Google has become one of four biggest search engine databases that there is on the net. Or course there are a lot more than just those four databases however, they haven’t gained the popularity or access that Google and the other three big search engines have. Simply put, nobody else can search the web for potential search results as efficiently as them. Yahoo, one of the other top search engine databases, has just as much potential to be “on top” as Google. The search engine technology that Yahoo runs has been shown to be nearly equivalent to Google’s. One reason that Yahoo is so close behind is that Google’s services have started to decline. Microsoft was even competing with Yahoo which was starting to cripple Microsoft as far as search engine capability is concerned. So Microsoft started working on their search engine as well, to improve it drastically.
There is no doubt that Google owns the search engine business, they provide about 75 percent of the external referrals for most websites. It does not take too much imagination to recognize that there's a struggle going on for the soul of the web, and the focal point of this struggle is Google itself. At one level, advertising is a huge part of this struggle, the other part of the struggle is privacy. The issue of Government surveillance against privacy comes into account when thinking of Google’s capabilities of collecting a users’ data. Because of this ability, Google had been nominated for the Big Brother award in 2003.
Google was the first to use a cookie that was designed to not expire until 2038; this was the same time when Federal sites couldn’t even use cookies to collect personal user data. Google can record the IP address of any person that uses the search engine as well as the users search itself. It will record the time and date and the users geographic location. This, of course, is a good way to keep track of people for advertising purposes or more sinister purposes. 200 million people type search for something in the Google engine everyday, the potential of the loss of privacy at this rate is growing increasingly.
Personally, I love Google, it’s easy, and they provide a lot of useful tools such as Google Earth and Gmail on top of their very useful search engine. The simple fact that they can collect anyone’s personal data is not really a surprise; the only factor that changes this to become potentially threatening is that so many people use Google. Other than that, Google is not the only company on the web that has such an ability to collect personal data. It doesn’t even surprise me that the toolbar they provide for web browsers is considered spyware, I’ve never used it, and the word “toolbar” shouts spyware to me in any context. There will come a time when no one can hide and we’re all so very dependant on the internet now that it’s really unavoidable. The one thing I would worry about is the ability for Google to reach its powerful hand out of my computer monitor and choke me to death, I think I still have a couple years to remain safe.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Net Neutrality
Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan have started on their second attempt to release a bill to ensure that net neutrality remains. This is the second attempt that they have made to pass this bill, which is almost completely identical to the first bill they presented. Net neutrality allows people to be able to control the content they access online themselves as opposed to the web communications gatekeepers. If the gatekeepers had control, they could limit the websites people are allowed to view based purely on profit, or charge more for the more desirable websites.
Internet service providers don’t yet have the power to limit what their costumers view online; this bill aims to keep it that way. Along with access, bandwidth could become an issue, causing people to pay more for their internet to be half-decent, or charging more for web servers to have a good connection. This presents a problem for small companies who can’t afford to pay. This, of course, inadvertently causes smaller companies to have less effective websites. A few people, including actress Alyssa Milano and Vint Cerf, one of the Net's technical pioneers, opposed the idea of us losing our freedoms on the internet stating that it would suppress internet innovation.
The new bill would allow for some prioritization of content but only under strict circumstances. They can only prioritize content if it is done for all types of that particular content, application or service and without a fee. That would mean that ISP’s could choose to have a dedicated pipe for all user-generated video content, but that pipe would have to be available to all user-generated video sites, and for free. Government regulation would make it against the law for any company to invest in customized Internet service.
The loss of Net neutrality would be a massacre, not in a literal meaning of the word but people have become so dependant on the internet for information and general living. People pay their bills online, do research online, talk to people they can’t really talk to otherwise, online. If they have to pay more to do all of that, it could cause problems. People already have enough financial trouble in this country; it’s a fact that the people with money are well-favored. The internet is one of the few, no-strings-attached freedoms any of us have left. It is as much a part of life now as eating and sleeping. This bill should be passed, allowing the government to control what happens to our internet may seem risky but the companies that care more about money than morals are far more dangerous.
Internet service providers don’t yet have the power to limit what their costumers view online; this bill aims to keep it that way. Along with access, bandwidth could become an issue, causing people to pay more for their internet to be half-decent, or charging more for web servers to have a good connection. This presents a problem for small companies who can’t afford to pay. This, of course, inadvertently causes smaller companies to have less effective websites. A few people, including actress Alyssa Milano and Vint Cerf, one of the Net's technical pioneers, opposed the idea of us losing our freedoms on the internet stating that it would suppress internet innovation.
The new bill would allow for some prioritization of content but only under strict circumstances. They can only prioritize content if it is done for all types of that particular content, application or service and without a fee. That would mean that ISP’s could choose to have a dedicated pipe for all user-generated video content, but that pipe would have to be available to all user-generated video sites, and for free. Government regulation would make it against the law for any company to invest in customized Internet service.
The loss of Net neutrality would be a massacre, not in a literal meaning of the word but people have become so dependant on the internet for information and general living. People pay their bills online, do research online, talk to people they can’t really talk to otherwise, online. If they have to pay more to do all of that, it could cause problems. People already have enough financial trouble in this country; it’s a fact that the people with money are well-favored. The internet is one of the few, no-strings-attached freedoms any of us have left. It is as much a part of life now as eating and sleeping. This bill should be passed, allowing the government to control what happens to our internet may seem risky but the companies that care more about money than morals are far more dangerous.
Happy Valentines Day...
A Kirby Valentines Day card?
Something that most of our parents bought us to pass out to the other students until about 5th grade, this one seems highly inappropriate, especially if recieved by a girl.
I suppose I wouldn't mind recieving this anymore.
Society is corrupt...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)