Category: Web 2.0 & Democracy

excerpt:
A Multi-Party System or a Monopoly

While Google looks at spending potentially $4.6 billion on the wireless auction, it has another multi-billion dollar matter it would like to have settled. That, of course, is its acquisition of DoubleClick. Announced in April, the deal has been met with significant backlash and questioning from all corners. Currently the deal awaits Federal Trade Commission approval. At stake is potential control of the Web advertising ecosystem. A marriage of Google & DoubleClick creates a clear pecking order for all advertising online — an order that would once again put Yahoo and Microsoft in a trailing position…To date, Google employees have out-contributed Microsoft employees toward the 2008 presidential candidates — a stark contrast to the 10:1 contribution margin that existed in 2006…As Google tries to rewrite the rules on how advertising is done and expands its reach into all spectrums of communications, the importance of Washington will only grow. Over the past two years Google has grown its Washington lobbyists base from 0 to 12 (a sizable number for a technology company), hosted four 2008 presidential candidates on its campus (three Dems, one Republican) and established its own political action committee that has already out-raised its 2006 total.”

from: “The Next President: Sponsored by Google.” Chris Copeland. Search Insider. August 10, 2007.

goo movies german girlsediting software moviemovies college sexfree titty fuck moviesmovie star porn12 dbz moviesoftware movie editingmovies fucking wedding Map

Ford

We don’t know anything about the work and personal interests of Mr. Luis Ubiñas. But he’s the in-coming president of the Ford Foundation. Ford is a premier public foundation working to promote a global civil society. We hope that Mr. Ubiñas will seize the initiative to fund a variety of efforts designed to foster a global democratic digital media environment. That means funding advocacy groups representing the interests of the public as both consumers and citizens (even if it means taking on the clients that he has worked with while at McKinsey and Co.); helping fund sustainable and responsible models for multi-platform and multi-media content production; promoting a diverse range of owned and operated services that reflect the interests of and are controlled by low-income and minority/new majority groups; helping journalism make the transition to the digital era; ensuring the new media truly contributes to electoral reform. Of course, dealing with the digital divide, open broadband networks, the future of public media, and privacy must also on the agenda. Such work must address the problems in the U.S., as politically thorny as they are. [We know there’s more to add to such a list. This is just starters].
This is not meant as a self-serving comment, as we’ve been funded by Ford in the past. It’s in the spirit of being on-the-record that someone with a great deal of media industry knowledge is taking over a key philanthropic institution. And it’s occurring during a critical turning point for the future of democratic communications, in the U.S. and everywhere else.

Here’s his bio from a Digital Hollywood conference: “Luis Ubiñas is a Director in McKinsey & Company’s West Coast Media, Entertainment and Technology Practice, dividing his time between offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles and also overseeing the practice in Seattle and Denver. Since joining the Firm in 1989, he has focused on serving media, communications and technology companies undergoing major change -entering or exiting businesses or redesigning core processes. Luis has extensive experience in the telecommunications and cable industries: helping build consumer high-speed data businesses; introducing advanced digital set-top boxes and services; and, now, helping design the early VOIP trials. In cable operations, he has worked with MSOs across a broad range of activities, including channel line-up standardization, rebuild prioritization, and purchasing. Luis’ work for other media companies has been operations-focused, helping several newspapers improve circulation and advertising sales and working with content companies to improve international distribution and developing digital distribution strategies. For technology companies, Luis has worked with early entrants in the home networking, digital set-top box manufacturers and other hardware providers. In addition, he has served a large number of technology start-ups as part of his work with venture capital firms. Before joining McKinsey, Luis worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, concentrating on marketing and strategy assignments. He also worked briefly as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and as assistant to the CEO of the Honduran beer and soft drink (Coca-Cola) monopoly. Luis has an A.B. in government, magna cum laude, from Harvard College, and an M.B.A. (Baker scholar) from Harvard Business School. He currently serves on the Boards of the Digital Coast Roundtable in Los Angeles and the SteppingStone Foundation in Boston.”

mp3 safari 1987 pozdrav zemlje izalhadi abd mp31988 mp3 state allmp3 perveen abdamp3 khayat abdallah1989 mp3 eurovision1990 temptations mp3stati mp3 abdelaziz Map

CDT’s Privacy “Report”—Full Disclosure is Missing

CDT has long been an ally of the various data collection companies it purports to oversee on behalf of consumers. It’s funded by a number of them. In fact Microsoft’s Bill Gates helped raise money for the group just last March.

The report released today fails to address the wide-ranging privacy threat coming from the major search engines and their advertising clients. It fails to acknowledge that it’s only because of policy-related pressure from privacy advocates—including the FTC complaint filed last November by my Center for Digital Democracy and US PIRG—that there have been modest corporate changes. [As well as the work of these two groups and EPIC in the case of Google’s proposed merger with Doubleclick, and the role of European Commission authorities]. CDT’s report also fails to acknowledge that it’s because of the unprecedented series of mergers in the data collection sector over the last few months, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL [$33.4 billion in the first half of 2007 alone, according to Ad Age. sub may be required.] —and the subsequent US and international regulatory scrutiny—that has created the “pressure” to bring about a few modest changes in data collection and retention practices. Without real advocates pressing—and regulators taking up their demands—we would have no changes at all (as minimal as they are). The marketplace’s approach isn’t protecting consumers.

Most troubling is that CDT fails to acknowledge that the widespread and evolving role of interactive advertising practices by these companies—including behavioral targeting, “rich” immersive media, and virtual reality formats—pose a serious threat to privacy and personal autonomy. It is not just the “bad” actors that require federal legislation, as CDT’s report suggests. If all Americans are to be protected online, the entire industry must be governed by federal policies designed to ensure privacy and consumer protection.

Here is a comment from my colleague Jennifer Harris: “When a group – with as close ties to the industry as CDT has – calls for government oversight, it is necessary to recognize just how much slack the online advertising and marketing industry has been given with our personal information. The main point is that consumers are at risk; updated federal consumer protection policies are essential to an environment that increasingly uses personal data as its commodity.”

Yesterday, the FTC sent out a release announcing its November town meeting on online advertising and privacy. The hearing is in response to the formal complaint my group Center for Digital Democracy and the USPIRG filed last November.

It’s clear that the FTC is fearful of really tackling the privacy and consumer-manipulation problems intrinsic to the online ad field. Behavioral targeting, which we also address in our complaint, is just the tip of the proverbial data collection and target marketing iceberg. Policymakers at the FTC, the Congress, and state A-G’s must do a better job in addressing this problem. Chapter seven of my book covers the topic, along with recommendations. As we noted in our statement yesterday, CDD has given the staff at the FTC a ton of material since November, further making the case for immediate federal safeguards. There is so much at stake regarding the future of our (global) democratic culture and its relationship to online marketing. We hope others will join with us and raise the larger societal issues, in addition to the specific online ad marketplace concerns.

porn dominican shootsxxx dominican porn picschico donavan phillips porndonita dunes pornlist porn donkeyshow porn donkeydonky clip porn punchdonna star porn bella Map

As Murdoch-run WSJ Plans to compete with NYT, FCC Must Review its status as “national” newspaper

We have urged several FCC commissioners to support a review of the Wall Street Journal and its relationship to the New York City DMA. We believe that News Corp.’s plans to have the Journal compete with the New York Times, among other factors, require serious scrutiny by the commission. The broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard, we suggest, may apply in this case.

As the Journal reported on August 1, 2007:

“Just as vulnerable could be the New York Times, published by New York Times Co., and Pearson PLC’s Financial Times. In a May letter to Dow Jones’s controlling shareholders, the Bancroft family, Mr. Murdoch said he would want Dow Jones properties to “reach a broader domestic audience by expanding the content base.” He emphasized yesterday he “would not want to step back from any of the business coverage” but he would “like to add more general news,” repeating comments about plans to expand the Journal’s Washington bureau. He said that to accomplish his goal there “could be another four pages a day” for news coverage. A person with knowledge of his plans said Mr. Murdoch believes more general news and political coverage would make the Journal a stronger rival to the New York Times, which has a bigger share of consumer advertising.”

Ad Age reported [listen to Nat Ives video] that News Corp. is even considering adding sports news to the Journal, as it competes “head-to-head” with the Times.

As for calls for a national cross-ownership safeguard, we point to the recommendations in our new book which describe a new model for measuring media diversity in the digital era. But if new safeguards are to be enacted, foremost should be policies supporting sustainable community and national services that provide for both diverse expression–and news gathering/reporting–in the digital and multi-platform interactive era. In other words, we should be focused on adding what is missing and will still be ignored by the mainstream. They haven’t got it right so far–and won’t in the future.
Source for Wall Street J. quote: “Deal Will Test a Media Titan’s Instincts:
Rupert Murdoch’s Long-Sought Purchase
Of Dow Jones Could Change Business Journalism”
By MARTIN PEERS, SUZANNE VRANICA and STEPHANIE KANG
August 1, 2007; Page B1

The 700 MHz Auction: It’s about Online Advertising, Mobile Targeting, Commercialism and Threats to Privacy

We are glad Google is pushing a more open system for wireless. Cable and the phone monopoly want to run a closed shop. But we also believe that Google ultimately has the same business model in mind for wireless. Google wants access to more mobile spectrum so it can advance online advertising via data collection, profiling and one-to-one targeting. Missing in most of the debate about wireless is how can we ensure the U.S. public has access to non-commercial and community-oriented (and privacy-respectful) applications and services. There should be well-developed plans simultaneously advanced with the auction that will ensure the spectrum really serves the public interest (we see some have made such proposals). Such spectrum should be community-run and help stimulate a new generation of broadband public interest content and network services. But we fear that all that will happen is that Google and others will further transform what should be public property into a crazy maze of interactive [pdf] advertising-based content. This will further fuel a culture where personal consumption takes further precedence over the needs of civil society.

What Google should have said about “Why we’re buying Doubleclick”

Why can’t Google admit to its real reasons for acquiring Doubleclick? It’s not truly candid recent post (by Group Product Manager Alex Kimmier) dodges the key issues. If Google can’t be more honest—and at least admit to real public policy concerns—it’s a strategic blunder (let alone an example of a corporate culture where candor isn’t truly valued). So first, this “official” Google blog should have admitted that there are real privacy concerns with the merger. When you merge the number one online ad search firm (Google) with a leading provider of cookies for display advertising (Doubleclick), in a medium where revenue generation is all based on the collection and targeted use of personal information, the deal rings five-alarm privacy alarm bells. It’s unbelievable—and frankly disquieting—that Google can’t admit this is an serious issue with its proposed $3.1 b takeover of Doubleclick.

Google is also being disingenuous when it discusses the online ad business. For example, in the post it lumps itself together with Yahoo! and MSN when discussing the 40% market share search ads have in the overall online ad market. But the official blog should admit that it’s far and above the dominant force in the search market, both in the U.S. and abroad (with a 64% market share in US search, leaving Yahoo and MSN trailing at 22% and 9% respectively.) It should acknowledge that the one part of the online ad market they don’t yet dominate is display advertising. Through it’s acquisition of Doubleclick, Google will be able to quickly expand its dominance to the rest of the market. It’s not about, as its blog suggests, creating a more “open” platform that can “improve online advertising for consumers, advertisers and publishers.” It’s about tapping into Doubleclick’s blue-blooded client list of Fortune-type companies so Google can better digest that vital part of the online ad market.

But beyond online ad consolidation, we wish to return to privacy and targeting. No matter how useful Google is helping to identify key sources of information, it’s not in the best interests of a democracy to permit a private gatekeeper of so much (continually updated) personal data. Google’s business is advertising: it will do what it must to collect information about each of us so it can personally target us wherever we are. Online advertising is a very powerful medium, utilizing technologies designed to affect our behaviors [pdf] in a variety of ways (including so-called immersive targeting). Google’s expansion—and its apparent inability to acknowledge key civil society concerns—should be part of the media reform debate.

Online Marketing & Advertising– “the core of creating online demand.”

Excerpt from: Editorial: The Internet Revolution

“…Beyond all this is a basic truth—online marketing and advertising have moved from the periphery to the core of creating brand demand. It is also now at the core of the research industry and at the core of how business gets done today.”

Joseph T. Plummer. Journal of Advertising Research. June 2007

Google Loves Our Data! Let Us Count the Ways…

As admirers go, Google is definitely of the secret variety. From its highly guarded formula for generating search results, to the shroud of mystery that surrounds its plans “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” to a complex privacy policy that is spread over 20 separate pages on the Web, the search giant invariably raises more questions than it answers. “Don’t be evil,” reads the company’s motto, but apparently it’s OK to be evasive. “It’s somewhat of a paradox,” financial analyst Jordan Rohan told the Los Angeles Times last year. “Google’s whole purpose is to make information easier to access—unless, of course, you want to know information about Google.” As the Times added, “Google’s unwillingness to disclose little more than the legally required basics of how it does what it does—and where it’s headed—has left advertisers puzzled, partners confused, competitors nervous and investors frustrated.”

Make no mistake, however, this secret admirer really does care about us. Why else would Google give us so much—lightning-fast search results, interactive maps, email service (with plenty of storage space to archive our communications), online calendars, word processing programs, spreadsheet applications, and more—all free of charge?

The answer, of course, is that Google actually gets plenty in return, in the form of massive amounts of data that it compiles on consumer interests, tastes, and behavior. For all of its variations on the search engine theme—from Google News to Google Video to Google Product Search—the company remains above all else an advertising engine, one whose $500 stock price and $700 billion revenues are testaments of its success.

So how does Google love us? Let us count the ways, with a sampling of the kinds of user data to which Google currently has access:
1. The keywords and phrases we use in the searches we perform.
2. The time and date of these searches.
3. Our Internet IP address and browser configuration.
4. The websites we visit as a result of these searches.
5. The amount of time we spend on those sites before returning to Google.
6. Our patterns of navigation as we travel away from and back to Google.
7. The addresses and directions we enter in Google Maps.
8. The messages we send and receive via Gmail or Google Talk.
9. The schedules we create on Google Calendar.
10. The documents we create and edit in Google Docs.
11. The figures we enter in Google Spreadsheets.
12. The sources we subscribe to in Google Reader.
13. The accounts we create and the information we post to Google’s far-flung Web properties, including Blogger, Orkut, and YouTube.
14. The activities we carry out using a variety of Google-branded “helper” applications, including Google Desktop, Google Toolbar, Google Checkout, Google Web History, and Picasa.

“Google has been aggressive about collecting information about its users’ activities online,” observed Adam Cohen in the New York Times. “It stores their search data, possibly forever…. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google’s written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail messages, though Google says it won’t do so. It also warns that users’ personal information may be processed on computers located in other countries.”

The lynchpin in Google’s vast data-dragnet is the small text file placed on the user’s hard drive, known as a “cookie,” stamped with a unique user ID and passing information back and forth between one’s PC and a particular website. “Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038,” explains Google-Watch.org. “…This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don’t already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.”

As if Google (with its billions of searches and millions of users it serves every month) doesn’t already know enough about us, its proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick will bring online consumer surveillance to an entirely new level. DoubleClick might not be the household name that Google is, but in its field—online advertising—it is perhaps even more dominant, reaching an estimated 80 to 85 percent of all Web surfers with some 720 billion ads a year. Its consumer analysis, profiling, and behavioral targeting technologies, carried out on a vast network of affiliated websites, are extraordinarily thorough. “Without a doubt, DoubleClick’s historical data is very valuable,” says Jupiter Research analyst Emily Riley. “Every time you’re online, every page visit, and every ad you see comes with the possibility that a cookie is placed on your machine. DoubleClick has all the data.”

And soon Google will have access to all of that data as well. DoubleClick’s DART system, for example, will provide Google with a complete set of applications—and data access—to allow it to extend its more linear search advertising business into the third-party and rich-media advertising market. Another of DoubleClick’s key technologies, called Motif, is used to track user interaction with video content. As the search and online video markets converge, the ability to identify and assess user response to interactive media environments will be central to online advertising. Google’s interest in such technology was no doubt fueled by its $1.65 billion acquisition of YouTube in 2006. Google is now in the process of “data-tagging” all of the videos on YouTube in order to make the site a much more effective platform for advertisers.

A combined Google and DoubleClick, clearly, will be a potent force in the online universe. As the New York State Consumer Protection Board recently declared, the Google/DoubleClick “merger presents significant privacy implications. The combination of DoubleClick’s Internet surfing history generated through consumers’ pattern of clicking on specific advertisements, coupled with Google’s database of consumers’ past Internet searches, will result in the creation of ‘super-profiles,’ which will make up the world’s single largest electronic repository of personally and non-personally identifiable information.”

movies full length pornsex movies violentmovie adult postalien ant movies farmanal moviemovies nudity disneymovies enemasex movie samples Map