Poor Chris Dodd — he just got the top media lobbying job in Washington, D.C., at the very moment that the strong-arming-pols, scare-the-children, Jack Valenti era in media lobbying is now decidedly over.

It’s obviously a very confusing time for big media these days, on a lot of fronts. But any of the consummate insider moves once used by the legendarily pugnacious Valenti (pictured here onstage at our first D: All Things Digital conference in 2003) had a hard time this past week, as Internet players went very public in protesting two Congressional bills aimed at combating piracy online.

Not that Dodd didn’t try to cope.

The former Senator — who is now the chief lobbyist for the once much more powerful Motion Picture Association of America — gave a can’t-we-all-get-along interview to the New York Times on Thursday, in which he called for a meeting with techies to come to some acceptable compromise.

Wrote the Times:

“In an interview Thursday, Mr. Dodd said he would welcome a summit meeting between Internet companies and content companies, perhaps convened by the White House, that could lead to a compromise … ‘The perfect place to do it is a block away from here,’ said Mr. Dodd, who pointed from his office on I Street toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

But on Friday, after politicians quickly moved to delay both the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate’s PROTECT I.P. Act (PIPA) — after successful protests pointing out that the legislation could lead to censorship — Dodd went to the full Valenti again:

“We applaud those leaders in Washington who have chosen to stand with the millions of hard working Americans all across this nation whose livelihoods are threatened by foreign criminal websites designed to steal. As a consequence of failing to act, there will continue to be a safe haven for foreign thieves; American jobs will continue to be lost; and consumers will continue to be exposed to fraudulent and dangerous products peddled by foreign criminals.”

Foreign criminals! Foreign thieves! Is it just me, or does Dodd sounds like Cher, singing, “Gypsies, tramps and thieves”?

(Let’s be clear, that utterance could never top Valenti’s most infamous quote: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.”)

To be fair, Dodd is hindered by strict restrictions on his lobbying Congress until next year. That said, this is not an old-timey, private Capitol Hill fight, but a modern-era, social-media-charged one.

And it’s pretty clear that the old scare tactics used by big media will no longer work as well, as consumers — as much as they like their movies — seem to love their Internet more.

Thus, what has happened is that — at least for now — the MPAA and media companies have lost and lost big, after the typically fractious Web powers decided to lock arms for once and cooperate with a creative, take-it-to-the-people approach of showing a disabled Internet.

Dramatic? Yes. Effective? Certainly. (That Facebook and Google agree on anything? Astonishing!)

Where it goes from here is unclear — the MPAA and its constituents could certainly rally and put forth their own protest. Ironically, the most effective way to do that is not via the airwaves or other former means of broadcast to the public, but on the Web.

Which is controlled by Dodd’s foes. (You see the problem here.)

The answer, in the end, might have to be the cooperation he first suggested.

As he told the Times:

“The companies, Mr. Dodd said, are ‘rethinking everything,’ not just about the bills, but about their relationship with an estranged Silicon Valley. That need for rapprochement, he said, ‘has come home in a way that no rhetoric of mine could express.’”

Much more to come, obvi.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid postponed a previously scheduled Tuesday vote on the Senate version of the bill, called the Protect IP Act. In the House, Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said his committee would postpone consideration of the House version, called the Stop Online Piracy Act, “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The debate about the contents of this bill, and its companion bill in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act, has been heated in recent weeks, as companies within the Internet ecosystem have rallied to lobby against the passage of legislation which might hold us accountable. That myopic view has never been shared by Go Daddy.

– From a statement made available Thursday on its Web site, by Go Daddy Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Christine Jones

Think about the federal government’s blocking of the $39 billion AT&T and T-Mobile merger and you might want to reread Google’s blog today, penned in reaction to the news that the Justice Department is making a second request for information about its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

“This is pretty routine,” wrote Google’s Motorola integration exec Dennis Woodside. “We’ve gotten these kind of requests before.”

Maybe Google has (and it has with other purchases) — but in actuality, only four percent of transactions got such a follow-up request from regulators.

To be fair, it is much more common in high-profile, big-money deals like this one, but it means a longer closing period and more uncertainty around the Android mobile ecosystem until it’s done.

Still, Google has good reason to be patient. Despite tough criticism and brutal lobbying, it won approval from Justice for its $700 million deal to buy flight data service ITA Software in April, after nine months of scrutiny and a number of conditions imposed.

And the search giant waited out an intense six-month Federal Trade Commission approval process last year for its $750 million acquisition of mobile advertising start-up AdMob. It had an even harder time with the FTC’s nod of its 2007 DoubleClick purchase for $3.1 billion.

One that it lost — an obvious bridge too far that I dubbed Yahoogle — was Google’s 2008 effort to meld a troubling partnership with Yahoo in search advertising.

So, we’ll see soon enough which way D.C. — which just had Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt up to the Senate for an antitrust hearing chit-chat — will go.

Until then, here’s Woodside’s whole blog:

An update on our Motorola acquisition

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 5:30 PM ET

Posted by Dennis Woodside, SVP Google

Since we announced our plans to acquire Motorola Mobility, we’ve been excited about the positive reaction to the proposed deal — particularly from our partners who have told us that they’re enthusiastic about our defense of the Android ecosystem.

And as David Drummond said when we announced our plans in August, we’re confident that this deal will be approved. We believe very strongly this is a pro-competitive transaction that is good for Motorola Mobility, good for consumers, and good for our partners.

That said, we know that close scrutiny is part of the process and we’ve been talking to the U.S. Department of Justice over the past few weeks. Today we received what is called a “second request,” which means that the DOJ is asking for more information so that they can continue to review the deal. (This is pretty routine; we’ve gotten these kind of requests before.)

While this means we won’t be closing right away, we’re confident that the DOJ will conclude that the rapidly growing mobile ecosystem will remain highly competitive after this deal closes. We’ll be working closely and cooperatively with them as they continue their review.

This is a photo that’s clearly begging for a caption, so sound off in the comments.

Ready, aim, fire — at Google at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing happening right now in Washington, D.C.

It is titled: “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?”

Here we go:

11:04 am: As usual in D.C., the Senators on the committee get to pontificate first.

Oh, joy! (I used to live there and cover Congress stuff for the Washington Post from time to time and I am having bad déjà vu right now.)

A quick cut to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who is appearing alone. He looks a little peaked, especially as the pols begin to describe the scary behemoth the search giant is.

And also that it is trying to force users to its other products.

Rut-roh.

11:07 am: Sen. Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, who is a Google critic, is talking on about the search giant’s power, reading from his testimony in a dullish style.

I thought this dude was a Tea Party firebrand!

“The primary focus should be consumer welfare,” he says, blah, blah, blaaaaaaah.

11:09 am: Now, the subcommittee’s dour chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is introing Schmidt, who is actually being introed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

She is an Eric fan, obvi, praising his accomplishments at Google. But she also gives props to Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag, who is testifying against Google later. Also, let her add, is the fabulous CEO of Yelp, Jeremy Stoppelman, another anti-Google speaker to come.

“I hope they tango rather than tangle,” says Feinstein inexplicably about those called to testify. Hey, white geeks can’t dance, although wrestling would also be hard for them too.

In any case, gotta love these everybody-loving pols!

11:14 am: Finally, Schmidt, who — of course — starts off invoking the last big tech giant who was here getting spanked by Congress.

Schmidt does not name Microsoft — classy, by which I mean not at all — but is referring to the software giant.

“We get it,” he says about the lessons Google has learned from Microsoft’s own antitrust troubles back in the day.

11:18 am: Schmidt is talking about Google and saying he welcomes the competition.

“Today it’s Google turn in the spotlight,” he says, still not uttering the word “Microsoft,” much as Microsoft execs have often not been able to say Google. “One company’s past [should] not be another company’s future.”

Now, the senators can have at him. Kohl is up first.

11:20 am: The first question is if Google is favoring its own products, via search.

Schmidt harkens back to what he calls early Google lore that it is just trying hard to get consumers stuff quicker.

The need for speed!

“Is really trusting Google to do the right thing sufficient?,” asks Kohl, who quotes former President Ronald Reagan’s famous line: “Trust but verify.”

That gives Schmidt the chance to talk about how quickly Google could lose out to competitors and then is onto how hard it is to do what Google does.

It takes extra-smart smartypants. Trust us, he says, as we are smartier!

11:24 am: Kohl comes back with a damning quote from Google’s famous Marissa Mayer, who apparently has said that the company favors its own products and why not?

Schmidt says he was not there when she allegedly said this, but that its own testing and intuition tells Google if consumers want a Google map or whatever tout de suite!

Kohl repeats the Mayer quote again: “We do all the work for the search page, so we put [a Google Maps link] in first.”

“I will let Marissa speak for herself,” says Schmidt, now too deep in the weeds of her verbal faux pas. Get out, Eric!

11:28 am: Sen. Lee is up, not taking any of this speedy, we-know-best business.

And he has a chart! I love a good chart. It shows Google info always ranks first in listings versus other sites it competes with.

Schmidt has not seen this poll, but thinks it is not accurate.

11:31 am: Let me note that Schmidt’s grey suit is fantastic looking. And right behind him, you can see Google’s top lawyer, the always nattily dressed David Drummond.

Back to the chart!

Lee wants to know why, according to his chart, that Google seems to come up first.

“Either way, you’ve cooked it,” claims Lee.

“Senator, I can assure you we have not cooked anything,” counters Schmidt.

(Note: Google does have an excellent cafeteria in Silicon Valley, complete with organic arugula and Kombucha for all.)

11:33 am: Hoo boy! But Lee’s time has expired, so Schmidt gets a break in the form of New York’s Sen. Charles Schumer.

I like the way he says “ee-no-vation” for innovation.

He does an expected plug for New York, of course. Somehow it is No. 1 in tech. Not so much, but brag on, Chuck!

11:38 am: Schumer is still talking about New York and its fab entrepreneurs.

Apparently, he has done a lot of jawboning with start-up dudes (likely over Kombucha) and they think Google is a positive force.

“Google is actually pretty good, we don’t see them as rapacious,” Schumer says the New York nerds tell him.

Is “rapacious” the criteria here?

Schumer is running out of time and has yet to ask a question and now is trying to get Schmidt to test Google’s broadband project in the Hudson Valley.

Now that’s rapacious!

Is there going to be an actual question here?

Yes: Oh please tell us, genius boy, what could Google do better?

Really.

11:42 am: Now, Sen. John Cornyn from Texas is on and asking about the prescription controversy Google was embroiled in recently.

Oops, I missed a bit when someone called me about the CEO mess at Hewlett-Packard I reported on earlier.

Onto Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She is cleverly using an article about the Vikings football team to ask about how Google’s super-secret-sauce algorithm works and how it ranks results.

“Do you think companies should have a lot more certainty in how they are ranked?,” she asks.

11:51 am: Schmidt is not really answering, except to say Google is not perfect.

“We don’t know how to do it with more certainty,” he says, which is odd for a company that is perhaps the most irksomely certain group of geeks ever assembled on the planet.

Klobuchar moves to copyright issues. “There’s a real problem here,” agrees Schmidt.

Yes, and some media companies think Google is the problem and has not done enough to fix the problem.

“It’s difficult,” says Schmidt. Well, isn’t Google smartier?

“We’re under great pressure to resolve this,” he says.

11:55 am: Klobuchar is still worried about the small businesses, but she wants Google to come to Duluth.

Good lord, it’s a shakedown in plain sight. Maybe Google isn’t the scary one here! These pols seem pretty frightening.

Now Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is saying he will attend some Google event in his state.

Of course!

Grassley makes a wishy-wishy statement, and we get to hear from Iowans on both sides.

Some are apparently concerned that Google is a troublemaker and some aren’t.

Iowans, like a lot of folks, are torn.

“We are happy to be judged,” says Schmidt.

12:00 pm: Now it is time for Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota.

“First let me say, I love Google,” he says.

Otay. I wonder if Franken knows that Google is a giant scary computer.

But, as a citizen of San Francisco, I say he should love whoever he wants!

Franken is also concerned about his love’s behavior and is taken aback by one of Schmidt’s previous answers.

It’s that irksome Marissa Mayer quote again.

When asked if the algo was unbiased, Schmidt apparently was not as sure as shootin’!

Now, it is onto Yelp and the fiery quotes from Stoppelman about how Google nefariously blocks the review site’s content.

Eric “generally” disagrees with Jeremy.

At one point Google tried to buy Yelp, so this is a fraught situation.

Does Franken know about the previous Google-Yelp hookup?

Drama!

Schmidt says it is Yelp’s fault for asking to be removed from the algo. Actually, Yelp only asked Google to stop jacking its fare.

12:11 pm: Oh noz, another pol? This time Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut.

He is super-smiley, while calling Google a “behemoth.” I like that word a lot and use it for the company often, although I always like to use a qualifier like “thuggish” or “freaky.”

Back to the blabby Blumenthal, who cannot seem to get out a question.

Wait! He asks if Google can suggest some fixes to “avoid government regulation.”

I. Kid. You. Not.

12:21 pm: Kohl is back and giving Google a little more slap-a-doo.

I like the whole Kohl thang of looking over his glasses down at Schmidt.

He asks: Should we trust Google? Should we?

In my opinion: If your mother says she loves you, you should check it.

So, no!

Schmidt assures him: “We make mistakes.”

Lee is then back, asking if Google gives preference to its own products in search?

Exactly the point and a question that is still not answered properly.

12:24 pm: Lee remains troubled by Schmidt’s testimony.

He uses terms like “leverage its natural dominance” and “significant market share to disadvantage” competitors.

Sounds like, um, Microsoft. And then it is back to that niggling Marissa Mayer quote. (Memo to the voluble exec, who apparently never met a microphone she didn’t want to talk into: You might want to take a day off today at the Googleplex.)

Google-luvin’ Franken is back and he is asking about mobile search.

Where Google is dominant again! (Jellllllo, Al, we in Silicon Valley know that one already!)

He asks if all Android devices come pre-loaded with Google products. Schmidt thinks two-thirds come with it, but handset makers can choose.

12:31 pm: Back to all-smiles Blumenthal, who says he has come to no conclusion.

But lo! He is not as silly as he seems and goes into an interesting racetrack analogy about how Google owns the track and now has horses and now those horses are winning.

Hmmmm…

Schmidt disagrees, natch!

He thinks the Internet is the platform and Google is the GPS.

Metaphor contest!

I think Google is a big tasty banana cream pie we can’t stop eating, although we know it’s bad for us.

That or an alien wearing an expensive suit who will soon eat us all.

Franken comes in with a doping horses joke. Remember when he was funny on “Saturday Night Live”?

Me neither.

It goes on without a lot of really good discussion. Klobuchar asks something, but I forget it immediately. My bad!

She has a last question about advertisers and privacy. Softball!

Let me write this for Schmidt before he inevitably spits it out: Of course, Google wants to protect privacy.

12:37 pm: Finally, the second panel of critics. Sadly, I must go to an appointment in Silicon Valley to visit one of its rapacious companies.

Oops, I meant ee-no-vative.

But, no worries, John Paczkowski will take over from here once it gets going again after the break.

12:47 pm: The panel’s back in session. The first critic to take a shot at Google, Thomas Barnett, a lawyer for Expedia.

12:51 pm: Riffing on Schmidt’s earlier “We know, we get it” comment, Barnett argues the opposite.

“Google doesn’t get it,” he says, adding that the company’s ever-expanding market power is troubling.

12:54 pm: Google is a monopoly, Barnett continues, and it has a duty not to abuse that position. He concludes by saying antitrust enforcement can and should play a role in maintaining competition in the markets in which it does business.

12:57 pm: Moving on now to Nextag CEO Katz, who has some tough words for the search giant. “Today Google doesn’t play fair,” he says.

He argues that Google rigs its results to drive consumers to Google Product Search when they search for information to inform their purchases.

1:00 pm: Next: Stoppelman of Yelp, who wonders if it’s even possible to create a company like Yelp today because of Google’s massive market power.

1:04 pm: Google’s outside lawyer, Susan Creighton, takes the mic next. Having trouble with the video stream from the Senate, but as best I can tell she talked broadly about the competitive landscape and reiterated Schmidt’s “competition is just a click away” narrative.

1:08 pm: She concludes by saying government oversight of Google’s search results rankings would put the company at a disadvantage and turn its search service into something akin to a “regulated utility.”

1:09 pm: Interesting. Creighton says she doesn’t believe Google has monopoly power.

1:10 pm: “Each of you right now can test whether or not you like Google’s search results and if you don’t like them it’s free and instantaneous to try someone else.”

1:22 pm: Apologies, the Senate video feed has gone from bad to worse.

1:23 pm: Franken asks Yelp’s Stoppelman and Nextag’s Katz if they could start their companies today given Google’s market power.

Both say that’s unlikely.

1:26 pm: Terse exchange between Franken and Creighton about whether Google paid Apple to be the default search engine on its iOS devices. Lots of back and forth, but Creighton finally concedes that there’s some sort of financial deal between the two companies.

1:39 pm: Sen. Lee asks what Google might do to “level the playing field.” Stoppelman suggests separating search from its other properties. Pipe dream.

1:40 pm: Well, it looks like it may be getting near the end of the session, which is a good thing because we get it to by now.

And that is: Nothing significant is going to get said here.

The latest to do so is Fairsearch, an industry group led by former Justice Department antitrust division leader Thomas O. Barnett. Fairsearch, whose membership includes the likes of Expedia, Kayak, Sabre/Travelocity and Microsoft, has pulled together quite a collection of material with which to balance Schmidt’s reassuring testimony, including a survey showing 79 percent of Americans favor the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust probe of the search giant and “A Guide To Google Speak,” which seeks to kick the legs out from under some of the company’s favorite talking points — things like “competition is a click away” and “Google built Google for users.” As Fairsearch notes, neither of these things is necessarily true. Competition can’t really be one click away when the barrier to entry is as high as it is in search and it’s pretty clear Google didn’t build its search service entirely for consumers.

“Google says ‘we built Google search for consumers, not web sites,’” Fairsearch argues. “The assertion may come as a surprise to Google shareholders. We think it’s fair to say Google search was built for advertisers, not consumers. Google is, after all, an advertising company. It doesn’t ‘organize the world’s information’ just to be helpful.”

Tough to argue with that, though Google certainly will try. It already has in a hearing guide of its own.

Later today, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt will appear at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee for hearings on whether Google is a search bully or not.

Schmidt, according to written testimony obtained by the Politico blog, will be trotting out the company’s longtime argument that its competitors are “only one click away” from taking Google down.

And, in what can only be described as a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding furthering of that meme, Schmidt will apparently claim that Microsoft’s much tinier Bing search service could catch and pass Google by next year.

Reads the testimony, according to Politico: “Microsoft’s Bing launched in June 2009 and has grown so rapidly that some commentators have speculated that it could overtake Google as early as 2012.”

Say what? Say ridonkulous! The Facebook worry, I get, but costing-Microsoft-a-billion-a-quarter Bing?

That’s because in the most recent market-share report from comScore, Google had 64.8 percent of the total, with Yahoo at 16.3 percent and Bing at 14.7 percent. Even combining the pair — who are currently in a search partnership — they still have less than half the share that Google has.

In any case, although the Google-as-imminently-threatened concept displays a lot of gumption, it’ll be interesting watching Schmidt try to sell it.

And also to see Google’s critics call foul.

After Schmidt appears, there will be a second panel, featuring Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman; Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag; and Tom Barnett, spokesman for FairSearch.org and counsel to Expedia.

Stoppelman, who almost sold his online reviews company to Google in late 2009, has since become a vocal detractor of the search giant’s methods.

In his testimony as well as exhibits, all posted below, Stoppelman paints a more dire picture of Google:

“When one company controls the market, it ultimately controls consumer choice. If competition really were just ‘one click away’ as Google suggests, why have they invested so heavily to be the default choice on web browsers and mobile phones? Clearly they are not taking any chances.”

Stay tuned for my liveblog at 11 am PT, as well as other AllThingsD coverage of the hearings.

9.21.11 Verbal Testimony _10am final_

9.21.11 Written Testimony _clean_

9.21.11 Exhibits

In a preview of Wednesday’s Senate antitrust hearing on whether Google abuses its dominance on the Web, representatives of the sites — which help people search for information on consumer goods, local businesses and airline flights — said in interviews this week that Google has increasingly sought to drive people who use its search engine to its own specialized sites that compete with theirs.

One of the companies, Nextag, is going even further. Chief Executive Jeff Katz said Google also prevents his company’s site from bidding on the prominent ads that show up next to search results for products such as running shoes. Instead, he said, because Google sees his company as a threat, Nextag can only bid to appear in text ads lower down on the results page, limiting its exposure to consumers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Google had been reluctant to have Mr. Schmidt or other senior executives testify at a time when the Internet search giant is confronting a broad array of investigations into its business practices. But last month, senators on the panel warned they would use their subpoena power to compel one to appear.

On Friday, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), chairman of the subcommittee, announced that the company had complied with their demand.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

In fact, State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), the law’s author, is not willing to go down so easily after waging an eight-year legislative and legal battle that aimed to restrict the sale of some of the industry’s most popular games, like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto.

“We’ll comb through it and see if there’s something that will pass constitutional muster,” Yee’s chief of staff, Adam Keigwin, told me. “If not, we’ll wait until there’s a change in the makeup of the court.”

Keigwin added, “It’s certainly something the senator is considering.”

Yee currently represents California’s District 8, which includes San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, and is now running for mayor of San Francisco — all areas rich with videogame publishers and developers.

The court, in a 7-2 ruling, said the law violated First Amendment free-speech protections, but four justices left the window open for new legislation that would not violate the constitution. [Here's the full opinion of the court.]

In particular, Justice Samuel Alito indicated the language is too vague to rule accurately, but he would welcome a new version that would address how violent videogames affect youths.

“I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem. If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us,” he wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented, was more blunt: “I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

Still, the videogame industry, including the Entertainment Software Association, which was the lead party in the case, considered the ruling a victory.

John Riccitiello, who is chair of the ESA and CEO of Electronic Arts, issued a statement: “Throughout American history, every new creative medium has to fight to establish its rights. Like books and film, videogames have had to face down censors and stand up for creative freedom. This was a long, hard, expensive fight, but it pulled together the developers, publishers and fans into a powerful political coalition. There will be other censors, other challenges. But now we’ve got an army in the field to stand up for the rights of game developers and players.”

The original legislation was passed six years ago and signed into law as Assembly Bill 1179. It called for the prevention of the sale and rental of violent video games that “depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” to people under the age of 18 years.

Retailers who violated the act would have been liable for up to $1,000 for each violation.

In a statement, Yee said: “Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children. As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”

At a Senate hearing on mobile privacy issues, lawmakers grilled technology executives on their policies and how they share consumer information with other companies. The hearing comes amid recent revelations that Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android phones routinely collect information about the location of consumer cellphones. Apple has since limited the data it collects.

“I know you can shut off your location services but that doesn’t do the trick because we want to use them,” said Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), who recently introduced a privacy bill along with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), which would establish consumer online privacy rights. “We still need a privacy standard. We still need basic rules of the road.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The two tech giants are due back on Capitol Hill on Thursday to appear before a different Senate subcommittee. This time, they are also slated to be joined by a Facebook representative.

The hearing, titled Consumer Privacy and Protection in the Mobile Marketplace, is slated for 10 am on Thursday before the Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance subcommittee of the Senate’s Science, Commerce and Technology committee.

Slated to appear are Google public policy director Alan Davidson, Apple government affairs VP Catherine Novelli and Facebook CTO Bret Taylor, along with representatives of the Federal Trade Commission, Common Sense Media and the Association for Competitive Technology.

It’s the latest outgrowth of a mini-furor over how mobile devices make use of location-based data. The recent interest in the issue began after attention was focused on a little-known location database stored on the iPhone as well as the fact that Google and others collect location-based data to build global databases of things like traffic and the location of Wi-Fi signals. By the time Apple noted, a week later, that it was not tracking individual users and that the data customers were seeing was a locally-stored subset of a global crowdsourced database, lawsuits had been filed and regulators were already calling for hearings.

To get more background on the issue, here’s the reader we prepared ahead of last week’s hearings.

The hearings are a response to a sudden spike in concern about the issue following revelations that the iPhone was storing a great deal of location information and over just how much location information Apple and Google are collecting and for what purposes.

To help get people ready for the hearings, Mobilized has pulled together some recent and not so recent comments on the matter that help frame the issues. (Of course, All Things D will be updating things from D.C. as well. As I’ll be at Google I/O, colleague Arik Hessedahl will be monitoring the hearings; the proceedings will also be Webcast.)

Now, on to your required readings.

First off, here’s a summary of who will be speaking on Tuesday. The biggest names are Apple and Google. Apple’s representative is Bud Tribble, a VP of software technology. Though far from a household name, Tribble is notable as one of the members of the original Mac development team and worked at NeXT and Sun Microsystems, before eventually rejoining Steve Jobs at Apple. Google will be represented by Alan Davidson, a director of public policy. Also set to appear are a few policy groups and representatives of the FTC and DOJ.

So what will Apple and Google have to say for themselves?

Well, Apple’s most detailed comments on the location and privacy issue came a couple of weeks ago in a statement it released and from an interview Steve Jobs and top executives did with Mobilized. The most clear point Apple has sought to get across is that it is not, and has no intention of, tracking individual iPhones or users.

“We haven’t been tracking anybody’s location,” Jobs said in the interview. Apple also lets users turn on and off location services for each application, including Apple’s own apps and provides iPhone owners a way to see which programs have recently been using such information. Although Apple said it is not collecting personal information, it did say it used the collective location data to build a crowdsourced database of cellphone and Wi-Fi signals and that the company is building a traffic database. Jobs also declined to say if Apple was working on any other services that tap into collective data. Apple has also since updated the iPhone operating system to reduce the amount of location information stored on its devices.

Google, for its part, hasn’t had too much new to say on the matter since commenting to Mobilized on April 22.

“All location sharing on Android is opt-in by the user,” Google said in that statement. “We provide users with notice and control over the collection, sharing and use of location in order to provide a better mobile experience on Android devices. Any location data that is sent back to Google location servers is anonymized and is not tied or traceable to a specific user.”

Potentially even more interesting than recent comments, however, are comments that Jobs and Google executives have made in the past. The leaders of both companies addressed the issue last year, with Jobs speaking at our D8 conference and Google’s Andy Rubin speaking at D: Dive Into Mobile. We’ve cut a special highlight reel together with both executives’ relevant comments.

As for what to watch for at the hearings on Tuesday, there are a lot of questions that have yet to be answered by Google, Apple and others in the industry. One of those is what the companies are committing to doing or not doing with people’s information, both individually and collectively. Both companies’ privacy policies give them wide latitude with how to use location-based information once a user opts to receive location-based services. The key is what limits the companies are willing to impose on themselves–and any that the assembled lawmakers may be interested in adding.

And don’t forget, Tuesday is just the start of a tech-filled week in Congress. On Wednesday, a different Senate subcommittee will take a look at AT&T’s proposed $39 billion deal to acquire T-Mobile USA.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110510/required-reading-what-to-know-ahead-of-todays-applegoogle-hearing/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110225/googles-content-farming-good-for-consumers-or-good-for-pr/ http://allthingsd.com/20110225/googles-content-farming-good-for-consumers-or-good-for-pr/#comments Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:02:12 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=41043

In another significant search announcement yesterday, Google said it was revising its algorithm to target makers of low-quality content.

The search giant has been criticized by many of late for the presence of too much spam in its results, which degrades the consumer experience on the powerful site.

Thus, “pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking–a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries,” said Google in a blog post.

The company continued:

“This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality site–sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.”

Who Google is aiming at is unclear–some point to Demand Media, whose top exec recently said the content company welcomed any improvements to the search results in its recent quarterly call.

“We consider ourself very white hat,” declared CEO Richard Rosenblatt, who has often touted the Demand’s good relations with Google, to a question from a Wall Street analyst about the series of recent declarations by Google to clean up its search results.

That was further underscored yesterday.

Interestingly, the Google post about the changes, titled “Finding More High-Quality Sites,” was authored by Google’s Amit Singhal and Matt Cutts–who have cut a high profile of late in the search arena.

Both Singhal and Cutts were quite vocal recently in loopy accusations about Microsoft’s Bing lifting Google’s search results.

And Cutts has been a frequent visitor to Washington, D.C. of late, to defend Google over its controversial acquisition of the ITA Software flight information company, as well as its search ranking process.

At a January 13 meeting, in an email obtained by BoomTown, Cutts was the draw:

Please join us!

You’re invited to learn

How Google’s Search Engine Works

Myth-busting and Q&A for House/Senate staff members

with

Matt Cutts

Principal Search Engineer, Google

Thursday, January 13, 2011

2:30 – 3:30 PM

House Visitor Center Room 201

How does Google’s search engine really work? Can websites pay Google to improve their ranking in Google results? What’s the difference between the “natural” results and the ads on the right hand side? And why does a particular website rank #1 or #3 when you do a Google search for your boss’ name? You’re invited to join Matt Cutts, one of Google’s top search engine engineers and the company’s ambassador to webmasters for a session on Capitol Hill where Matt will explain how Google ranks websites, address common myths about Google’s search results, and answer your questions. Please join us!

In another invite, low-quality content was the topic:

Matt Cutts is one of Google’s top search engineers who heads up the team ensuring that spam and low-quality sites don’t game search results. He is going to be here in DC to talk with folks around town about some of the recent calls for government to police or regulate the “fairness” of search results. Matt is a bit of a rock star in the search world and spends a lot of time speaking and blogging about these issues. Basically he’ll talk about how Google goes about ranking websites, how his team fights webspam, and he’ll provide a closer look at sites like Foundem and MyTriggers (who have filed antitrust actions against Google).

Finally, he’ll talk about the recent calls by some for Google’s search results to be regulated.

Perhaps I’m being cynical, but the noisy search algorithm changes, while welcome to those using Google, also have a pretty clear goal to burnish the Silicon Valley company’s image.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110225/googles-content-farming-good-for-consumers-or-good-for-pr/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20101223/night-table-reading-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules-in-full/ http://allthingsd.com/20101223/night-table-reading-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules-in-full/#comments Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:02:09 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://newenterprise.allthingsd.com/?p=1057 It’s now been two days since the Federal Communications Commission voted to pass its controversial network neutrality rules. The consensus view is clear–no one is terribly happy with this bit of government policy making, and even those who supported it did so with lots of reservations .

Now we have a full text of the actual rules, weighing in at a voluminous 194 heavily footnoted pages, which just became public on the FCC’s Web site. As with some of the other documents relating to this, I’ve uploaded this one to Scribd and embedded it below. This is the document that corporate lawyers, lawmakers and other policy wonks at think tanks and trade associations will be combing through in the coming weeks and months in hopes of either watering down or strengthening the rules, depending on your point of view. Others will be looking through this text for provisions they can challenge in court. And congressional Republicans have already promised to hold hearings next year and will probably try to find a way to legislate these rules out of existence.

FCC-10-201A1

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101223/night-table-reading-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules-in-full/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101223/what-tech-companies-are-spending-in-washington/ http://allthingsd.com/20101223/what-tech-companies-are-spending-in-washington/#comments Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:46:20 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://newenterprise.allthingsd.com/?p=1030 It’s no big surprise that big companies spend a lot of money in Washington to try to influence the outcome of pending legislation and to try to talk lawmakers and agency officials out of regulating one thing or another. It sometimes is surprising when you see exactly how much is being spent.

The latest batch of disclosure reports for lobbying expenditures during the third quarter have been released, and the Associated Press has been doing the yeoman’s work of moving a batch of short stories summarizing the facts contained in these disclosures. I noticed several focused on tech companies, and I thought I’d summarize the summaries, with a few highlights.

Verizon spent $3.83 million lobbying on several issues, including taxes and texting while driving, at numerous branches of the federal government, including the White House, Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission. It spent $2.96 million in the same period a year ago.

AT&T spent $3.47 million, up from $3.18 million a year ago. Its agenda items included legislation on calling cards, broadband buildouts and distracted driving.

Hewlett-Packard spent $1.6 million–nearly double the $970,000 it spent in the third quarter of last year–chatting with members of Congress and officials at the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department about taxes, immigration and how government agencies use technology in the areas of health care and law enforcement.

Microsoft spent $1.63 million, an increase from $1.49 million a year ago. It visited Congress, the Pentagon and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to talk about computer security, how the government buys software and the competitive state of online advertising. It also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality.

Oracle spent $1.6 million, up from $1.3 million, lobbying Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security on patent litigation and the government’s technology spending plans.

Google spent $1.2 million in the third quarter (which TechCrunch noted in October following a press release by Consumer Watchdog), an increase from $1.08 million in the same period a year ago.

IBM spent $1 million, up from $850,000 a year ago, talking about transportation, the power grid, funding for research and the military, on visits to Congress and the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health and Human Services.

Intel spent $830,000, which is notable because the amount decreased from $1.1 million a year ago. Intel was the target of both a private antitrust lawsuit from rival Advanced Micro Devices and a government antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were intensifying in the fall. Both cases have since been settled. Its efforts were in immigration, government research funding and issues related to trademarks and education.

Yahoo spent $540,000, up from $510,000 a year ago.

Apple, easily the most influential company in consumer technology today, spent relatively little on lobbying efforts: Only $340,000.

Facebook spent $120,000.

For a little more on what companies spend on lobbying efforts in Washington, it’s always enlightening to peruse the database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks not only lobbying expenditures but campaign contributions.

As you can see, the CRP shows that, among computer and Internet companies, Microsoft was the leading lobbying spender for the first nine months of the year. The wireless industry’s trade association, the CTIA, led the pack in the telephone equipment and services category, spending more than $6 million. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T each spent more than $12 million.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101223/what-tech-companies-are-spending-in-washington/feed/ 5 http://allthingsd.com/20101221/fcc-vote-reactions-are-pouring-in/ http://allthingsd.com/20101221/fcc-vote-reactions-are-pouring-in/#comments Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:52:22 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://newenterprise.allthingsd.com/?p=903 It’s now official. At 1:05 pm Eastern Time today the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to enact a controversial set of proposed rules on network neutrality, effectively getting the government into the business of regulating the Internet in ways it hasn’t done before. Congressional Republicans are already planning on holding hearings next year.

The reactions are all over the map, and no one is exactly happy. I’ve collected a few of the reaction statements below.

President Obama:

“This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth, and job creation. As a candidate for President, I pledged to preserve the freedom and openness that have allowed the Internet to become a transformative and powerful platform for speech and expression. That’s a pledge I’ll continue to keep as President. As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my Administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact.”

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, incoming Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

“The FCC’s hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation cannot be allowed to stand. We must use every resource available, including the Congressional Review Act, to strike down the FCC’s brazen effort to regulate the Internet. … Despite FCC claims that these are just rules of the road that everyone agrees with, anyone can recognize that what the Commission claims to be statements of broad industry support are really cries of ‘uncle’ resulting from threats of even more onerous regulation.”

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, incoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

“More troubling than the substance of the network neutrality rules are the legal theories underpinning them. If left unchallenged, this power grab will allow the Commission to regulate any interstate wired or wireless communication on barely more than a whim. For all these reasons, we plan to look at all legislative options for reversing the decision. We also plan to hold a series of hearings early next year on the substance, process and claims of authority underlying this proceeding.”

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts

“The FCC’s Democratic Commissioners should be applauded for reaching a consensus on rules that will protect network neutrality on the Internet. As Commissioner Copps, a lifelong champion of open communications and democratic discourse, said in his statement today, vigilant and vigorous implementation of the rule is critical to its success.”

Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen

“DISH Network applauds Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn for adopting critically important net neutrality rules. The Commission’s Order is a solid framework for protecting the open Internet. The new rules give companies, including DISH Network, the framework to invest capital and manpower in Internet-related technologies without fear that our investment will be undermined by carriers’ discriminatory practices. While we wish the Commission would have gone further to expressly prohibit discrimination on wireless platforms, we are pleased that there will be ongoing Commission oversight and enforcement authority.”

Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, National Cable and Telecommunications Association

“Our consistent view has been that the current ‘openness’ of the broadband marketplace can be preserved while simultaneously fostering the innovation and massive private investment needed to ensure the future growth and vitality of the Internet. While we agree entirely with Commissioners McDowell and Baker that new regulation is not necessary to accomplish that goal, it has been clear for some time that there were three votes at the Commission for rules that would go much farther than those adopted today. Thus, the question before us has been whether rules could be drafted in a manner that avoids a raft of unintended consequences and that preserves broadband providers’ ability to innovate and invest in a marketplace that justly represents a great American success story.”

J. Scott Holladay, Economics Fellow, Institute for Policy Integrity

“Today, the FCC voted on a batch of tepid new rules. Some net neutrality protection will be provided, but the exclusion for wireless will create barriers to new start-up content providers and chill content innovation over wireless Internet.”

“The new but not-yet-properly-defined ‘managed service’ exemption may amount to the first step down a slippery slope of non-neutral Internet service. The exemption should be carefully tailored to address only a small number of special categories of applications that cannot operate under the existing open framework.”

“The FCC rests these decisions on shaky legal ground. Rather than invoke its more robust regulating powers, FCC bases the new rule on legal authority that was called into serious doubt by court decision earlier this year making the long term prospects for the rule quite poor.”

The Writers Guild of America, East

“A compromise means the parties to a dispute reach agreement. Here, no one has agreed to anything. These tepid rules will be challenged in court and in Congress, and they fail in the most fundamental ways – permitting paid prioritization and all manner of discrimination in wireless. Our members write most of what people watch on television and in the movie theaters and increasingly, online. Today’s FCC vote will diminish our members’ ability to create and distribute innovative content and audiences’ ability to watch the content of their choice.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101221/fcc-vote-reactions-are-pouring-in/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20101202/amazon-cuts-off-wikileaks-joe-lieberman-claims-pointless-victory/ http://allthingsd.com/20101202/amazon-cuts-off-wikileaks-joe-lieberman-claims-pointless-victory/#comments Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:20:59 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://newenterprise.allthingsd.com/?p=66

WikiLeaks, the site infamous for exposing America’s diplomatic dirty laundry, has confirmed via its Twitter feed that it is no longer hosting its files on Amazon’s servers.

No comment from Amazon on this, although I have a call in to the company.

The move comes as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut–who was a onetime vice-presidential nominee and who is also chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee–had called for Amazon to cut its ties to WikiLeaks.

Lieberman issued a brief statement calling on other companies not to work with WikiLeaks, and pledged to “ask Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks.”

That could mean he intends to hold hearings, and given the intensity of the vitriol about WikiLeaks coming out of official Washington in the last few days, that would only be a start.

But the answers aren’t going to be all that satisfying, as Talking Points Memo explains, since anyone can upload something to Amazon’s Web Services without any prescreening, which is pretty much the case on any Web service these days. The ostensible reason for the eviction was some violation of Amazon’s terms of service.

This all looks to have been a useless exercise on Lieberman’s part. As Ryan Tate of Valleywag points out, other Amazon customers and partners include some of the news organizations that have been participating with WikiLeaks in the release of the cables. Its news stories, including its own series on the leaks, have been published on the Kindle. Did Lieberman bust Kindle’s chops over that? No.

What’s interesting is that WikiLeaks moved its files to Amazon in the wake of what it said was a distributed denial of service attack on November 28. WikiLeaks claims it came under another more intense attack yesterday. No word on who carried it out.

And something tells me it won’t be the last time.

But, in the end, does it make a difference? Because once something is released on so massive a scale, you might as well order an errant glob of toothpaste back into the tube as try to intimidate or legislate it out of existence.

If these cables detailing the unvarnished opinions of American diplomats around the world were to be such closely guarded secrets, then the more apt question for the inevitable hearings that Lieberman’s Committee will no doubt call concern why they were so readily accessible to a young Army soldier with a computer and a Flash drive, as has been alleged against Bradley Manning.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101202/amazon-cuts-off-wikileaks-joe-lieberman-claims-pointless-victory/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101201/sen-kohl-urges-close-doj-review-of-google-ita-deal/ http://allthingsd.com/20101201/sen-kohl-urges-close-doj-review-of-google-ita-deal/#comments Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:49:03 +0000 Voices http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=33357 Getting on board with those who have reservations about Google’s planned acquisition of flight information provider ITA Software, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. and head of a Senate antitrust panel, today urged the Department of Justice to be extra diligent in its review of the deal. Citing the concerns of consumer groups and existing online travel search and booking sites, Kohl suggested the DOJ may need to consider predicating its approval on certain conditions to ensure fair competition.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101201/sen-kohl-urges-close-doj-review-of-google-ita-deal/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101103/election-2010-facebook-fan-favorites-fare-well/ http://allthingsd.com/20101103/election-2010-facebook-fan-favorites-fare-well/#comments Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:12:38 +0000 Voices http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=31994 Well, what do you know–in elections, the most popular candidate usually wins. True in the real world, and apparently true in the virtual world. Plumbing its community sentiment for political insights (as it did all Election Night on ABC), Facebook today noted that in 98 key U.S. House races, the candidate with the most Facebook fans won 74 percent of the time. In 34 Senate races, the figure was 82 percent. Lots more fun facts on the site.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101103/election-2010-facebook-fan-favorites-fare-well/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101101/election-2010-the-view-from-youtube/ http://allthingsd.com/20101101/election-2010-the-view-from-youtube/#comments Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:34:53 +0000 Voices http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=31878 Google rolled out some fun facts on last month’s election-related YouTube video views today, with the rankings reflecting viral popularity as much as political viability. For what it’s worth, all 10 of the most viewed News and Politics videos were from Republican campaigns or supporters, and the predominant theme was anger–from the ominously orchestrated “America Rising” to the royally ticked-off, gun-toting, horse-riding candidate for Alabama Ag Commissioner, Dale Peterson. The most popular of the 450 official candidate channels on YouTube was that of Delaware Senate contestant Christine O’Donnell, fueled by her “I’m not a witch…I’m you” video.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101101/election-2010-the-view-from-youtube/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101101/california-not-golden-for-silicon-valley-techie-gop-candidates-whitman-and-fiorina/ http://allthingsd.com/20101101/california-not-golden-for-silicon-valley-techie-gop-candidates-whitman-and-fiorina/#comments Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:00:58 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=36565

After all Meg Whitman’s moneybagging and all those demon sheep thrown by Carly Fiorina, polls right now are showing that it is unlikely either of them is going to emerge victorious in tomorrow’s elections in California.

While the pair might pull it out, given how the GOP is surging this election cycle, most expect them not to do so.

Whitman has handed over a giant pile of her eBay-generated fortune in an attempt to be the Republican governor of the Golden State, which seemed to have been working–until it didn’t.

In fact, it seems as if her wealth–and various controversies around it, such as IllegalMaidGate–has diminished her efforts to paint herself as CEO of California.

While she was way up over the summer over Democratic rival Jerry Brown, she has been trailing him recently.

And, although the race has tightened up, surveys show Brown is still ahead, such as a Rasmussen Reports survey that showed him up 49 percent to Whitman’s 45 percent.

In the Senate contest, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Fiorina seems to be more certainly headed for defeat.

A new Field Research poll gives Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer 49 percent to Fiorina’s 41.

And while both candidates drastically oversold their business credentials as just the thing the troubled state needs, it seems the magic of tech in California does not necessarily transfer to voter enthusiasm quite so neatly.

But, let’s not end this election without another look at the infamous–and accidentally hysterical–”Demon Sheep” television ad by Fiorina against her GOP-nomination opponent Tom Campbell.

That video is followed by a very funny rejoinder, “Demon Sheep II: The Fleecing of California.”

Enjoy:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101101/california-not-golden-for-silicon-valley-techie-gop-candidates-whitman-and-fiorina/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20101025/a-web-pioneer-profiles-users-by-name/ http://allthingsd.com/20101025/a-web-pioneer-profiles-users-by-name/#comments Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:00:18 +0000 Emily Steel http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=31492 In the weeks before the New Hampshire primary last month, Linda Twombly of Nashua says she was peppered with online ads for Republican Senate hopeful Jim Bender.

It was no accident. An online tracking company called RapLeaf Inc. had correctly identified her as a conservative who is interested in Republican politics, has an interest in the Bible and contributes to political and environmental causes. Mrs. Twombly’s profile is part of RapLeaf’s rich trove of data, garnered from a variety of sources and which both political parties have tapped.

RapLeaf knows even more about Mrs. Twombly and millions of other Americans: their real names and email addresses.

This makes RapLeaf a rare breed. Rival tracking companies also gather minute detail on individual Americans: They know a tremendous amount about what you do. But most trackers either can’t or won’t keep the ultimate piece of personal information—your name—in their databases.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101025/a-web-pioneer-profiles-users-by-name/feed/ 0