Michael Zimmer.org

It was confirmed last week that Google is acquiring Like.com, a visual search engine that focuses on helping people shop for clothing and accessories online. While most stories are spinning this as Google’s attempt to improve its product search engine and make inroads into the e-commerce marketplace, I see this acquisition differently.
It is important to realize that before Like.com was helping people find shoes and watches online, its technology was the core of Riya, a photo sharing and search site that allowed users to upload, tag and search images based …

Recently we learned that Google’s Street View vehicles gathered people’s private communications on their home WiFi networks as they drove by snapping photos. Initially, Google denied it was collecting or storing any payload data, but later admitted that it had, in fact, collected private information that it should not have, information clearly beyond what any reasonable person who expect a street mapping service to collect.
Google’s explanation was that this privacy invasion was a mistake, and happened because some code inadvertently made its way into the Street View …

Starting today, users visiting Google.cn will be redirected to Google.com.hk, Google’s Hong Kong search portal, where search results will be provided free from the filtering Google had previously been performing on Google.cn. Google is touting this as ending censorship in China, but, as Siva Vaidhyanathan has pointed out, that really isn’t the case. It’s an end-around. A slight-of-hand.

While Google is trying to do the right thing here, and it hopes it can deliver unfiltered results to China from Google.com.hk (or force China to take some kind of action against the Hong Kong site). But I fear this move will instead result in further failure to serve the interests of Chinese Internet users, and another lost opportunity to fight oppressive online censorship.

To celebrate Data Privacy Day, Google has published its 5 guiding privacy principles. The principles are something every organization should commit to and strive for. The problem is, Google hasn’t adhered to them quite as closely as they’d want you to believe….

[UPDATE: As of Jan 7, 2010, Google has now changed its homepage so the Nexus One ad fades in with the other content -- more below]
Remember how hard we gad to fight to convince Google to include a link to its privacy policy on the Google.com homepage?
Remember how Google argued “we do believe that having very limited text on our home page is important” and that it was pitched as some great sacrifice to include the word “privacy” and disrupt the homepage’s aesthetics?
Remember how, just a month ago, Google argued …

Perhaps the greatest ethos surrounding Google’s success is its — and users’ — faith in the algorithm. Users trust Google, and have faith that the results provided are accurate and helpful.
Sometimes, however, that trust can be misplaced.
Recently, a student in one of my classes gave a presentation on Google, and proceeded to explain how Google ranks search results using an algorithm called…..PigeonRank:
Why Google’s patented PigeonRank™ works so well
PigeonRank’s success relies primarily on the superior trainability of the domestic pigeon (Columba livia) and its unique capacity to recognize objects regardless of …

Google has announced a new “feature” to its homepage: upon loading, only the Google logo, the search box and the search buttons are visible. The links to additional products, advanced search function, and the privacy policy, only fade in if the user moves the mouse. This video shows it in action.

Aesthetically, this isn’t without its charm, and we all know how anal Google can be regarding the minimalist design of its homepage.
But it took so much effort to get Google to finally add a mere 7-letter hyperlink to its privacy …

When Google launched Google Latitude 9 months ago, they took steps to ensure users’ locational privacy was protected. Among the most important privacy-protecting features was the fact that Google didn’t keep a log of user locations on its servers; only the most recent locational ping was stored. Not even law enforcement could gain access to a user’s location history. This design decision, apparently made in consultation with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was a very positive step for Google, who I have taken issue in the past with regard to its …

Remember the hard battle fought to convince Google to include a link to its privacy policy on the Google.com homepage?
Remember how Google argued “we do believe that having very limited text on our home page is important” and that it was pitched as some great sacrifice to include the word “privacy” and disrupt the homepage’s aesthetics?
Apparently providing users easy access to information about their privacy is much more burdensome for Google than providing a link to where people can buy Verizon’s Droid mobile phone.
Today, Google.com features an advertising message that …

For quite some time now, I’ve been writing about how “search” has become the center of gravity of our informational ecosystem, and that a primary externality of our dependence on search has been the threat to privacy. On numerous occasions I’ve called on Google to engage in value-conscious design in order to protect user privacy, and specifically argued for the creation of a Google Data Privacy center where users can see exactly what data Google has collected about them from their expansive infrastructure of dataveillance, edit or remove this data …

The proposed Google Book Search Settlement Agreement has been the target of numerous criticisms, not the least of which has been its incredible impact on — and incredible silence about — users’ intellectual privacy. Well before the settlement even emerged, I tried to highlight some of the privacy concerns related to the growing reliance on Google Book Search for our information-seeking needs. More recently, as the possible approval of  settlement looms, various advocacy groups have again brought attention to the fact that Google might gain even greater ability to monitor …

Dr. Pamela Samuelson has been one of the most vocal, and most intelligent, critics of the proposed Google Book Search settlement agreement. She has written, for example, on how the settlement threatens orphan works and represents a “major restructuring of the book industry,” largely to the benefit of Google, the Authors Guild and AAP, and their lawyers.
More recently, Samuelson has questioned whether the Authors Guild and AAP fairly represented the interests of all authors and publishers during the negotiations that led up to the settlement agreement. She notes:
The Authors Guild …

I shared my thoughts on privacy and the Google Book Settlement at the “Google Books Settlement and the Future of Information Access” conference organized by the UC-Berkeley School of Information. My remarks focused on my desire to trust Google when they say they’re “thinking hard” about these issues and promise to “protect readers’ privacy rights”, while noting their track record is reason enough to cause us some pause, which is why we’re pushing so hard as advocates on these vital concerns.

The art blog Art Fag City recently published a brilliant and insightful photo essay by Jon Rafman, titled “IMG MGMT: The Nine Eyes of Google Street View”. Through text and Street View images, Rafman critically interrogates the gaze of Street View, exposing the ways in which it frames our view of the world, while at the same time constraining it.

In the post are some of the more compelling Street View images he has found, along with his closing remarks.

[Note: please be sure to read the comments with responses from Google's Alexander Macgillivray]
Joris van Hoboken recently brought this section of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement to my attention:
Section 3.7(e) Google’s Exclusion of Books
Google may, at its discretion, exclude particular Books from one or more Display Uses for editorial or non-editorial reasons. However, Google’s right to exclude Books for editorial reasons (i.e., not for quality, user experience, legal or other non-editorial reasons) is an issue of great sensitivity to Plaintiffs and Google.  Accordingly, because Plaintiffs, Google and the …