Content Moderation Case Study: Google 'Removes' German Residences From Street View By Request (2010)
Furnished content.
Summary: Google's Street View is a powerful mapping tool that allows users to visit places they'll possibly never be able to visit and allows local users to see homes and businesses they're trying to locate.But Google's Street View hasn't been warmly welcomed everywhere. In Germany -- a country with a long history of pervasive surveillance by government agencies -- Google's mapping project hit a roadblock. In an effort to comply with German privacy laws, Google worked with data protection authorities to ensure all requirements were met before its cars and cameras hit the road.Restrictions on data collection have resulted in Germany being one of the least-mapped countries in Europe.After meeting with considerable public opposition to Google's street mapping, Google allowed residents to opt out. This resulted in opted-out locations being blurred in Street View, providing owners with more privacy inside Street View than they enjoyed outside it.Decisions to be made by Google:- Should the normal lack of an expectation of privacy in publicly-viewable areas override local restrictions on data-gathering?
- Is an opt-out plan cost effective (as compared to simply not mapping at all in restricted areas)?
- Do "holes" in map coverage increase risks to drivers and travelers?
- Is there a possibility the opt-out function could be abused by trolls and/or opponents of Google's Street View project?
Questions and policy implications to consider:- Does following local privacy laws possibly make Google's Street View less useful than competing products that may not follow laws or that receive more deference from local authorities?
- Is the mapping project likely to run into greater resistance in the future, given world legislators' ongoing concerns with lax privacy laws?
- Could Google be considered culpable for harm resulting from incomplete maps, especially when coupled with Google's built-in live navigation software?
- What tools does Google have at its disposal to push back against legal restrictions?
Resolution: Given the chance to opt out, most Germans chose not to. According to Google, less than 3% of affected households asked Google to blur their residences, resulting in a little more than 244,000 blurred houses in Street View.The opt-out program also led to an unfortunate, unforeseen, and completely unintended consequence. A small group of rogue "transparency advocates" sought out "blurred" houses and egged them. Some of those who opted out were also treated to handwritten notes informing them that Google was "cool." Very little actual damage was done.Despite the early opposition -- which resulted in Google shutting down its attempted mapping of Germany in 2011 -- Google has taken a second run at the country and its resistance to the Street View project. Its site lists a large number of German cities and towns that have recently been mapped by Google during its latest attempt, which began in July 2020 and will wrap up early next year.Google "removes" German residences from Street View by request (2010)
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Feb-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Random Jackass Attempts To Trademark 'Mayor Of Mar-A-Lago' In The Most Hilarious Way
Furnished content.
For years now, I have railed on the USPTO for its overly permissive posture when it comes to granting trademarks. The whole thing is far too easy, with far too little concern shown by examiners as to how distinct or useful proposed marks actually are. All of that being said, there are still some hoops you have to jump through to get a trademark. And there are some rules governing how to get through those hoops.It appears someone needs to give Natale Passaro some lessons in how trademarks work, then. See, Passaro recently filed for a trademark on the term "Mayor of Mar-A-Lago." The proposed classes for the mark are to be for "shirts" and "consulting services". Part of the application requirements, however, is documentation on "specimen of use." This is basically the USPTO asking the applicant to show evidence of the mark's current or proposed use.A specimen of use is a real-world example of how the mark is being used on goods and/or services. A real-world example means that it is an actual object that bears the mark, not just a photo or drawing of the mark. For goods, a person can submit tags, instruction manuals, containers, labels, or packaging materials. What the Passaro submitted for his specimen, um, doesn't cut it.Now, I truly wish that it was Donald Trump's hand that scrawled the phrase over a picture of a building at the club and a cartoon depiction of himself, because that makes all of this funnier. Unfortunately, it appears that this application came instead from someone just trying to cash in on the club and former President. That this initially confused a bunch of people, including me, is also a pretty good argument against any approval for this trademark.But, again, that isn't how this works when it comes to the specimen of use. The USPTO is not going to take some scribbles of a proposed... I don't know, logo? That simply doesn't work for a specimen of use, it isn't in any way the behavior of a professional organization, and it calls into question just how serious this trademark application is if this really is the best Passaro can do on a trademark application. Given that this all also seems to be some strange attempt to get Mar-A-Lago incorporated as its own township and out of the jurisdiction of Palm Beach for... reasons, this all probably doesn't bode well for the success on that effort, either.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Feb-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|
