<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David,<br>
<br>
On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div>
<div>On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Guru@ITforChange.net">Guru@ITforChange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Dear all,<br>
<br>
Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private
sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will
get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key
factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all
of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial
secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental
knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that
others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Indeed.
It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or
government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public
knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead
to many Google searches returning results ranked according to
the most industrious search engine optimisation service
customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of
being ranked in a useful way. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give
a response ... the issue of technical challenges needs to be
considered, but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that
policy making is a very complex activity with many possibilities,
probabilities, difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of
technical difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy
measure. The world of IT is supposed to be the world of great
innovation, here innovation can serve public interest purpose (by
identifying methods by which gaming can be reduced if not
eliminated), rather than private profit.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Google
have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search
information, and how they use it</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Who have they revealed it to?<br>
How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?<br>
<br>
In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves
considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to
consider possibilities that google does not make its search
algorithm open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified
public interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to
ensure that the search engine is not violating our rights for its
commercial purposes (and for the political interests of its
masters). Would you support this idea? This is one possibility, we
may need to figure out many other possibilities, exceptions etc<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div>, and what they have revealed is of significant value in
assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify
most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case
when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>But
they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search
algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the
details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public
is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization
services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful.
I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a
useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic
algorithms being part of the cultural commons,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the
"information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought
to work for the public interest and not be coloured by private
interest. This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no
idea what malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search
algorithm that violate various human rights .....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div> but they have revealed their basic technique</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au"
type="cite">
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I'm
not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade
secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage
gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to
the general public, seems to push that principle too far. </div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India<br>
New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014<br>
<br>
Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it
is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by
fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI),
can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500
crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
the country. <br>
<br>
Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in
its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by
the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's
services were good for competition, it added. The case has
been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates
to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position.
Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the
norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of
its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of
Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts
to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the
maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.<br>
<br>
When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential
penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full
co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their
investigation.” The emailed statement added: “We're pleased
that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's
two-year review was that Google's services are good for
users and good for competition.” <br>
<br>
A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The
complaint against Google, also one of the world's most
valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS
International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial
website <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://matrimony.com">matrimony.com</a> Private Ltd
also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla
had said the complaint was that the Google search engine
favours platforms it wants to support. <br>
<br>
“That is, when you click on Google under a certain category,
you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put
them in a certain order which may not be the fair and
non-discriminatory. So, <b>what is the software and what is
the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation
team is looking at,” </b>Chawla had said.<br>
<br>
source - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html">http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html</a><br>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>