacked. If windows was the minority in the OS wars, it was suffer far less attacks then a Mac.

In an article from Cnet, Jeremiah Grossman from WhiteHat Security put it best, “from a consumer's perspective you probably should be using the word 'safe' rather than 'secure'; two completely different things. 'Secure' is a supermax prison. 'Safe' is a playground in suburbia. Follow?”

In the end, consumers should not be looking at their choice from a security perceptive. The choice should be summed up by what you need from your computer, and what options each has to meet your needs. State of security will be a combined effort between software updates and extreme caution. Until Software developers are able to remove the human element and social engineering aspect of security vulnerabilities, nothing will ever be secure on the net.

Cellular Networks – or lack of

In terms of coverage and availability, it seems like most users don’t really know, or care about the differences in networks that each carrier provides. That has recently started changing as competitive ads have target network type and network coverage. A good example is the lawsuit AT&T filed against Verizon over the “map” ads.

Recent news indicates that cellular companies, particularly AT&T are now struggling to catch up with society. Let’s take a more in-depth look at what is really out there over what cellular companies would like you to think is out there.

in 2007, Apple released it’s first iPhone. Before this release there were many “smartphones” on the market providing much of what the iPhone did at the time, linking to many online services to provide more content. But it wasn’t until the release of the iPhone that cell networks exploded by consumer frenzies. Users were consuming all forms of media on the iPhone at a staggering rate and AT&T’s 3g network choked. Why? Was it not enough towers? was AT&T just not prepared for the Apple invasion?

I can’t say I fault AT&T for being ill-equipped to handle the data usage the iPhone produced. At least not in the beginning. I do remember the lines of people standing hours at the store waiting to get their first iPhone. I’m not a fan of Apple, or any of their products, but I have to hand it to them. Their fanboy appeal seems to alter lifestyles of consumers. The trend of apple seems to sell despite their failed innovations. They don’t provide anything really new, or produce quality above any other company. It’s their logo and status appeal that gets the money.

Anyway, enough of my tangent, back to AT&T. To better understand what really happened. let’s look at the network as a whole. a Cellular networks mainframe is hooked into a channel, usually a T1 copper line that runs to their cell towers. On the towers is a transmitter that functions in the same similar fashion that a wireless router or wireless phone base unit does. Obviously without many towers in the area a device connecting to them is going to have a harder time getting a good signal, so in essence, yes AT&T failed on the iPhone release with lack of towers, but what about urban areas with good tower ratios and good connections? That boils down to the “backhaul”. As stated earlier most of AT&T’s backhaul was comprised (and still is in most areas) of T1 lines. T1 lines were not originally intended to support large amounts of data traffic that the iPhone was so obviously being used for. A t1 provides roughly 1.5Mbps (about a 1/4 – 1/2 an mp3 per second), when congested with hundreds or even thousands of users that network real estate is eaten pretty quickly and the network chokes.

Onto the problem. AT&T received exclusive rights, and still maintains those right, to the iPhone. However, they have done very little to actually resolve the problem caused by mass data use. Some cellular providers have already recognized this problem and started using fiber channels for their backhaul, which raises the bar from 1.5Mbps to anywhere from 2.5Gbps - 10+Gbps (depending on channels used). AT&T (and many others) reserved their hand and estimated they a few years before the upgrade must be in place. It wasn’t until 2009, and the release of the 3rd generation iPhone, that AT&T started to cough up some change to improve their networks backhaul with a plan to revise starting in 2009 and expected to end in 2015. Verizon, while also committing to upgrade their backhaul, took a different route and purchased all the unused 700MHz TV traffic that now lay dormant with the HDTV mandate in 2008. Sprint poured about 5 Billion into it’s 4g network AKA WiMax, and allowed Clearwire access.

This year AT&T expects to place 2 billion into their network to stay in terms with upgrading their network. Unfortunately it seems like they have waited too long. With the major E-Readers (nook and Kindle among them) using AT&T’s 3g network for updates and data traffic. A new iPhone slated for release in later this year, and the iPad using only AT&T’s 3g network. AT&T stands to take a MAJOR hit to data traffic only a year into their upgrade attempts. However, AT&T is still hiding in the closet with regards to a quickly changing social norm saying, “We believe, though, the device, based on where we believe it will be used in homes, in offices, coffee shops, bookstores, airports, so on and so forth will be used a substantial amount of time in a Wi-Fi environment.”

Hopefully the relationship between Apple and AT&T holds firm when their network chokes after the launch of the new devices coming out. I personally enjoy not having Apple Fanboys tying up my cell network.

Do you think AT&T will be able to handle the anticipated iPad and new iPhone? Will Apple’s trend start to fail with the iPad, or will they be forced to open their devices up to all networks? Leave your feedback.

What’s in a name?

iPad – The joke of the week. Whether or not the product is any good seems to no longer be the point of discussion.

Now I wasn’t even going to bother writing about the iPad because of the hundreds of articles on the web already discussing it’s qualities, or lack thereof in some cases. However I’ve noticed the trend go from it’s ability to simply remarks about it’s name. I recently stumbled across this article stating that apple may just end up being at the end of a lawsuit over rights to the name “iPad”.

Above the blatant disregard for trademarked names apple obviously cared little about. I can see the need for some companies, like Fujitsu, to defend the name it’s already released a product under. The question I have after this epic failure in brand naming, why would anyone want to retain a products name that even resembles the joke line that has followed this launch? There are times when any press is NOT good press, especially when it results in consumers opinion of a product to be associated with toiletries or hygiene products (unless of course that is your line of business).

I pose this question, why spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted man power to fight for a name that has, within days, become a huge public joke? Someone that knows nothing about the product will now start with a poor first impression that has to then be overcome just to reach a neutral stance before they can be sold.

All companies associated with this name should likely second guess their brand name, entertain the idea of simply settling in court to avoid further “comments from the peanut gallery”. Making a public mess over it will bring press around, but that’s not necessarily a name any of these companies should want being tweeted about. Except loss, take or give credits and hold a board meeting about changing the name.

Stephen Hutcheon of the Sydney Morning Herald stated "Slate is a little bit 'Flintstones,' " referring to the buzz that the iPad may have been called iSlate. Well, Flinstones is far better then Max-iPad. Australia is already commenting on the iPad name. World Wide joke it seems, and that’s good? Apple seems to already hold the license for iSlate, why not put it to better use?

What is your take? Do you think apple should fight to hold the title of iPad? Do you think the joke will just “fade away” as Hutcheon suggests, or is internet buzz still driven by high school like jokes?

Blippy – Why?

Blippy, a new social networking site designed to display personal credit card transactions automatically after purchase. Here we have a great example of peoples complete lack of interest in personal safety and security. Publicly posting up to every transaction, location, price, item, and frequency of use goes in direct violation against what we’ve come to know about personal identity protection.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were the criminal who is attempting to steal someone’s identity. One common known security practice put in place by credit card companies is flagging purchases made that exceed certain limits or go against a purchasing patterns that a customer generally follows. I know my card has been deactivated before because of unusual activity, be it several purchases in a day that don’t match my typical shops, or frequent use in another state. Blippy has made overcoming this security measure effortless. Simply steal a card, check Blippy, follow purchasing patterns.

Let us also take into consideration location tracking. This is already a problem among frequent social network trend like facebook and twitter. Users will frequently update their status via mobile phone or other device on what they are doing and where they are doing it. Aside from being extremely annoying to some, this allows other to track the exact location of an individual. In a more criminal state of mind, the mix of all these networks could allow them to track a target to a bar, wait until they have a few drinks, use social engineering to get close to their intent and lift a purse or card. Then they have free reign for the next several hours or possibly days to buy items following a trend from Blippy before they need to ditch the identity and seek a new one.

Obviously this is an extreme case scenario, but it’s also a case that would be virtually eliminated without constant updates to free and open social networks. Now I’m not against social networks, I use them, however I don’t constantly update them allowing people to track my movements. Most of these technologies help us all stay connected to the world around us and make it easier to pass information along. However we also have a great need arising to be more aware of the adverse effects these outlets could potentially have. 

Blippy is a prime example of social networking going too far. The negative effects present behind this idea far out-weight to positive advertising and social connection it might provide. If you would like to keep your friends up-to-date on shops or items of interest, feel free to post them. Not everything needs to be public and most certainly doesn’t need to be available instantly and automatically. I feel it’s only a matter of time until we see a headline involving theft or even death due to blippy’s publications.

How do you feel about this social networking idea, is it something you would use or feel is a good product? Leave your feedback and opinion.

Google vs. China

Recently, a good friend and I have entered into a bet involving the Google – China fiasco.

My side - likely scenario, Google will likely leave China. However I also entertain, and hope for, the idea that China may be backed into a corner and lift it’s skirt a bit.

My friends side - Google will absolutely not leave China and China will certainly not modify it’s laws.

The Story:

For those of you that are unaware or vague on the details of this issue, allow me to present the back story. Earlier this month Google announced it, and up to 30 other silicon valley based companies, had been victims of a cyber-attack aimed at obtaining intellectual property.  Google quickly made this a very public matter, and urged many of the other 30 companies to also go public with this information. Several Gmail accounts, mostly Chinese Human Rights activists, were compromised although reports indicated that the contents of the accounts were had not been infiltrated.

During this announcement, Google also expressed concern about the Chinese laws centered around government censorship and stated that it would no longer censor it’s searches. Google rolled back it’s self-censored filters and sent most of it’s China HQ staff on paid leave to investigate the recent hack attempts.

The issue has now risen beyond business ethics straight into the world of politics. Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton made a public speech about  internet freedom, which seemingly stemmed directly from Google’s decision to stand up to China and those who would censor internet freedom. Obviously, China was not very happy with her remarks and their mouth piece blasted the U.S. for being hypocritical.

Opinion:

Google, being a business that is ran on the foundation of it’s reputation and ethics, would be shooting itself in the foot to make a stance against such a blatant crime against internet freedom without any kind of follow through. While I fully understand that it has dumped a lot of money into launching and operating in China, I don’t believe they would have made the issue so completely public and continue to draw attention to it without being prepared to follow through.

Google has also been hit with bad press about opening and censoring themselves in China to begin with. Since their launch in 2006 Google has only managed to take a small share of the search market in China. Their slim hold in China may also be a deciding factor in Google being so willing to pull out as it may not be such a lucrative investment after all. What better way to bring in more business and attract more clients, as well as brush of a directed attack and infiltration, then to make someone else out to be the bad guy and protest them publicly.

Whether it’s a PR stunt, or a true ethical issue driving their decision, I really don’t see Google as a company willing to make idol threats of this caliber.

Leave some feedback, what do you think of the situation?

(and yes I realize the irony of using a Google owned blogging service to post this.)