infoneer-pulse:

The concept of privacy is undergoing a radical transformation, thanks to our continuing willingness to provide companies like Facebook and Google our data for free. If, before, we largely lived our lives in private, we now live our lives in public. In many cases, we no longer even know what is public and what is private, who has our information, and what they are doing with it.

It is increasingly the case that whatever we do online is now part of the public domain – even our so-called “private” lives on Facebook are now being opened up to public scrutiny on demand by employers and others. We are told, of course, that all of this tracking and monitoring by companies like Google and Facebook is helping to “personalize” the Web, to help us “filter” the right information and data, and to make our lives easier. However, is it the case that we no longer have a presumed right to privacy?

» via FutureLab

parislemon:

Yahoo should buy them to bolster their bullshit lawsuit against Facebook. There’s probably some patent in there about the use of the color blue within online systems. 

infoneer-pulse:

Facebook is trying to expand its trademark rights over the word “book” by adding the claim to a newly revised version of its “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,” the agreement all users implicitly consent to by using or accessing Facebook.

You may recall that Facebook has launched multiple lawsuits against websites incorporating the word “book” into their names. Facebook, as far as we can tell, doesn’t have a registered trademark on “book.” But trademark rights can be asserted based on use of a term, even if the trademark isn’t registered, and adding the claim to Facebook’s user agreement could boost the company’s standing in future lawsuits filed against sites that use the word.

“Unregistered marks are quite common in the US,” University of Minnesota Law Professor William McGeveran told Ars. “Rights arise from use, not registration (though registration does give you some other advantages). That’s how Facebook can try to claim ‘book.’” If you see a ™ next to a name, that indicates an unregistered, claimed trademark, whereas an R in a circle signifies a registered one, McGeveran notes.

» via ars technica

parislemon:

You’ve probably already read it from the 1,000 others who have linked to it, but just in case, I’ll add to the chorus: read Mat Honan’s take on Google in its current form.

The most interest takeaway to me is the notion that Google isn’t being evil in the traditional sense of the world (they’re not killing people, for example), but they are being “evil” now by their own previous definitions. In hindsight, it was a mistake to try to set a definition, but who knows, maybe Google doesn’t get to where it is now without taking such a stance initially.

It was inspiring at the time. Which makes it all the more disappointing now.

Honan’s entire piece is thought-provoking. Most people I talk to are opposed to the new Search Plus Your World (SPYW) Google (read: Google Search infused with Google+). But from Google’s perspective, they likely view themselves as having no choice. Get busy living, or get busy dying, as it were.

I just think the social components are the wrong choice for Google. I agree that they should do something different to stay ahead in the game, but to me, social feels done already. They should be trying to go after what’s next after social. Instead, they’re shoving the social stuff in our faces. And it’s just doesn’t work. It’s unnatural. 

Maybe in some parts of the company (Google X) they are going after what’s next, but now it feels like a race to see if they can get there before the Google+ initiative drive the company into a downslope of negativity that they’ll have a hard time recovering from.

Honan’s post sums all this up well.

Tales, texts, tweets, tumble-logs and what-nots from Unit 1707

Tales, texts, tweets, tumble-logs and what-nots from Unit 1707