Posts Tagged ‘Google’

See? Government regulations are so they can beat up on little guys for the BIG corps

November 26, 2013
Animation of the structure of a section of DNA...

Animation of the structure of a section of DNA. The bases lie horizontally between the two spiraling strands. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

FDA Tells Google-Backed 23andMe to Halt DNA Test Service – Bloomberg:!

UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), the largest publicly traded U.S. health insurer, raised concern in a March 2012 report about the accuracy and affordability of the tests. Such types of genetic tests may become a $25 billion annual market in the U.S. within a decade, highlighting the need to identify which work best, the insurer said at the time.

Mu bonito, my Hispanic family half would say, UnitedHealth is all so worried about the little guys. That’s why they when you make a claim, they ask you to look again if the payout should be bigger than what you asked for, right….



Oracle wants to own our Java APIs, but the Oracle owners never wrote any of them

June 2, 2013
Association for Computing Machinery

Association for Computing Machinery (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Reacting to computer news from ACM (Association for Computing Machinery): “Computer Scientists Oppose Oracle’s Bid to Copyright Java APIs”…


Computer Scientists Oppose Oracle’s Bid to Copyright Java APIs IDG News Service (05/30/13) James Niccolai In a court brief, nearly three dozen computer scientists voiced concerns over Oracle’s plan to copyright its Java application programming interface (API), which they believe would hinder the computer industry and limit end users’ access to affordable technology. The group, which includes MS-DOS author Tim Paterson and ARPANET developer Larry Roberts, signed the amicus brief in support of Google in its copyright lawsuit with Oracle. Oracle accuses Google of infringing the copyright on its Java APIs in the development of Google’s Android operating system, and is seeking billions of dollars in damages. Google argues that software APIs are not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law. Last year, a district court in California mostly agreed with Google and ruled against Oracle in the case, but Oracle appealed the decision. “The freedom to reimplement and extend existing APIs has been the key to competition and progress in the computer field–both hardware and software ,” the brief states. “It made possible the emergence and success of many robust industries we now take for granted–such as industries for mainframes, PCs, peripherals, workstations/servers, and so on–by ensuring that competitors could challenge established players and advance the state of the art.”


It’s time to revisit the entire idea of copyright, patents, and even maybe trademarks. Technology has forced the relevant issues into the open, in my view, rather than changed them.


Copyright law began to get fat after the invention of the printing press when Popes and kings began to try to control the proliferation of ideas with the technology that spread the ideas of dissidents and opponents. Next came lists of unauthorized books, banned books.




One clue, in my opinion, to a basic problem with trying to apply copyright law in the real world, is the fact that so much of it is arbitrary. Pick a number out of a hat, almost. What is right in practice might vary from case to case.


#1. How long is “limited”?


From the moment of inception of a work, or its publishing, how long should copyright protection cover it? The United States Constitution says a “limited” period. To me, in 2013, 70 years seems to be unreasonable. I read one author once who said he thought copyright should be inherited and passed on to infinite generations.


#2. What is the perfect “percentage”?


If printed (or electronically copied) work “A” takes an excerpt from previous work “B” and adds context, how much is “fair” to quote? How many words, paragraphs, alphabetical characters, or computer storage bytes? One or two Bible versions I’ve looked at state that you can quote verses and short passages, but to use an entire chapter you have to get permission (and presumably, possibly pay up). With other works, it gets more iffy.


#3. What about paraphrases?


This is one I have not seen much discussion about. I list it here because it’s another example of how there is no “natural” threshold that emerges for this as to how close a paraphrase has to be to violate any “natural” law that may apply.


#5. Translations


For example, again with Bible “versions”, aka “translations”, each newly copyrighted “translation” must differ a certain percentage from ALL other previous copyrighted versions to qualify for a new “unique” status. Of course the copyright owners of a previous “translations” has the right, presumably to “create” as many “derived” works they like.


In my opinion, this is why the major “translations” get revisions every 20 or 25 years. That way they can expand their “territory” of possibly covered works. The more important one might be to extend copyright coverage out further into the future. But maybe most important is that the “latest version” is expected to supplant the earlier one. These are moral hazards at best. At worst, it also introduces temptation for owners, publishers, editors, and translators for all the above, and it makes for multiplied opportunities to introduce tainted doctrines and bad interpretations.


#6. Open Source


The razon d’être of copyright in the U.S. Constitution is said to be to promote science and art. From Article 1, Section 8:


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


But there are indications that the “promotion” of science and the “useful Arts” may be much better served by opening it up.


The roaring success of many open source projects shows that such goals can be enhanced by opening it up. We do not look upon other government industry monopoly grants with much sympathy. Maybe the lock-down on science is holding us back, rather than helping progress.


The benefits of producing Open Source have been expounded in many places already. The same intellectual fervor that creates good products like Firefox and Linux and the fact that enterprises that are more efficient and can run with it, and that there have been plenty of bad ones fallen aside, shows that may be a better model in the long run anyway.


In other words, continuing to produce value –rather than a monopoly license grant– may help promote truly useful science and arts.


The courts in the U.S. have certainly recognized the utter futility of attempting to apply copyright protections to mere mathematical algorithms. It’s impractical, it’s inefficient, and would stop progress. Enforcement would have to get a massive bureaucracy of desk clerks squinting at the tiniest little details, and how could you even track it all?




Most of the above arguments apply here, especially concerning algorithms,as applied to patent law.


There’s also publicly funded projects that finance discoveries that have resulted in privately acquired patents that provided the economic base for new companies.




There is one other factor. Most of the copyrights and patents granted or recognized today worldwide are NOT granted to the original authors, but to the very big corporations that “own” that work based on employment or contract.


Stan Lee fought for Spiderman. Courtney Love belted out a very big speech raking the music industry tycoons over the rails for how they treat the authors of their art. Famous singers often get little for their trouble over the height of their fame. Motown stars often ended in poverty later on. I have heard from someone I trust on this that the classic movie mega-hit Cimarron was plagiarized after a rejection letter was sent to the true author. How often has Hollywood been sued for piracy?



EPIC – President Issues Secret Cybersecurity Directive, EPIC Seeks Public Release

November 18, 2012
Headquarters of the NSA at Fort Meade, Marylan...

Headquarters of the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland. Español: Instalaciones generales de la NSA en Fort Meade, Maryland. Русский: Штаб-квартира АНБ, Форт-Мид, Мэриленд, США (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


President Issues Secret Cybersecurity Directive, EPIC Seeks Public Release

Following a Washington Post report of a new cyber security directive, EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the release of Presidential Policy Directive 20. The Directive is believed to expand cyber security authority for the National Security Agency. EPIC is pursuing several FOIA cases, including the release of NSPD-54, an earlier Directive that gave NSA authority to conduct surveillance within the United States. EPIC has also sought public release of the technical arrangement between the NSA and Google that was adopted in January 2010. Federal law prevents the National Security Agency, a component of the Department of Defense, from conducting operations within the United States. For more information, see EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications, EPIC: EPIC v. NSA – Cybersecurity Authority, and EPIC v. NSA: Google / NSA Relationship.



Nothing less than the Constitution

July 15, 2012


Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle, but he is immediately corrected:



Google caught with hands in private computer info cookie jar (Street View cameras)

May 28, 2012
Google street view car in Brighton, UK, camera...

Google street view car in Brighton, UK, camera wrapped (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered it up’ for years | Mail Online:

The programmer that did the program says he warned Google to check with privacy lawyers because the program steals information from personal computers as the Street View cars drove along, but Google says the FCC and the Justice Department gave them a pass because they determined, so they say, that Google “did not want or intend to use this payload data. Indeed, so they say Google never used it in any of our products or services.”

The programmer has also invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to answer questions about the program or about Street View. He may also be avoiding answering, in my opinion, due to some strong warnings from parties unknown.

Reading between the lines, at least from what’s in this report, we see that Google probably DID use it in some way other than directly using the information in their products or services. Did they sell any of the information to the NSA maybe, or to the Pentagon‘s now renamed Total Awareness project?

I’m going to start looking for email alternatives.

CISPA: FBI wants access to your Facebook

May 12, 2012

EFF_icon_priv (Photo credit: ElectronicFrontierFoundation)

There’s only one national political figure exposing this attack against us, and you know who it is.. Facebook and Google both have supported CISPA. Such hypocrites.

EFF condemns CISPA:

The NSA has been reading our emails for decades…:

Pro-SOPA congressmen should have lost their political careers over it, and CISPA is worse, because it’s more obviously directed to the police power they were looking for in the first place…

Watch for attacks supposedly by Anonymous and its allies. One must now wonder after Fast and Furious, for example, whether those attacks might be what are called “false flag” operations.

After all, the FBI has done a bang-up job at stopping its own terrorist plots lately…

In the News; FYI

February 19, 2012

Google busted:

Condemned to eight years for ignorance and poverty:

Basso has rights too.. The feds aren’t so healthy either, hey!

Neiss said he witnessed firsthand the limited access startups have to capital after winning “Startup Weekend” in Miami, Fla. in 2010 and 2011, but being unable to secure funding for his winning business plans.

The FDA has just approved a new drug to fight cystic fibrosis,


How about a search engine that respects privacy? And stop PIPA and SOPA and “neutrality” laws!

January 18, 2012
Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Image via Wikipedia

I don’t like the idea of Google tailoring the thing to my persona or my IP address, especially when I’m not logged in. They’ll say it’s to be for us, but it’s really for them and the ad revenue, plus they want to expand their dominance in the information-search domains, and now applications.

Google has reached its limit I think in the economies-of-scale limits as far as how many things they can take over in a good way. Something is wrong when upstart companies that begin to gain traction think they can make more money by selling out to Google or Microsoft. Unfortunately regulatory regimes add an element of too-big-to-fail tilting of the economic environment that favors entrenched market dominance.

Although we are getting pulled along by both economic forces and powers-that-be forces toward giving up privacy, and the Biblical prophecy in Revelation 13 makes clear there is a subcutaneous chip on its way, we can make it as difficult as possible for them. Larry Ellison said “Privacy is dead, get over it” but then he’s one of “them”, at least so he thinks. Maybe he is.

Americans have been known for their respect for individual liberty. We should not lose sight of that. Dividing people by groups leads to tensions and war.

Google also censors the ads. I may sharply disagree with some of the things Pamela Geller, and sharply disagree with many of the approach she uses to some of the things I agree on, but I defend her right to be heard same as me and you.

By the way, that applies to Ron Paul, too, who is the guy the Big Brother regime is trying to censor. He’s America‘s last best hope for recovering our individual liberties, no wonder big money is going to all the other guys (including Obama).

Keep tuned to:


P.S. What alternative is there to Google and Yahoo engine? There are other search web sites but the ones I’ve found all use on of those two as their “search engine”.

Blows against censorship

December 17, 2011

Free speech and blogger intimidation now.

Like said:

Why are they investigating the bloggers on the fraud rather than the fraud itself? – no I don’t use that word very often.

That’s a good question. Whistleblowers blow the lid off the fraud, and the perpetrators are blown by their own words. There are supposed to be laws to protect whistleblowers, but I guess that just depends on who the abusers are, eh?

Oh, and here’s a good one, from

The notification apparently asks them not to make the information public or else… they may terminate their wordpress account.

Now, more than ever, all the people that value their freedom need to stick together. Whistleblowers and radio personalities need blogger back up, big bloggers need small bloggers, every blogger needs commenter and emailer support, with letters to editors and friends. Every link in the chain helps. The establishment need to know that we will not be intimidated, there are many of us, and the more they push, the more we will tell the world.

Amen to that, sister Joanna.

I wonder, did they even have a warrant? If somebody refuses such a request in the absence of a warrant, will that bring an unconstitutional charge of obstructing justice?

This shows that the AGW religion is not about “saving” the earth, nor is it about “saving” mankind, and since when did these actors care about rising sea levels wiping out beachfront property values? They have their own, “What me worry?” They don’t care about human families’ rights to be left alone, how can they care about polar bears? Really? These are the hustlers that make the money from taxing us to death for Gaia, what do they contribute back? They’ll talk to your organization for how much was that?

Raw climate change data: Now stamped “Classified”, eh?

Just trust us.

Some people say they can’t trust anything at all from a source that got one little datum mixed up, but then when the liars who were exposed in climategate, they were “vindicated”? Yep, it’s a matter of whom you choose to trust.

Somebody else said once, Trust but Verify.

Reason Magazine: Being Libertarian Doesn’t Mean You’re Perfect

November 19, 2011

I’ve seen some of Reason Magazine’s writers and editors on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch, and their perspectives are usually pretty good. But David Friedman, who apparently


Reason Magazine in general is pretty reasonable, at least f