From The “Um, What?!” Department
Google now asks you to enter your credit card as part of the Gmail signup flow. Bold. twitter.com/rmatei/status/…
— Robert Cezar Matei (@rmatei) February 22, 2012
This is going to go over well.
Google: Microsoft Is Full Of Shit
Earlier today, I posted a link to a Microsoft blog post calling out Google for bypassing IE security measures. Google saw the post and sent me the following on-the-record statement (below).
It’s a bit verbose, so I’ll summarize: “Microsoft is full of shit.”
Statement: Attributable to Rachel Whetstone, Senior Vice President of Communications and Policy, Google
Microsoft omitted important information from its blog post today.
Microsoft uses a “self-declaration” protocol (known as “P3P”) dating from 2002 under which Microsoft asks websites to represent their privacy practices in machine-readable form. It is well known - including by Microsoft - that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing modern web functionality. We have been open about our approach, as have many other websites.
Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.
Here is some more information.
Issue has been around since 2002
For many years, Microsoft’s browser has requested every website to “self-declare” its cookies and privacy policies in machine readable form, using particular “P3P” three-letter policies.
Essentially, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser requests of websites, “Tell us what sort of functionality your cookies provide, and we’ll decide whether to allow them.” This didn’t have a huge impact in 2002 when P3P was introduced (in fact the Wall Street Journal today states that our DoubleClick ad cookies comply with Microsoft’s request), but newer cookie-based features are broken by the Microsoft implementation in IE. These include things like Facebook “Like” buttons, the ability to sign-in to websites using your Google account, and hundreds more modern web services. It is well known that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing this web functionality.
Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.
In 2010 it was reported:
Browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Safari have simpler security settings. Instead of checking a site’s compact policy, these browsers simply let people choose to block all cookies, block only third-party cookies or allow all cookies…..
Thousands of sites don’t use valid P3P policies….
A firm that helps companies implement privacy standards, TRUSTe, confirmed in 2010 that most of the websites it certifies were not using valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft:
Despite having been around for over a decade, P3P adoption has not taken off. It’s worth noting again that less than 12 percent of the more than 3,000 websites TRUSTe certifies have a P3P compact policy. The reality is that consumers don’t, by and large, use the P3P framework to make decisions about personal information disclosure.
A 2010 research paper by Carnegie Mellon found that 11,176 of 33,139 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.
In the research paper, among the websites that were most frequently providing different code to that requested by Microsoft: Microsoft’s own live.com and msn.com websites.
Microsoft support website
The 2010 research paper “discovered that Microsoft’s support website recommends the use of invalid CPs (codes) as a work-around for a problem in IE.” This recommendation was a major reason that many of the 11,176 websites provided different code to the one requested by Microsoft.
Google’s provided a link that explained our practice.
Microsoft could change this today
As others are noting today, this has been well known for years.
- Privacy researcher Lauren Weinstein states: “In any case, Microsoft’s posting today, given what was already long known about IE and P3P deficiences in these regards, seems disingenuous at best, and certainly is not helping to move the ball usefully forward regarding these complex issues.”
- Chris Soghoian, a privacy researcher, points out: “Instead of fixing P3P loophole in IE that FB & Amazon exploited ……MS did nothing. Now they complain after Google uses it.”
- Even the Wall Street Journal says: “It involves a problem that has been known about for some time by Microsoft and privacy researchers….”
If you actually took the time to read half of that statement, you’d realize just how ridiculous this war of words is getting. And it’s going to get worse.
I’m not saying either side is right or wrong here. All I’m saying is that if Google has a problem with what Microsoft is saying, they should come out and say so in plain English. Instead, this is like ubernerd passive-agressiveness.
“Microsoft omitted important information” — that’s such a cop-out. Just say: “Microsoft is trying to deceive the public.” Or: “they’re total dicks”. You know, things a human being can understand.
My summary is crude, but in many ways much more accurate and insightful.
It's Unnatural
Sarah Lacy talking about Google+ on PandoDaily:
We simply don’t need another social network, no matter how great your circles are or how badly Larry Page wants to have one.
Agreed. The problem, which Google really, truly does not seem to understand is that at the end of the day, they’re solving a problem which has already been solved. They may think it hasn’t, but it has.
It’s the same problem Bing faces in search against Google. It’s a fine product, but in order to get people to use it, it has to be far better than the incumbent. Bing isn’t, so it will never beat Google (despite Google’s best efforts to back that thang up). Google+ isn’t, so it will never beat Facebook (or Twitter, for that matter).
But Google is trying to cheat this system. By shoving Google+ in our faces, they think that they can make their product catch on without the need to be above and beyond better than the incumbent.
I think we’ll see that this approach still won’t work. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter work because they evolved based on how users were naturally using them. Google+ is trying to make the users evolve to fit into the network they created. It’s unnatural.
Microsoft: We're Also Pissed Off At Google Over Privacy
I’m honestly not sure which is more concerning:
1) That Google is doing things to bypass the privacy settings in Internet Explorer.
2) That Microsoft had absolutely no idea that Google was doing this until the (somewhat misleading) Wall Street Journal article last week.
Not Tracking, Just Lying
Amazing how WSJ overhyped Google-Safari story to degree that Google’s getting bigger pass than otherwise would have bit.ly/xG2nl0
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 17, 2012
I think Danny Sullivan has this right. Because WSJ went so over-the-top in making the story about Google being evil and trying to “track” iPhone users, they’re actually getting somewhat of a pass (even by me!) for the nonsense they’re actually pulling.
This is a very real story, but — no surprise — WSJ is reporting it the wrong way. The real story is that it sure looks like Google is being dishonest — a nice word for “lying” — about their privacy practices and what exactly they were doing here. And they possibly violated their FTC agreement about “privacy misrepresentations”.
"Bring Back The Plus!"
Amusing thread in the Chromium forums asking for feedback about the decision to remove the “+” sign from the new tab UI in Chromium/Chrome. Most users seem very angry about such a change.
I’ll admit that like many in the forums, I thought it was a bug at first as well. Because without the “+”, it just looks like a UI artifact and not an actual button.
Also funny/interesting: the thought that Google removed it because it would confuse users with regard to Google+.
Google Tracked iPhones, Bypassing Apple Browser Privacy Settings
At first glance, this sounds really bad. I mean, really bad. The Wall Street Journal essentially sets it up as Google (and other, smaller advertising players) purposefully circumventing the web browsing privacy controls on the iPhone in order to track users’ browsing habits.
And when they got caught, Google stopped doing it. Which is usually not a good sign.
But my initial reaction is that John Battelle is right. This is much more nuanced than a simple black and white argument. Mobile Safari does have stricter privacy controls than other browsers, which is likely a very good thing for most users, but it also benefits Apple because it essentially destroys Google’s business.
And it’s a business that you could argue is helpful to some people for a number of reasons (all the free services Google is able to provide as a result, for example).
I just don’t believe this is as big of an “evil” Google thing as WSJ may have us believe. But having said that, if this really is mainly about Google+, that’s very poor form on Google’s part. You can argue that Google web ads are useful in certain situations and that data Google gets from cookies on the web makes them better. But the whole +1 junk is forced at best.
One thing is certain: Apple is not going to like this one bit. This seems like the kind of thing Steve Jobs would have gone ballistic over. This will undoubtedly escalate the war between the two sides.
Update 2/17: Not Tracking, Just Lying
280.vc: Build an Autobahn from SF to LA, Not High-Speed Rail
Don’t build high-speed rail from SF to LA - create an American Autobahn instead.
Here’s how it could work:
Build another three lanes of the I-5 from LA to Sacramento, completely separated from the current lanes but within the existing right-of-way. No need for tunnels or extensive bridges to…
Love this thought by Rob Coneybeer. Given that it looks like a high speed train connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco is all-but-dead (or won’t be done before I’m dead), an idea like this actually makes some sense. Which is exactly why it will never happen, sadly.
The Revenge Of The Black Bar
I started seeing an updated Google nav bar earlier today and figured it was a mistake or bug related to the new Chrome beta that shipped today. The new (and much delayed) Google Bar actually looked good — but this was a step back. It was a weird hybrid of the Google Bar and the old, ugly black bar.
Turns out it’s not a mistake.
Sigh.
Get Ready For Google Hardware
As Amir Efrati of The Wall Street Journal reports:
Google Inc. is developing a home-entertainment system that streams music wirelessly throughout the home and would be marketed under the company’s own brand, according to people briefed on the company’s plans.
The effort marks the Internet company’s first full-fledged effort to design and market consumer electronics devices under the Google brand, and represents a sharp shift in strategy.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet on Google getting into the hardware game with an unexpected device at some point this year.
Today’s news and last week’s news are directly related, but most people overlooked the key aspect last week: Google is getting into hardware.
Google Close To Launching "Drive"
Amir Efrati reports that Google is close to launching a new product called “Drive”, a would-be Dropbox/Box/iCloud/etc competitor.
Before I left TechCrunch full time, I was hot on the trail of this project. Yes, Google had a Google Drive project that will killed off years ago, but a new one emerged last year and was being extensively used internally once again.
Last I heard, this new Google Drive was said to be much better than the one that was killed off (which was killed off because many thought it “sucked”). It included a web component as well as Dropbox-like software piece that runs on your desktop. Mobile will be key as well, obviously.
The most recent thing I heard supports what Efrati is reporting: that the prices are going to be more competitive than Dropbox.
The Forthcoming Google/Motorola Patent Fiasco
This Motorola deal continues its downward spiral. It’s already a bad — some might say awful — deal from a pure business perspective. But now the seemingly lone bright spot of the deal for Google — the patents — are turning into a headache as well.
Bloomberg only mildly touches on some of this, Daniel Eran Dilger of AppleInsider and Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents go deeper. Of note: if Google is committed to staying the course with Motorola’s patent licensing strategy (which they say they are), they’re going to find themselves enforcing patents related to H.264, the video codec that Google itself is trying to kill with WebM.
They also may find themselves suing Apple over patents and demanding a royalty for each iPhone sold.
The problem Google is likely to face is that if they aren’t agressive with the patents in the way that Motorola has been, how can they possibly hope to license them in the way they say they will? Who would license something when they don’t have to? This is a slippery slope.
Bigger picture: after going on and on about the dubious patent tactics by rivals like Apple and Microsoft (and rightfully so in most cases), Google may find themselves in the same position thanks to this Motorola deal.
