The announcement makes Firefox the first Web browser to heed the Federal Trade Commission’s call for the development of a do-not-track system. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that Mozilla was exploring the development of such a system.

For Firefox’s tool to work, however, tracking companies would need to agree to not monitor users who enable the do-not-track feature. So far, no companies have publicly agreed to participate in the system, but Mozilla urged them to join in.

“Mozilla recognizes the chicken and egg problem,” the company’s newly appointed global privacy and public-policy leader, Alexander Fowler, wrote in a blog post. But, he wrote, Mozilla is asking that websites and advertisers join its efforts to “honor people’s privacy choices.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

In a posting on the company’s Public Policy Blog last week, AT&T’s Bob Quinn, who handles federal regulatory issues, wrote that “spin is both king and queen” when it comes to Level 3’s claim that Comcast is violating net neutrality rules by terminating its free traffic exchange agreement with the service provider.

“Those who keep trying, deliberately or inadvertently, to maintain that the Level 3 and Comcast disagreement is ‘just a peering dispute’ rather than a blatant attempt by Comcast to leverage a dominant position in the residential Internet access market are missing the point, no matter how loudly and how often they try to distract from this central issue,” said Level 3 in a statement in response to the blog post.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The opening line of the classic J.M. Barrie book “Peter Pan” reads, “All children, except one, grow up.”

Actually, that one grew up, too, and now the whole Internet is angry at Google (GOOG) and taking shots, because of the Silicon Valley search giant’s recent joint public-policy proposal with Verizon (VZ) over net neutrality.

Many are claiming Google–in the most cynical of ways–sold out its long-standing commitment to the open Internet to make a corporately favorable deal.

Thus, Google–in this case, Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel–took to the corporate blog yesterday to explain it all away in a post titled “Facts About Our Network Neutrality Policy.”

It practically begs for translation, so BoomTown shall not disappoint:

Google wrote: Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

Translation: Wait, the hypnotic multicolored letters aren’t working anymore? What about the cute logos on the homepage–didja see our whimsical “Wizard of Oz” montage? Hey, our founders still wear wacky shoes!

And look over here at the Googleplex: Segways with wings and coconut-water lattes for all!

Okay, we’ll come clean: This band of Lost Boys–and Wendy who runs search–didn’t want to grow up, either.

But Sheryl Sandberg did an Indian talent raid and convinced Tinkerbell to take all her fairy dust to work on magical social-marketing features at Facebook. Also, Captain Hook and that alligator are working up some geo-location thing with the ticking clock over at Foursquare.

In other words, that’s Mr. Peter Man to you now.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

Translation: We caved. In fact, we spelunked. All right, we journeyed to the center of the earth. Second to the right and straight on till morning, times a google.

But it is not technically selling out, since we got no money in the deal. I mean, not yet.

That comes later, when we and Verizon control all the tolls on the private and exclusive Schminternet, named for Fearless Leader and CEO Eric Schmidt (pictured here), coming to you in 2020!

We’re not saying the solution is perfect. But we believe that a proposal that locks in key moneymaking fees for us is preferable to having to struggle later–like those losers at Microsoft (MSFT) do today–when the search business goes the way of boxed software.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

* Newly enforceable FCC standards
* Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
* Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
* Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
* Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
* Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors
* Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward–another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

Translation: Did you ever do the Hokey Pokey? Jockeying for political power in Washington is like that, except someone always loses an eye.

You put your eternal soul in,
You put your ethics out;
You put your corporate standards in,
And you shake them all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!

Which is why they say you should never watch sausage being made.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

Translation: By transparency, we mean a backroom deal so covered in the fog of compromise that it was like the Smoke Monster in “Lost.”

And you know what happened when he (she? it?) showed up. Not pretty.

Neither was the fact that we had to throw wireless–the most promising of networks–under the bus right now. While there is likely to be some crushing of competition and mangling of the bones of this little baby, you can be sure Congress can always step in to protect consumers’ interests with regard to wireless broadband.

In fact, Congress just hired Kate and Jon Gosselin to give parenting tips on how not to completely take advantage of the wired Internet’s most valuable offspring.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

Translation: Yes, the very same government that protected its citizens from the sub-prime mortgage mess by monitoring those giant, risk-mad banks so well.

The same government that was making sure oil giants like BP adhered to strict safety standard for its offshore wells.

The same government…well, you get the general idea, but you should have no fear of cannibals.

Of sharkish telcom companies, yes. Of man-eating lions from the cable business, certainly.

But of multicolored, letter-decorated piranhas who look harmless with their big squishy balls and organic guava smoothies but will cut you as soon as you stick one consumer finger in the digital pond?

Let’s just say: Don’t go in the water.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal–not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

Translation: Rachel, are you in London or back in Mountain View? Please ring us up asap, as you need to come up with some fancy new talk. I don’t think they are buying this policy-proposal-not-a-business-deal pablum.

In fact, I am even giggling every time I write it.

Google wrote: MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

Translation: Indeed, two corporations are not legislating the future of the Internet.

In point of fact, there were at least a half-dozen of us on the G5 on the way back from divvying up the Web in D.C.

And we’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could–or should–decide the future of this issue.

We are planning on including at least six or seven more businesses, since it will cost an awful lot of money to peddle all that influence in D.C.

Of course, that Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook seems to be holding out and even criticizing our Verizon bear hug.

That kid has some guts all right–but he can’t live in Neverland forever.

At some point, you’ve got to grow up. You can’t clap your hands and believe you can fly. Even pixie dust eventually runs out.

And that’s something we at Google know very, very well by now.

And until the magic returns, please relish the incomparable Mary Martin in the famous stage version of “Peter Pan” singing “Never Never Land.” As Peter Pan described himself, “I’m youth, I’m joy. I’m a little bird that has broken out of the egg.” Martin is all that and more:

"Never Never Land"
Uploaded by computergirl07. – Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

So the Internet-search giant is opening up a bit about the data it compiles. Google is trying to address criticisms that have been leveled against it in European countries in particular and provided details about Street View cars in a post on its European Public Policy Blog on Tuesday. The company said it had discussed the information before but that it wanted to make it more easily accessible.

Privacy officials from 10 countries, including seven in Europe, sent Google a letter earlier this month outlining several concerns. The letter said Google’s Street View service was “launched in some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms” and said “there is continued concern about the adequacy of the information you provide before the images are captured.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

It’s familiar territory for her in more than one way, since she once helped Google (GOOG) manage the same geography.

Shields has had a busy couple of years: Two years ago, she arranged the sale Bebo to AOL (AOL) for $850 million. A year after that, she took off, and ended up in a content start-up backed by Elisabeth Murdoch’s Shine Group.

It’s unclear what happened to that now less-than-shiny project.

Blake Chandlee, who had been running the EMEA group at Facebook, is getting moved out of that job and will now run sales in emerging markets: Eastern Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America.

This is the second high-profile hire–and of a former Googler–by the social networking site recently. Last week, Facebook hired top-ranking Google ad exec David Fischer as VP of Advertising and Global Operations.

With Fischer and former Googler COO Sheryl Sandberg, who has been eyeing Shields as a possible Facebook recruit since she left AOL, it seems an Ex-Googleplex is forming at Facebook’s new HQ in Palo Alto, Calif.

Some of the many former Googlers include Elliot Schrage, VP of Global Communications, Marketing and Public Policy; Grady Burnett, head of online and inside sales; Don Faul, director of global online operations; and Ethan Beard, director of the Facebook Developer Network.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that most people think the Singleton speech was aimed at the search giant and its burgeoning power over the distribution of media, although Google was not named by him.

Still, it’s always nice to make nice. Sort of.

So, it was hard to resist translating this Google (GOOG) blog by one of its lawyers.

Google wrote: Some questions related to Google News and the Associated Press
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Posted by Alexander Macgillivray, Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property

Translation: Questions? Someone has questions about our practices? OK, we will answer them only to assuage the panic among the little brains about our size and power over IP.

But remember: They don’t call us Googzilla for nothing!

Google wrote: Yesterday I entered the following search in Google News: [Phish in mountain view]. The search results led me to click on this headline, which took me to the full story by the San Jose Mercury News about Phish’s upcoming concert at Shoreline Amphitheatre.

Translation: Hey, we might seem like geeks over here at the Googleplex, chomping on organic flax crackers and making up scary algorithms, but we know of this hip Phish phenom. We looked it up under “hip” on Google!

[Complete digression: BoomTown was in a car pool with the very sweet Trey Anastasio for many years in middle school, and he was not such a hipster then!]

Google wrote: Users like me are sent from different Google sites to newspaper websites at a rate of more than a billion clicks per month. These clicks go to news publishers large and small, domestic and international–day and night.

Translation: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Google wrote: And once a reader is on the newspaper’s site, we work hard to help them earn revenue. Our AdSense program pays out millions of dollars to newspapers that place ads on their sites, and our goal is that our interest-based advertising technology will help newspapers make more from each click we send them by serving better, more relevant ads to their readers to generate higher returns.

Translation: Money makes the world go around,
the world go around, the world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
it makes the world go round.

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.

Google wrote: The Associated Press (AP) recently issued a press release announcing plans to develop an initiative to “protect” the newspaper industry’s content online. Since then, some readers, users and journalists have asked us if the AP’s plan is about Google since we host complete AP articles. The answer is that it doesn’t appear to pertain to Google since we host those articles in partnership with the AP. We announced that partnership in 2007 as part of an experiment in hosting articles on our site. In hosting agreements such as this, we pay news agencies and display the entire text of articles, such as this one from the AP about President Obama’s visit to Turkey.

Translation: Ain’t nobody here but us chickens!

Hey, we pay up some! Not a lot! But some. I mean, YouTube doesn’t pay up and it has tons of content on the site that is not theirs.

Wait, we own YouTube. Forget that example.

Back to chickens. Nobody here!

Google wrote: We drive traffic and provide advertising in support of all business models–whether news sources choose to host their articles with us or on their own sites, and whether their business model is ad-supported or based on subscriptions. In all cases, for news articles we’ve crawled and indexed but do not host, we show users just enough to make them want to read more–the headline, a “snippet” of a line or two of text and a link back to to the news publisher’s website.

Translation: Hey, we only give consumers a little smackeral, in the lingo of the great Winnie the Pooh. Well, yes, that bear does always end up gobbling all the honey. Forget that example.

Back to chickens then, but chickens with an advertising-supported business model!

Google wrote: In the U.S., the doctrine of fair use enshrined in the US Copyright Act allows us to show snippets and links. The fair use doctrine protects transformative uses of content, such as indexing to make it easier to find [pdf]. Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rightsholder, in this case newspaper or wire service, to remove their content from our index–all they have to do is ask us or implement simple technical standards such as robots.txt or metatags.

Translation: Oh yes, the fine print. Legal stuff–fair use, transformative, indexing. In other words, we’re covered, and 3,476 Washington lobbyists have our back.

But hey, here is some technical stuff and we’ll also take it out–all you have to do is ask, although it will effectively make you undiscoverable for all of time!

And, if you do then want us to take it out, comb through our gazillions of search results to find your stuff, over and over and over again, like gerbils on a treadmill. We totally hope that does not exhaust you in every way possible.

Google wrote: As for Phish in Mountain View this summer, asking will get you nowhere because the tickets are already sold out.

Translation: Also, for anyone keeping score, Phish owes us too, since no one would have found tickets without us. Google HQ is right smack up against Shoreline Amphitheatre, so we are watching.

So let’s review: Ozymandias, King of Kings. Chickens. Smackeral. Hip.

Nothing to see here, so please enjoy this lovely Phish video of “Bouncing Around the Room” from YouTube (relax, it’s from their official channel):

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.