Google on Monday announced that the company would combine individual privacy policies from a variety of its products into one main policy. Critics of the change were worried that Google was now collecting more data than before, and the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee demanded answers. The Mountain View-based company has now responded to Congress and defended its decision to change the policy. Read on for more.

In a 13-page letter to several members of Congress, Google answered the lawmakers’ questions and addressed concerns. ”Last week we heard from members of Congress about Google’s plans to update our privacy policies by consolidating them into a single document on March 1,” Google’s director of public policy Pablo Chavez wrote on the company’s blog. “Protecting people’s privacy is something we think about all day across the company, and we welcome discussions about our approach. We hope this letter, in which we respond to the members’ questions, clears up the confusion about these changes.”

Google maintains that while the policy will be changed, users will continue to have custom controls over what Google can and can’t do. According to the company, Google collects three types of data from users: log data, account data, and service data. Log data is anonymous and consists of a computer’s interaction with Google’s services. Account data is all the user information stored for each individual, and service data is information that relates to a particular product, such as Google Maps, however it is “not necessarily associated with any users.”

UPDATE: Google reached out to us with a statement and informed us that the company is not collecting any new or additional data.

“We’re not collecting any new or additional data about users. Our updated privacy policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve our users’ experiences on Google – whichever services they use. This is something we have already done for a long time for many of our products.”

Read

In a Congressional appearance last week, Sprint CEO Dan Hesse explained just why his company objects to the proposed $39 billion AT&T and T-Mobile merger. Aside from his previously expressed grievances — that the merger would create a wireless duopoly and stifle competition — Hesse also noted another possible paradigm: the deal could lead to Sprint being bought or acquired as well. “The most likely buyer is CenturyLink, the biggest company in telecommunications without a wireless unit,” writes Bloomberg, quoting industry analysts. Other potential Sprint buyers on the publication’s post-merger hit-list include Comcast Communications — a company that might be interested in bundling home internet, phone and cable services with wireless offerings. Most analysts agree that a Sprint purchase would come at least two full-quarters after the AT&T and T-Mobile deal has been finalized, although the idea of the Now Network being procured is still very speculative. Representatives from Sprint, CenturyLink, and Comcast all declined to comment on the report.

Read

In its response to a congressional inquiry over recent cyberattacks aimed at several of Sony’s online networks, the company on Wednesday claimed it possessed evidence of hacker activist group Anonymous’ involvement. Sony did state, however, that it could not be certain if Anonymous knowingly carried out Denial of Service attacks in order to facilitate the theft of customer data, or if the group was merely an unwitting pawn in a scheme carried out by more malicious attackers. Anonymous on Wednesday issued a press release denying any involvement with the theft of customer data, which included over 12.3 million credit card numbers. Anonymous does acknowledge that the breach took place while it was carrying out an attack on Sony’s servers, but says it did not not participate in any data theft. The group also claims it did not leave any files on Sony’s servers — Sony stated earlier that it discovered a file called “Anonymous” on its servers following the breaches that contained a portion of Anonymous’ slogan. Hit the break for the full press release.

For Immediate Distribution
Press Release
May 4, 2011
Anonymous Enterprises LLC (Bermuda)

Last month, an unknown party managed to break into Sony’s servers and acquired millions of customer records including credit card numbers. Insomuch as that this incident occurred in the midst of Anonymous’ OpSony, by which participants engaged in several of our standard information war procedures against the corporation and its executives, Sony and other parties have come to blame Anonymous for the heist. Today, in a letter directed to members of Congress involved in an inquiry into the situation, Sony claimed to have discovered a file on its servers, presumably left by the thieves in question, entitled “Anonymous” and containing a fragment of our slogan, “We are Legion.” In response, we would like to raise the following points: 1. Anonymous has never been known to have engaged in credit card theft. 2. Many of our corporate and governmental adversaries, on the other hand, have been known to have lied to the public about Anonymous and about their own activities. HBGary, for instance, was caught lying a number of times to the press, to the public, and to Anonymous itself (in this phone call, for instance, ( http://tinyurl.com/68pbdj8) CEO Aaron Barr makes a number of untrue statements regarding the intent of his “research,” claiming for instance that he never tried to sell the information to the FBI when e-mails acquired soon showed that he had been set to do just that; executive Karen Burke was also caught lying to Bloomberg about having not seen an incriminating e-mail that she had in fact replied to just a few days before). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lied about not having seen the criminal proposal created by them for Team Themis; Palantir lied about not having any idea what their employees were up to; Berico publicly denounced a plan that they had actively engaged in creating; etc. There is no corporation in existence will choose the truth when lies are more convenient. 3. To the contrary, Anonymous is an ironically transparent movement that allows reporters in to our operating channels to observe us at work and which has been extraordinarily candid with the press when commenting on our own activities, which is why reporters prefer to talk to us for truthful accounts of the situation rather than go to our degenerate enemies to be lied to. 4. Whoever broke into Sony’s servers to steal the credit card info and left a document blaming Anonymous clearly wanted Anonymous to be blamed for the most significant digital theft in history. No one who is actually associated with our movement would do something that would prompt a massive law enforcement response. On the other hand, a group of standard online thieves would have every reason to frame Anonymous in order to put law enforcement off the track. The framing of others for crimes has been a common practice throughout history. 5. It should be remembered that several federal contractors such as HBGary and Palantir have been caught planning a variety of unethical and potentially criminal conspiracies by which to discredit the enemies of their clients. This is not a theory – this is a fact that has been reported at great length by dozens of journalists with major publications. Insomuch as that our enemies have either engaged in or planned to engage in false flag efforts, it should not be surprising that many of the journalists who have covered us, who know who we are and what motivates us – and who have alternatively seen the monstrous behavior of those large and “respectable” firms that are all too happy to throw aside common decency at the behest of such clients as Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – also have their suspicions that some capable party performed this operation as a means by which to do great damage to Anonymous in the public eye. Those who consider such a prospect to be somehow unlikely are advised to read about what was proposed by Team Themis in their efforts to destroy Wikileaks, and should otherwise take a few minutes to learn about COINTELPRO and other admitted practices by the U.S. intelligence community. The fact is that Anonymous has brought a great deal of discomfort to powerful entities such as Booz Allen Hamilton, Palantir, and much of the federal government; the Justice Department in particular is likely unhappy that our efforts revealed that it was they themselves who recommended the now-discredited “law firm” Hunton & Williams to Bank of America in order that the latter might better be able to fight back against Wikileaks. All of this is now public record, and anyone who finds it laughable that those or other entities may have again engaged in tactics that they are known to have engaged in in the past is not qualified to comment on the situation. Anonymous will continue its work in support of transparency and individual liberty; our adversaries will continue their work in support of secrecy and control. The FBI will continue to investigate us for crimes of civil disobediance while continuing to ignore the crimes planned by major corporations with which they are in league.

We do not forget, even if others fail to remember.
We not forgive, even if others forgive our enemies for those things for which we are attacked.
We are legion, and will remain so no matter how many of our participants are raided by armed agents of a broken system.
We are Anonymous.

In an effort to be “clear and transparent” with its customers and the government, Verizon Wireless has sent a letter to Congress detailing plans on how it will better inform consumers about location data collection on their smartphones. The wireless carrier will soon apply a removable stickers to its devices with the following warning:

“This device is capable of determining its (and your) physical, geographical, location adn can associate location data with other customer information. To limit access to location information by others, refer to the User Guide for Location settings and be cautious when downloading, accessing, or using applications and services.”

Verizon Wireless will also issue alerts more clearly in its V CAST applications, some of which can be used to track family members or friends voluntarily. It confirmed that it does not sell or rent out personal user information, and that user habits are only used for internal marketing purposes. Verizon says it only collects location data for “various service and operational purposes,” and that it uses the data to ensure customers have solid call and data quality. Hit the jump for a full PDF of Verizon’s letter to Congress.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Read (PDF)

Finally, Congress passes a piece of legislation that citizens on both the right and left side of the political spectrum can get behind. Late yesterday, Congress approved the CALM (Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation) Act, which “requires TV advertisers to ensure their ads don’t play at a volume louder than regular TV programming.” The new bill requires ad makers to use “industry technology” to prevent the volume annoyance from occurring.

“Consumers will no longer have to experience being blasted at,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat from California. “It’s a simple fix to a huge nuisance.”

The bill currently awaits President Obama’s signature. Once enacted, commercial makers will have one year to comply with the new law.

Read

The House of Representatives defeated the digital TV delay bill with a 258-168 vote that failed to secure the two thirds needed for passage. The vote closely followed party lines with 155 Republicans voting against the bill and 22 Republicans voting for it. Amongst House Democrats, 236 voted for the bill and a mere 13 voted against it. The defeat signaled a win for House republicans who have opposed the delay, claiming the four month delay would further confuse consumers, cause an unnecessary delay for companies and public safety agencies waiting for the spectrum to be released and burden TV companies with the additional cost of broadcasting both analog and digital signals during the four month delay. The defeat is a setback for the Obama administration and congressional democrats who believe that the current resources to assist people in the digital TV transition are in a state of disarray and are concerned that the public, particularly poor, rural and low-income Americans, will not be adequately prepared when the analog air waves are turned off on February 17th. The Obama administration and congressional democrats still claim to be exploring all options to secure another vote on this issue.

Read

Sorry, but it’s true. There is absolutely no viable reason a camera phone should be able to silently snap a picture that outweighs the privacy issues camera phones have brought about. If after reading that last sentence you find yourself scanning your mind in search of a way to refute it, you’re probably a scumbag and you should seek help. The go-to argument for silent camera phones, the ability to assist law enforcement by photographing a crime, is a bad one. If you see a crime taking place you should either dial 911 and try to help any victims if it is safe to do so, or leave the scene and dial 911. Laws already exist in several countries around the world requiring that all camera phones make a sound when they snap a photograph and the reasoning is fairly obvious – help prevent perverts like Captain Corona pictured above from taking lewd photos of unsuspecting women. Enter the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. New York Rep Pete King introduced the bill to the House earlier this month and we hope for a swift approval for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there are plenty of more pressing matters at hand. Approving a bill that will “require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken” should be a no-brainer. We’d like to add however, that a minimum decibel level for said tone should be also specified and required – there is no sense in having a tone if it’s inaudible.

[Via cnet]

Read

Read

Speaking of the FCC, it looks like the body responsible for radio, TV, cable, satellite and everything in between has been suffering from some serious internal turmoil lately. Kevin Martin, the current FCC Chairman, has allegedly been neglectful with his responsibilities and downright abusive with his handling of affairs. New reports claim that Martin has withheld information from his own commissioners and from Congress, and gave little heed to evidence that some national communications programs were being mismanaged. In fact, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report entitled, “Deception and Distrust: The Federal Communications Commission under Kevin J. Martin.” Sounds more like a movie title than a government committee report! An investigation wasn’t even held before the report was released “due to the climate of fear that pervades the FCC… we found that key witnesses were unwilling to testify or even to have their names become known.”

Apparently, Martin has changed his tune since this whole fiasco and is becoming more transparent to both his commissioners and Congress. One would have to imagine it’s because he has no other choice at this point. The only thing we can really hope for, since this affects all of us as gadget lovers and consumers, is that there is some major restructuring coming down the pipe at the FCC. Even though it looks like the current Chairman is shaping up, if these allegations are found to be true it may be too little too late. The new and incoming administration would likely do well to find someone else at this point.

Thanks, John!

Read

Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine have announced plans to introduce a bipartisan bill addressing the controversial topic of net neutrality. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, expected to be introduced in January 2009, will make it illegal for ISPs to block or slow down specific types of Internet traffic. Remember Comcast and their BitTorrent blocking debacle? Under this new law, their packet hijacking would be illegal, not just subject to some lame slap on the wrist by the FCC. This whole issue of Net neutrality will be rearing its ugly head again, pitting the ISP’s like AT&T and Verizon who claim they need to control content as part of their network management procedures against the content companies like Google and Microsoft who want their content delivered equally to everyone. We won’t even get into the whole issue of the ISPs double dipping by charging subscribers a monthly fee for their Internet connection and then charging content providers to have their content provided “faster” than those who don’t pay these extortion fees. The issue also divides the tech world with some saying “we can’t trust ISPs to deliver content freely so we need to enact legislation proactively” while others argue that “existing provisions already adequately handle the issue of net neutrality. If we enact a law too early, there may be unexpected negative consequences.” We will reserve judgment on this issue for now and turn it over to our readers. So what do you think, is net neutrality legislation a necessity at this point or is it better to wait until a clear threat to Internet freedom is present?

Read

Following our post from Saturday regarding the NAB’s efforts to prevent the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 from passing, here’s a quick update: Long story short, H.R. 7084 has passed through both Congress and the Senate. Woo! So what exactly does that mean? It simply means that Pandora and other internet broadcasters can continue to negotiate with SoundExchange and the RIAA with regards to fair royalties. Wait, huh? It’s just a bill that allows them to continue talking? That’s right folks – pretty funny how opposed the NAB was to this procedural bill, no? What a joke the NAB has become. But we digress… Kudos to all who took the time to reach out to their state reps and express support for the bill. Who knows – maybe the RIAA, SoundExchange and internet radio can actually come to an agreement!

Read

At 11 am Eastern Standard Time this morning congress is scheduled to vote on a bill that, if defeated, will represent a major nail in Pandora’s coffin. In fact it’s not just Pandora, we’re talking about legitimate internet radio in general. The major opposition? Why it’s none other than the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)! Surprise, surprise. The bill in question is H.R. 7084 (Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008); merely a procedural bill that would give Pandora, SoundExchange and the RIAA more time to come to a new agreement with regards to revising the royalty program currently in place. You know, the one that’s killing internet radio. From Pandora Founder Tim Westergren:

We were just starting to feel optimistic about getting close to a settlement. H.R. 7084 is a procedural bill that would extend the negotiation period and give us all the time we need.

The thing that’s so crass is that this bill is beneficial to broadcasters, it just gives us more time to reduce Webcasting fees. They [the NAB] know we’re running out of time and if they can kill the bill they can kill Internet radio.

It’s amazing how terrified the NAB has become of progress. This issue of course is that collectively, they know they have a terrible product. Does anyone listen to terrestrial radio anymore? For years the ratio of advertising to music has been a sick joke on popular stations. With the increasing popularity of Satellite radio and portable audio player-friendly inputs in car stereos we would hope everyone is on the road to moving beyond the dinosaur that is terrestrial radio. After all, you wouldn’t ride a donkey to get to work or use a handful of leaves to… Well, you know.

The House vote on H.R. 7084 is at 11:00 am EST this morning. If passed, it will go before the Senate on Monday. If you’re tired of cleaning yourself with leaves, give Congress a ring (202-225-3121) and tell your representative you support H.R. 7084.

Read