Italy risks internet Stone Age

Image via CrunchBase

DISTRACTED while thinking how to begin this column, I clicked on an email from a friend. She had sent me a YouTube video in which a tidy cylindrical shape on a shoulder strap unrolled to become a computer.

Almost every day, someone sends a YouTube clip or invites me to join them in Facebook or LinkedIn or something called Friendster.

When trying to find a way to contact a possible source last week, I Googled him and found he had Twitter but no listed phone number or email address. Maybe I should drop the curmudgeonly attitude and sign up myself.

None of this is remarkable, which is what makes an Italian judge's order last week ''astonishing'', as a Google spokesman put it.

Judge Oscar Magi in Milan found three Google executives guilty of invading the privacy of a disabled teenager in Turin. They didn't know him, didn't photograph him, nor were they aware of it when someone else posted a video of him being bullied by high-schoolers.

When Italian police informed Google it was hosting the video, employees took it down and helped authorities locate the teenager who posted it. She was prosecuted and sentenced to 10 months' community service.

Nonetheless, Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, its global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, and former chief financial officer George Reyes now stand convicted in Italy of invading privacy. Each got suspended sentences of six months in jail. They are the first internet executives to be held criminally liable for something some outsider posted.

In Italy, executives are punished when their company does wrong. (In another context, I recently argued in favour of punishing individuals instead of companies, by the way. But in that case, somebody clearly did something wrong.) As for the Google matter, if these men or this company can be convicted in this case, then to operate comfortably in Italy, internet hosts must monitor content submitted by users and weed out any ahead of time that may offend the law.

On a practical level, the volume of user-generated content is too great to scrutinise, even if national mores allowed that sort of censorship.

Internet executives all over the world should be very, very nervous. If that were the law in the United States, it probably would have killed eBay, YouTube, Facebook and the rest before they got started, says Eric Goldman, who teaches law and technology at Santa Clara University in California.

''Rulings like this absolutely suppress entrepreneurial innovation,'' he says. Goldman suspects it is no coincidence that the US is the global leader in creating new enterprises based on user-generated content.

The US is a country with a free-speech tradition, and a 1996 law shields internet service providers from liability for content their users post. ''Congress has said it's safe to be an innovator,'' says Goldman.

Judge Magi has said it isn't. His ruling, if it stands, will chill speech and squelch the spirit that makes the internet an ever-evolving creature - engaging, educating, entertaining and connecting us in ways we could not imagine a few minutes ago.

From an American perspective, the ruling is crazy. Cultural differences help explain why we look at these things so differently. Americans don't know what it's like to be invaded by another country, as Italians do, or to feel as though a centuries-old culture and deeply held values are being swallowed up and trashed by technological invaders.

The ruling comes at a time when Europe is pushing back against American dominance on the internet. The European Commission has launched a preliminary investigation into Google for possible antitrust violations, for one thing. For another, Italy is considering a law that would create greater restrictions on internet companies, making them subject to the same sort of laws that govern television.

As for the case at hand, it's no wonder it caused a furore in Italy when the video exposed an innocent youngster to ridicule around the world. And even though his parents dropped their complaint against Google, I understand why a group that advocates for the disabled, Vivi Down, kept the case going.

It should be a crime to bully a vulnerable child and another crime to expose his humiliation to a global audience.

But Google took down the video when told of it. Google helped find the teenager who posted the video. Google and its executives acted responsibly, not criminally.

And if Italy wants to hold them responsible, it should anticipate a future without the internet innovations that freer countries in the world enjoy.

Now, how did they make that computer roll up like that?

Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg News columnist.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/italy-risks-internet-stone-age-with-trial-of-google-executives-20100228-pb4u.html

Is Google Earth for Android more than just eye candy?

Image by Djumbo via Flickr

Back when the Nexus One was announced in January Google showed us all Google Earth running on the device, but they failed to mention it was not on the shipping devices we all bought. Many of us looked around on the device and in the Android Market looking for Google Earth and then we finally discovered it would be coming sometime in the near future. Well that time is now and you can find Google Earth in the Android Market for free. It requires Android 2.1 and is targeted towards the Nexus One, but I have read reports of people using it on the Motorola DROID too.

My first attempt at running it on my Nexus One failed miserably with an alert pop-up stating that I did not have enough memory available to store data. I deleted several programs so I could have 30MB of free space and still received the warning with a tap of the icon quitting the program. Wow, how much of a memory hog is this application? I searched around and discovered some people experiencing the same thing who then went and removed Google Earth, rebooted and then reloaded after freeing up some space. After I did all of this, then the application finally started up.

It runs quite smoothly and is visually very nice on that beautiful high resolution display. The iPhone version has four corner controls, but on the Android version you use the menu button system for most functions. These include search, my location, settings, layers, help, and clear search results. Layers include places, businesses, panoramio, wikipedia, roads, borders and labels, and terrain that can all be toggled on or off. Panoramio includes photos that were taken at the specific location so tapping on the small blue boxes opens up photos for you to enjoy.

Pinch to zoom works fluidly and by tapping the small eye icon in the lower left you can rotate the images with a single finger. There is no dual finger rotation control. In the upper right is a directional indicator so as you spin the image you always know where north is.

Once you get it installed and working the program is quite fast and fun to use. I see it more as an eye candy application than a really useful one though and prefer the Google Maps Navigation client for finding places.

Source: http://blogs.zdnet.com/cell-phones/?p=3155

BLOOM BOX... BY BLOOM ENERGY

Image via Wikipedia

Bloom Energy, an 8 year old company, introduces what is being called the Bloom Box. Bloom Energy has earned a good reputation for being mysterious. Bloom Energy has recently been raising a lot of money from its investors for a new and upcoming fuel cell device, called the Bloom Box, which is apparently a “power plant in a box.” Sounds interesting doesn’t it. Now I am thinking why in the world does the world need a power plant in a box, but obviously it does or Bloom Energy wouldn’t be raising money to make it!

The cost for Bloom Energy to make Bloom Box is between $700,000 to $800,000. The Bloom Box is a pile of ceramic disks which are covered in green and black inks. There are metal plates which keep the disks separated and then Methane and oxygen are fed to the plates. When the Bloom Box is heated to a temp of 1,000 degrees Celsius electricity is produced.

The Bloom Box is too expensive at this point for residential use, but large companies, like Google, eBay and Fed Ex are trying out the Bloom Box are really liking it. According to eBay, they have saved $100,000 on electricity with their 5 boxes, in the past 9 months. Bloom Energy estimates that the Bloom Box could be inexpensive enough to be used for residential use within the next 5 to 10 years.

The idea of a “power plant in a box” like the Bloom Box sounds just crazy to me, but I am sure the idea of electricity all over our homes sounded crazy in Benjamin Franklin’s day!

Source: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978061183&grpId=3659174697244817

Yahoo Gives In to Microsoft, Gives Up on Search

Image by labanex.com via Flickr

In a long-awaited pairing aimed at taking on Google, Yahoo will handle ad sales while Microsoft gets the real prize: data on who's doing what online

By Peter Burrows and Robert D. Hof

In a long-awaited pairing aimed at taking on Google, Yahoo will handle ad sales while Microsoft gets the real prize: data on who's doing what online

By Peter Burrows and Robert D. Hof

Technology

Ever since Microsoft (MSFT) made its $45 billion bid for Yahoo (YHOO) in early 2008, it was clear the software giant was serious about taking on arch-rival Google (GOOG) in the lucrative Internet search business. And now, after years of talks with Yahoo, it seems Microsoft has achieved its goal. In a 10-year deal announced in the early hours of July 29, Microsoft became the clear No. 2 in a market long dominated by arch-rival Google.

In a deal that presages its departure from a market it helped pioneer, Yahoo will scrap its own efforts to best Google in search and instead rely on Microsoft's recently debuted Bing search engine. Ads placed next to those search results would be served up not by Yahoo's ad platform, dubbed Panama, but by a Microsoft technology called AdCenter. Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz "is essentially giving up on search," says Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Land.

Yahoo salespeople will continue to sell search ads that appear on both Yahoo sites and on Bing, and Microsoft agreed to let Yahoo keep 88% of the revenue on ads that appear on Yahoo sites. But Microsoft will nevertheless reap a reward that's more valuable in the long run. The data on computer users' online search and buying habits would ultimately reside on Microsoft's computers, thereby improving its ability to automatically serve up the most relevant ads. "If Microsoft is running the underlying ad technology, it doesn't matter who is selling the ads," Sullivan says. "In the end, Microsoft will hold all the cards."

He adds that most advertisers place ads by filling out online forms, with no involvement from salespeople. Maintaining control of sales makes the deal "sound rosier for Yahoo than it really is, because in the end Yahoo won't have the technology needed to compete."

Insurance for Microsoft and Bing

Microsoft wins in other ways. The deal gives a big boost to Bing. The combined search market share of Yahoo and Microsoft would approach 30%. That's still far below Google's 65%, but analysts say it may provide enough of a critical mass at least to stave off further Google advances and help the enlarged search engine gain some ground. At a minimum, the deal doubles as a kind of insurance policy for Microsoft, in case all of the positive buzz about the Bing search engine doesn't translate into actual market share. By adding Yahoo's 20% market share, Bing assures its place as the only search engine provider other than Google with size that really matters.

So what's in it for Bartz? For starters, Yahoo will slice $200 million in technology development costs, while continuing to bring in or even grow its search ad revenue. That's because its salespeople will sell not only ads running on Yahoo sites, but also on Bing. Once it's fully implemented, about two years after regulators sign off, the deal is expected to add an annual $500 million in operating income for Yahoo. The recently appointed CEO also buys time to hone Yahoo's strategy and improve other moneymakers, such as placing banner-style display ads that appear on Yahoo's highly trafficked portal and e-mail pages. And by continuing to sell search ads, she maintains relationships with key advertisers rather than let Microsoft walk away with them. "Yahoo doesn't want to look like they've sold off their crown jewel for short-term gain," Sullivan says. "This creates the illusion that they have more control of the situation than they probably do."

It's an illusion that will likely work with Yahoo's long-suffering shareholders. Indeed, the deal will probably be welcomed by investors in both companies, since it lets each play to its respective strengths. Yahoo is most successful as a media company—and that includes selling advertising.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is a technology powerhouse, with vast software development capabilities and the cash to build the billion-dollar data centers needed to run search engines and ad platforms. The roles represent a stark reversal from half a decade ago, when Microsoft used both Yahoo's search technology and its search-ad system. "It's good for both of the companies," says Sandeep Aggarwal, an analyst with Collins Stewart (CLST.L).

An Antitrust O.K. Is Needed

The arrangement will also have to get a nod from antitrust officials. It probably will, given both companies' relatively small market share next to Google's, and advertisers generally are likely to be in favor of the deal since it bolsters a competitor to the market leader. But Google no doubt will raise objections, which could at least slow down the approval of the deal.

Moreover, the complexity of the deal means it will take the two companies longer to integrate operations than if Yahoo simply outsourced search and search ads to Microsoft, as Microsoft originally proposed. "It's certainly a deal with a bunch of moving pieces," says Tim Cadogan, CEO of the online ad technology and services firm OpenX and a former Yahoo ad sales and search executive.

But if and when those pieces fall into place, it will become abundantly clear which party gained the upper hand in the arrangement, and which one has a fighting chance against Google.

Burrows is a senior writer for BusinessWeek, based in Silicon Valley. Hof is BusinessWeek's Silicon Valley bureau chief.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090728_826397.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090728_826397_page_2.htm