Google Public Policy Blog

A company cannot say with great accuracy how many NSLs they receive[1], but Google has this page, covering summaries of various types of requests: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/ 1. "You'll notice that we're reporting numerical ranges rather than exact numbers. This is to address concerns raised by the FBI, Justice Department and other agencies that releasing exact numbers might reveal information about investigations." -- http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/03/transparency-report-she…

Yes. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/03/transparency-report-she… > Starting today, we’re now including data about NSLs in our Transparency Report. We’re thankful to U.S. government officials for working with us to provide greater insight into the use of NSLs.

I would also love to see SIP connectivity for Google Voice. That said, the discussion seems to center around the if, and not the why. I suspect that the reason that Google hasn't offered SIP support already is regulatory: Some time ago, AT&T accused Google of violating telecom regulations by blocking access to certain high cost numbers[1]. Google was able to defend against the accusation by pointing out that they did not actually provide a telecom service, as usage of Google Voice required a normal phone line[2]. I suspect that if (once?) Google provides SIP support, this distinction can no longer be made. What would be the difference between Google Voice and any other SIP provider? [1]: http://www.att.com/gen/public-affairs?pid=14048&goback=group01&… [2]: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-to-at-letter-t…

This is a worthwhile point to chew on. While I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the new Google developments, they said something I sympathized with in their blog post this week: "...we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington." (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network… I felt like they were saying, "Help us out here folks. It was hard enough to get to this watered down policy." Again, I'm not defending their end proposal, but we do need to spend equal energy presenting our case our representatives as we to Google (when it comes to policy).

Yes, as patent trollling is a good way to do that. How is when Amazon tries to patent single click checkout, that is evil, but when your favorite company does the a frivolous patent, that is just protecting their ass? Also related read: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/09/reforming-patents-promo… (Google's official policy on patents.)

I can't find anything about Google lobbying against net neutrality, do you have any sources? 4 years ago Google modified Verizon's proposal after years of stalemate, moving forward was in the best interest of everyone involved, including consumers. Would you not agree that it's better that Google be involved in the Verizon (or any telecommunications company) proposal rather than be absent from it? It seems like a reluctant compromise they made, maybe they regret being associated with it, but they were in no way against net-neutrality. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-f… What's wrong with quotes from their public policy sites? What would be a better source? Here is the EFF's take on the 2010 Google/Verizon situation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality Also: https://www.eff.org/guide-to-the-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal

According to US law, any online service provider that receives actual knowledge that child porn exists on their services is required by law to report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children... or face a fine of $150k for a first offense, or $300k for subsequent offenses: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A To my knowledge, Google wasn't required to check its hosted files for specific image hashes: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to— (1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; (2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or (3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b)." But once they did, they were required to report the results. Any privacy concerns are waived as an "[exception] for disclosure of communications" as part of 18 USC § 2702: "Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2702 It's not surprising that Google is affirmatively scanning its servers for child porn, as they have a long history of providing assistance to NCMEC: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/building-software-tools-to-find… http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2012/01/crowdsourcing-to-protec… "$1 Million from Google to Fight Child Sexual Exploitation Received by the…

What is the nature of the EFF's power? Can they harm Google calling them a hypocrite[1][2] if only via reputation or public shaming? Will programmers on certain forums, for example, be less likely to accept a Google position because of Google's patent policies, especially ones that are highlighted by the EFF? Then I think: apart from fearing the mighty EFF's vast and influential power (ha), what other concerns might motivate the patent decision maker at google (whoever that is) to take action in this case? Perhaps they are motivated by the respect of their colleagues. Perhaps they have something I read about in college, called a "conscience", which I was led to believe was a powerful influencer of individual behaviors. Wouldn't that be amazing, if the decision-maker at Google actually told the world that their conscience wouldn't let them take a certain action they believed to be wrong? That would be a massive win, in so many ways, and for so many people. And I, for one, might call back that Google recruiter. [1] http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/02/lets-defend-innovators-… [2]http://www.geekwire.com/2013/joke-google-seeks-patent-splitting-restau…

Companies Change. Walmart had a Buy American program following the 1990's recession. Google's policies are no more immune to economic incentives. Rosenberg's values From The Meaning of Open: >Open information means that when we have information about users we use it to provide something that is valuable to them, we are transparent about what information we have about them, and we give them ultimate control over their information. These are the things we should be doing. In many cases we aren't there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration. Schmidt's values: "The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart#Imports_and_globali… [http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html] [http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/122121-schmidt-goo…

True, but hopefully if they are allowing unofficial apps, the official one will be allowed. If it is not allowed by Apple again, maybe the "clarification" promise of the new App Store rules will officially tell Google what Apple doesn't like. At that point (i assume) Google will do one of the following: 1) Make the requested changes and get it approved. 2) If they don't like the requested changes, they will make a very public post on the Google Public Policy or Voice blog like they did about their complaint to the FCC about the original app rejection (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/our-complete-letter-to-… Also to note, it is possible that the original Google Voice app submitted last summer would not work with changes Google has made to Voice in the past year. So theoretically now that they know (or found out) that Apple will accept gVoice apps, Google could be working on updates to the app to get it to work before re-submitting it to Apple. Either way, I think (hope?) that at some point in the near future the official app will come through.

They do: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.nl/2015/11/a-step-toward-protecting…

Google doesn't make any attempts to pander to the MPAA/RIAA anymore. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-re…

From a comment on the article, http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-step-toward-protectin… "… a far more effective change would be to remove the immediate monetary reward for a false claim. As it stands now, the instant a claim is made, all ad money is diverted to the claimant and is never recoverable by the creator. This is further compounded by the fact appeals go to the claimant, not a 3rd party, for review and along with the conflict of interest can take weeks to a month to be addressed during which time the claimant is still monetizing the creator's work. A simple change would be once a claim is made against a video to hold (escrow) all revenue until the dispute is resolved or one party fails to respond in the given time. After there is a resolution, the revenue is released to the correct party."

Yes, of course, that is a major goal of Google's DLF. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/introducing-dataliberat… http://dataliberation.blogspot.com/

Original statement from Google: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2015/04/announcing-patent-purch…

Well, given some of the past actions of the MPAA[1][2], I suppose this attitude is altogether unsurprising. The sooner the MPAA fades away and is replaced with something less archaic, the better. [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-mpaa-censorship-150303/ [2]: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-re…

More details (linked from the article): Google's "Stop Zombie SOPA" page https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/stop-zombie-sopa Google's blog on the matter, explaining backstory: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-re…

That might be the one closest to a real product. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/04/plan-your-digital-after…

It came out a little more than a year ago. Pretty quiet launch, but they blogged about it: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/04/plan-your-digital-after… I think Wired and some other folks picked it up then too.

This concept is often referred to as "homes with tails". The idea is that if everyone controlled a line from their house to a central facility (kind of like a small meet-me room) then at those facilities there could be significant competition that would drive down prices. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/11/homes-with-tails.html

If you actually read the first link, you'd see that Google Voice won't connect to exchanges where "traffic pumping" occurs. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/10/sex-conference-calls-an… AT&T filed a complaint against Google for this behavior (and lost). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping#Role_in_dispute_between_…

Rewrite of TechCrunch's rewrite of http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2013/04/plan-your-digital-after…

This? http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-f… Please explain where Google harmed Internet freedom. Without Google and Android the mobile Internet would be 98% gated by the iOS app store and 2% mobile web running on dead-ended mobile safari with a slow JS engine.

Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason. - Alma Whitten, Director of Privacy, Product and Engineering, Google http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-w…

In case you think (other than semantic markup) that SEO is actually a thing you can "do". Needless to say, since the WSJ is a major publication, Google quickly posted a rebuttal. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2012/06/setting-record-straight…

Google's response: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/setting-record-straig…

As far as I can tell, this official extension for Chrome has been available since January of last year and supports the header: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.ca/2011/01/keep-your-opt-outs.html