Original Story: TheRegister.co.uk
Updated An unknown number of gamers have been kicked off of Sony's PlayStation Network, but the company is continuing to insist that its service is stable.
Anecdotal reports posted on social media appear to tell a different story, however.
Some customers are currently saying that they are being greeted with a message that reads: "the network is undergoing maintenance."
Others, meanwhile, are making uncorroborated claims that the PlayStation Network is suffering a Denial of Service (DDoS) attack.
SEO Blog. Organic SEO Blog. Search Marketing News. SEO Done Right examines search engine optimization, the most effective form of internet marketing. Breaking SEO news and emerging developments at Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Leading Organic SEO Consultants Peak Positions debunk the many myths, hype, and spin related to SEO and search marketing.
Friday, September 05, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
JUDGE REJECTS SETTLEMENT IN APPLE, GOOGLE HIRING CASE
Original Story: USAToday.com
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge tossed a $324.5 million class action settlement in a lawsuit filed by technology workers who allege major Silicon Valley companies including Apple and Google kept a lid on wages and limited their job mobility by agreeing not to poach each other's employees.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the proposed settlement "falls below the range of reasonableness."
Two other companies, Intel and Adobe, were also part of the settlement.
It is the latest twist in the high-profile lawsuit filed in 2011 that plaintiffs allege affected tens of thousands of technology workers. An Organic SEO that uses Google for moving keyword rankings is watching closely to see if this will affect any Google updates.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that the companies violated antitrust laws by engaging in a "conspiracy" between 2005 and 2009 to limit compensation and job movement.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said they planned to ask for about $3 billion in damages at trial. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law.
Some of the tech workers in the case told the court they objected to the settlement.
The case drew headlines because it brought to light emails in which Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt detailed agreements not to steal each other's employees.
The lawsuit followed a similar probe from the U.S. Justice Department that the companies settled in 2010.
That investigation alleged the companies colluded to suppress wages by agreeing not to recruit employees from one another.
As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to enter into such agreements.
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge tossed a $324.5 million class action settlement in a lawsuit filed by technology workers who allege major Silicon Valley companies including Apple and Google kept a lid on wages and limited their job mobility by agreeing not to poach each other's employees.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the proposed settlement "falls below the range of reasonableness."
Two other companies, Intel and Adobe, were also part of the settlement.
It is the latest twist in the high-profile lawsuit filed in 2011 that plaintiffs allege affected tens of thousands of technology workers. An Organic SEO that uses Google for moving keyword rankings is watching closely to see if this will affect any Google updates.
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that the companies violated antitrust laws by engaging in a "conspiracy" between 2005 and 2009 to limit compensation and job movement.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said they planned to ask for about $3 billion in damages at trial. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law.
Some of the tech workers in the case told the court they objected to the settlement.
The case drew headlines because it brought to light emails in which Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt detailed agreements not to steal each other's employees.
The lawsuit followed a similar probe from the U.S. Justice Department that the companies settled in 2010.
That investigation alleged the companies colluded to suppress wages by agreeing not to recruit employees from one another.
As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to enter into such agreements.
Friday, August 08, 2014
MAN ARRESTED AFTER GMAIL DETECTS CHILD PORN
Original Story: DailyDigestNews.com
Despite the positive nature of catching a predator in the act, some will worry that Google’s willingness to scan and spy on user email represents a major breach of customer privacy and trust.
Google has come under fire several times over the past year or two for allegedly infringing upon the privacy of its customers. But what about when those “infringements” result in the arrest of a pedophile and sex offender?
That is precisely what happened in Houston this week, when police were tipped off to the unsavory online actions of a known sex offender after Google supposedly scanned the images going through the man’s Gmail account. Based on a report from Engadget, the arrested individual was already a registered sex offender. By catching the offender in the act of trading child pornography and helping police bring him to justice, Google might be helping to prevent more serious and direct harm to children in the future.
Not that all privacy advocates will see the case in such sanctimonious terms. Despite the positive nature of catching a predator in the act, some will worry that Google’s willingness to scan and spy on user email represents a major breach of customer privacy and trust.
In all fairness to Google, the company has been nothing if not outspoken about its zero-tolerance policy for online child exploitation. According to a blogpost published last June, Google has been working since 2008 on image scanning technology that helps track down child pornography images online, identify their creators, and facilitate arrests. What the Houston arrest case proves is that Google is applying its image scanning practices to email as well as to other online image searches.
It is also worth noting that, while Google’s data tipped police off about the Houston sex offender’s activities, it did not directly implicate the man, nor will it be used as evidence to charge him of a crime. Instead, Google merely informed police about the illegal photos in the man’s Gmail. Police then acquired a search warrant and looked through the man’s computer, finding child pornography stored on his hard drive.
Despite the positive nature of catching a predator in the act, some will worry that Google’s willingness to scan and spy on user email represents a major breach of customer privacy and trust.
Google has come under fire several times over the past year or two for allegedly infringing upon the privacy of its customers. But what about when those “infringements” result in the arrest of a pedophile and sex offender?
That is precisely what happened in Houston this week, when police were tipped off to the unsavory online actions of a known sex offender after Google supposedly scanned the images going through the man’s Gmail account. Based on a report from Engadget, the arrested individual was already a registered sex offender. By catching the offender in the act of trading child pornography and helping police bring him to justice, Google might be helping to prevent more serious and direct harm to children in the future.
Not that all privacy advocates will see the case in such sanctimonious terms. Despite the positive nature of catching a predator in the act, some will worry that Google’s willingness to scan and spy on user email represents a major breach of customer privacy and trust.
In all fairness to Google, the company has been nothing if not outspoken about its zero-tolerance policy for online child exploitation. According to a blogpost published last June, Google has been working since 2008 on image scanning technology that helps track down child pornography images online, identify their creators, and facilitate arrests. What the Houston arrest case proves is that Google is applying its image scanning practices to email as well as to other online image searches.
It is also worth noting that, while Google’s data tipped police off about the Houston sex offender’s activities, it did not directly implicate the man, nor will it be used as evidence to charge him of a crime. Instead, Google merely informed police about the illegal photos in the man’s Gmail. Police then acquired a search warrant and looked through the man’s computer, finding child pornography stored on his hard drive.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
RIEDER: ANOTHER OUTBREAK OF PLAGIARISM
Original Story: USAToday.com
Talleyrand, the noted French statesman and diplomat, died in 1838, well before the advent of the Internet era. But his aphorism is as useful now as it was then.
"This is worse than a crime," he famously said, "it's a blunder."
We are in the midst of one of those periodic clusters of plagiarism cases. BuzzFeed fires a writer for serial plagiarism. A veteran New York Times reporter uses material from Wikipedia without attribution. And U.S. Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., is discovered to have borrowed work from elsewhere for his master's thesis.
That plagiarism is morally wrong is beyond argument. It's theft. But beyond that, it's just so stupid.
There always has been the risk of getting caught, even back in Talleyrand's day. But in the Internet era, the odds have increased astronomically. Your audience is worldwide. Someone is likely to notice. The Internet culture is packed with citizen media critics, and they are likely to track you down, which is exactly what happened in the BuzzFeed saga.
The flip side, of course, is that the Internet makes plagiarism so easy. Encountering writer's block? An infinite array of material is just a cut and a paste away. You don't even have to spend any energy writing down or typing all those words.
But what a price you will pay.
The BuzzFeed case dramatizes how Web detectives can bring you down. It also illustrates the danger of taunting.
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed's viral politics editor (now there's a title), brought on his own demise when he accused another website, the Independent Journal Review, of stealing his stuff. The matter in question involved an item about former president George H.W. Bush's eye-catching red and white socks. (I know.)
That inspired two anonymous Twitter users to look into Johnson's work, they told Talking Points Memo in an e-mail interview. But they also were motivated by concerns about how BuzzFeed does business. They created a blog and published their findings about Johnson, which were quite damning. Soon Johnson was gone.
BuzzFeed has attracted huge amounts of traffic with its preternatural ability to create endless streams of viral content. Some of it is clever; some if it is silly; some of it is sleazy. As I write this, it is featuring such fare as "19 Women Reveal Their Most Cringe-Worthy Sexual Experiences" and "Look At This Pit Bull Princess and Have A More Fabulous Day."
But as BuzzFeed has evolved, it has also embraced serious newsgathering, covering national politics, establishing foreign bureaus and launching an investigative reporting unit. To his credit, after initially seeming to downplay the situation, Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith did the right thing. Following a BuzzFeed investigation of Johnson's handiwork, which found 41 instances of copying material from others, Smith dispatched the reporter. The site's forays into serious news made it incumbent on the organization to take journalistic standards seriously, Smith said. And he's right.
BuzzFeed has attracted huge amounts of traffic with its preternatural ability to create endless streams of viral content. Some of it is clever; some if it is silly; some of it is sleazy. As I write this, it is featuring such fare as "19 Women Reveal Their Most Cringe-Worthy Sexual Experiences" and "Look At This Pit Bull Princess and Have A More Fabulous Day."
But as BuzzFeed has evolved, it has also embraced serious newsgathering, covering national politics, establishing foreign bureaus and launching an investigative reporting unit. To his credit, after initially seeming to downplay the situation, Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith did the right thing. Following a BuzzFeed investigation of Johnson's handiwork, which found 41 instances of copying material from others, Smith dispatched the reporter. The site's forays into serious news made it incumbent on the organization to take journalistic standards seriously, Smith said. And he's right.
Talleyrand, the noted French statesman and diplomat, died in 1838, well before the advent of the Internet era. But his aphorism is as useful now as it was then.
"This is worse than a crime," he famously said, "it's a blunder."
We are in the midst of one of those periodic clusters of plagiarism cases. BuzzFeed fires a writer for serial plagiarism. A veteran New York Times reporter uses material from Wikipedia without attribution. And U.S. Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., is discovered to have borrowed work from elsewhere for his master's thesis.
That plagiarism is morally wrong is beyond argument. It's theft. But beyond that, it's just so stupid.
There always has been the risk of getting caught, even back in Talleyrand's day. But in the Internet era, the odds have increased astronomically. Your audience is worldwide. Someone is likely to notice. The Internet culture is packed with citizen media critics, and they are likely to track you down, which is exactly what happened in the BuzzFeed saga.
The flip side, of course, is that the Internet makes plagiarism so easy. Encountering writer's block? An infinite array of material is just a cut and a paste away. You don't even have to spend any energy writing down or typing all those words.
But what a price you will pay.
The BuzzFeed case dramatizes how Web detectives can bring you down. It also illustrates the danger of taunting.
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed's viral politics editor (now there's a title), brought on his own demise when he accused another website, the Independent Journal Review, of stealing his stuff. The matter in question involved an item about former president George H.W. Bush's eye-catching red and white socks. (I know.)
That inspired two anonymous Twitter users to look into Johnson's work, they told Talking Points Memo in an e-mail interview. But they also were motivated by concerns about how BuzzFeed does business. They created a blog and published their findings about Johnson, which were quite damning. Soon Johnson was gone.
BuzzFeed has attracted huge amounts of traffic with its preternatural ability to create endless streams of viral content. Some of it is clever; some if it is silly; some of it is sleazy. As I write this, it is featuring such fare as "19 Women Reveal Their Most Cringe-Worthy Sexual Experiences" and "Look At This Pit Bull Princess and Have A More Fabulous Day."
But as BuzzFeed has evolved, it has also embraced serious newsgathering, covering national politics, establishing foreign bureaus and launching an investigative reporting unit. To his credit, after initially seeming to downplay the situation, Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith did the right thing. Following a BuzzFeed investigation of Johnson's handiwork, which found 41 instances of copying material from others, Smith dispatched the reporter. The site's forays into serious news made it incumbent on the organization to take journalistic standards seriously, Smith said. And he's right.
BuzzFeed has attracted huge amounts of traffic with its preternatural ability to create endless streams of viral content. Some of it is clever; some if it is silly; some of it is sleazy. As I write this, it is featuring such fare as "19 Women Reveal Their Most Cringe-Worthy Sexual Experiences" and "Look At This Pit Bull Princess and Have A More Fabulous Day."
But as BuzzFeed has evolved, it has also embraced serious newsgathering, covering national politics, establishing foreign bureaus and launching an investigative reporting unit. To his credit, after initially seeming to downplay the situation, Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith did the right thing. Following a BuzzFeed investigation of Johnson's handiwork, which found 41 instances of copying material from others, Smith dispatched the reporter. The site's forays into serious news made it incumbent on the organization to take journalistic standards seriously, Smith said. And he's right.
Friday, July 18, 2014
GOOGLE’S BUSINESS CHIEF LEAVES THE COMPANY AFTER A DECADE
Original Story: TechCrunch.com
Buried deep in Google’s earnings release this afternoon was word of a pretty big management shift: Nikesh Arora, the company’s Chief Business Officer, is leaving after a decade with the company. He will be taking a role at SoftBank as their Vice Chairman, and as CEO of their SoftBank Internet and Media subsidiary.
Omid Kordestani, who has been an adviser to Larry Page since stepping down from his role as Senior VP of Worldwide Sales in 2009, will take over Nikesh’s role for the time being.
Larry Page commented on the news on his Google+ page:
After almost ten years, Nikesh Arora our Chief Business Officer, has decided to leave Google to join one of our partners, SoftBank, as Vice Chairman of SoftBank Corp. and CEO of SoftBank Internet and Media. I remember first meeting him at the British Museum, which for some reason Sergey had decided would be a good interview location. Nikesh has been a tremendous leader, adviser and mentor to many Googlers — including me. We have learned a lot together, and had a lot of fun along the way.
Omid Kordestani, who was our business founder and led our sales teams for many years, will be stepping in to lead our business organization for now. When we hired Omid we had no business people so we had all the engineers interview him around a ping pong table. I think he survived because he is actually an engineer! Omid has always been one of my closest advisors, especially since I became CEO again in 2011. He personifies the entrepreneurial spirit that is so important to Google. There is nothing Omid doesn’t know about Google, our customers and partners, and I know that under his leadership the team will excel.
Buried deep in Google’s earnings release this afternoon was word of a pretty big management shift: Nikesh Arora, the company’s Chief Business Officer, is leaving after a decade with the company. He will be taking a role at SoftBank as their Vice Chairman, and as CEO of their SoftBank Internet and Media subsidiary.
Omid Kordestani, who has been an adviser to Larry Page since stepping down from his role as Senior VP of Worldwide Sales in 2009, will take over Nikesh’s role for the time being.
Larry Page commented on the news on his Google+ page:
After almost ten years, Nikesh Arora our Chief Business Officer, has decided to leave Google to join one of our partners, SoftBank, as Vice Chairman of SoftBank Corp. and CEO of SoftBank Internet and Media. I remember first meeting him at the British Museum, which for some reason Sergey had decided would be a good interview location. Nikesh has been a tremendous leader, adviser and mentor to many Googlers — including me. We have learned a lot together, and had a lot of fun along the way.
Omid Kordestani, who was our business founder and led our sales teams for many years, will be stepping in to lead our business organization for now. When we hired Omid we had no business people so we had all the engineers interview him around a ping pong table. I think he survived because he is actually an engineer! Omid has always been one of my closest advisors, especially since I became CEO again in 2011. He personifies the entrepreneurial spirit that is so important to Google. There is nothing Omid doesn’t know about Google, our customers and partners, and I know that under his leadership the team will excel.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
DATING APP TINDER SUED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Original Story: USAToday.com
SAN FRANCISCO — Popular mobile dating app Tinder is being sued for sexual harassment and discrimination by a former marketing executive.
Whitney Wolfe, Tinder's former marketing vice president, claims she was subjected to a pattern of abusive behavior including inappropriate private messages from a company co-founder while working at Tinder.
In the suit, she alleges Tinder co-founder and marketing chief Justin Mateen stripped Wolfe of her co-founder title, telling her that having a "24?year-old girl" as a co-founder made the company "seem like a joke."
Wolfe also alleges Mateen called her a "whore" in front of Chief Executive Officer Sean Rad. Mateen could not be reached for comment.
When she complained, Wolfe said she was forced out of the company. The case was filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
"I had hoped this would be resolved confidentially, but after months of failed attempts, I have decided to pursue this suit," Wolfe said in a statement.
Tinder's parent companies, IAC and Match.com, are also named as defendants.
"Immediately upon receipt of the allegations contained in Ms. Wolfe's complaint, Mr. Mateen was suspended pending an ongoing internal investigation," IAC said in an emailed statement. "Through that process, it has become clear that Mr. Mateen sent private messages to Ms. Wolfe containing inappropriate content. We unequivocally condemn these messages, but believe that Ms. Wolfe's allegations with respect to Tinder and its management are unfounded."
The technology industry has come under fire for its lack of women in technical and executive ranks and for not creating a work environment that is more welcoming to women.
Ellen Pao, a former partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, filed a lawsuit against her former venture capital firm for harassment and discrimination in 2012. Kleiner Perkins has denied the allegations and is fighting the lawsuit.
Earlier this year, a female employee of GitHub accused the San Francisco startup, of harassment. The company investigated and said it found no evidence of harassment but that there had been "mistakes and errors of judgment."
Last month, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel got into hot water when explicit emails he sent while a student at Stanford University surfaced. Spiegel apologized for the emails which contained statements that were demeaning to women.
SAN FRANCISCO — Popular mobile dating app Tinder is being sued for sexual harassment and discrimination by a former marketing executive.
Whitney Wolfe, Tinder's former marketing vice president, claims she was subjected to a pattern of abusive behavior including inappropriate private messages from a company co-founder while working at Tinder.
In the suit, she alleges Tinder co-founder and marketing chief Justin Mateen stripped Wolfe of her co-founder title, telling her that having a "24?year-old girl" as a co-founder made the company "seem like a joke."
Wolfe also alleges Mateen called her a "whore" in front of Chief Executive Officer Sean Rad. Mateen could not be reached for comment.
When she complained, Wolfe said she was forced out of the company. The case was filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
"I had hoped this would be resolved confidentially, but after months of failed attempts, I have decided to pursue this suit," Wolfe said in a statement.
Tinder's parent companies, IAC and Match.com, are also named as defendants.
"Immediately upon receipt of the allegations contained in Ms. Wolfe's complaint, Mr. Mateen was suspended pending an ongoing internal investigation," IAC said in an emailed statement. "Through that process, it has become clear that Mr. Mateen sent private messages to Ms. Wolfe containing inappropriate content. We unequivocally condemn these messages, but believe that Ms. Wolfe's allegations with respect to Tinder and its management are unfounded."
The technology industry has come under fire for its lack of women in technical and executive ranks and for not creating a work environment that is more welcoming to women.
Ellen Pao, a former partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, filed a lawsuit against her former venture capital firm for harassment and discrimination in 2012. Kleiner Perkins has denied the allegations and is fighting the lawsuit.
Earlier this year, a female employee of GitHub accused the San Francisco startup, of harassment. The company investigated and said it found no evidence of harassment but that there had been "mistakes and errors of judgment."
Last month, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel got into hot water when explicit emails he sent while a student at Stanford University surfaced. Spiegel apologized for the emails which contained statements that were demeaning to women.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
YAHOO CEO TAKES HEAT FOR STILTED PRESENTATION IN CANNES
Original Story: USAToday.com
CANNES, France — This is an advertising conference, so some spinning and selling is expected. Yet, a Tuesday presentation from Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was flagged by some attendees as an excessively hard sell.
Audience members took to Twitter to criticize Mayer's speech as being stilted and overly promotional for Yahoo.
"Yahoo CEO at Cannes — am I at a sales pitch??" said Jim Donaldson, tweeting under ?@jdonaldson1.
Uwe Gutschow, tweeting under ?@uweg, said Mayer was "doing a hard sell on Yahoo," and she should "know your audience."
Bruce Rogers, tweeting under ?@Brogers825, said "Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer reads from script, says nothing new."
During her scripted talk at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Mayer highlighted Yahoo's assets such as social-media blogging site Tumblr, which it acquired last year.
She provided the packed audience with examples of advertiser campaigns on Yahoo properties and highlighted the site's digital magazines.
She also talked about art, as well as trends in areas such as mobile, video, social media and native advertising.
Mayer played up to the egos of the ad industry audience by noting that commercials are often more interesting than programming, saying that ads can be "30-second stories."
The Yahoo chief was one of more than 300 speakers at this festival, which is the advertising industry's biggest awards competition and trade show.
Traditionally, festival speakers are more uninhibited. For example, in the middle of being interviewed on stage Monday, filmmaker Spike Jonze turned to the audience and asked the crowd to ask him questions.
On Sunday, Baywatch star David Hasselhoffran walked through the audience carrying a red buoy just before he took to the stage. After that presentation, Hasselhoff readily took pictures with attendees that rushed the stage to snap his image.
CANNES, France — This is an advertising conference, so some spinning and selling is expected. Yet, a Tuesday presentation from Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was flagged by some attendees as an excessively hard sell.
Audience members took to Twitter to criticize Mayer's speech as being stilted and overly promotional for Yahoo.
"Yahoo CEO at Cannes — am I at a sales pitch??" said Jim Donaldson, tweeting under ?@jdonaldson1.
Uwe Gutschow, tweeting under ?@uweg, said Mayer was "doing a hard sell on Yahoo," and she should "know your audience."
Bruce Rogers, tweeting under ?@Brogers825, said "Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer reads from script, says nothing new."
During her scripted talk at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Mayer highlighted Yahoo's assets such as social-media blogging site Tumblr, which it acquired last year.
She provided the packed audience with examples of advertiser campaigns on Yahoo properties and highlighted the site's digital magazines.
She also talked about art, as well as trends in areas such as mobile, video, social media and native advertising.
Mayer played up to the egos of the ad industry audience by noting that commercials are often more interesting than programming, saying that ads can be "30-second stories."
The Yahoo chief was one of more than 300 speakers at this festival, which is the advertising industry's biggest awards competition and trade show.
Traditionally, festival speakers are more uninhibited. For example, in the middle of being interviewed on stage Monday, filmmaker Spike Jonze turned to the audience and asked the crowd to ask him questions.
On Sunday, Baywatch star David Hasselhoffran walked through the audience carrying a red buoy just before he took to the stage. After that presentation, Hasselhoff readily took pictures with attendees that rushed the stage to snap his image.
YAHOO LATEST TECH ICON TO REVEAL LACK OF DIVERSITY
Original Story: USAToday.com
SAN FRANCISCO -- Yahoo on Tuesday shared some basic demographic information on its work force, the latest Silicon Valley company to reveal the stark lack of diversity in its ranks.
For years technology companies have resisted reporting this information even though they collect it and report it to the federal government.
But Google late last month swung open the door by revealing the gender and racial breakdown of its work force, bringing to the fore an issue that Silicon Valley has long wanted to keep hidden from public view: that these work forces are predominantly white and male.
Google made the move after Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. stood up at its annual shareholder meeting to urge Google to disclose its numbers. He made a similar plea at the Facebook shareholder meeting. But the giant social network where Sheryl Sandberg is the No. 2 executive, said it preferred to share the data internally first.
Yahoo, which is also run by a woman and another former Google executive, Marissa Mayer, said 50% of its work force of more than 12,000 is white, 39% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 2% black and 4% undisclosed or more than one race.
Asians comprise 57% of Yahoo's tech workers while 35% of tech workers are white. About 37% of Yahoo workers are women and 23% of senior managers are women.
Last week, LinkedIn also disclosed its diversity figures, which were very similar to those released by Google and Yahoo. But LinkedIn also released the demographic report it provides to the federal government.
Only Intel, Cisco and a smattering of other companies routinely disclose their demographic reports to the federal government.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Yahoo on Tuesday shared some basic demographic information on its work force, the latest Silicon Valley company to reveal the stark lack of diversity in its ranks.
For years technology companies have resisted reporting this information even though they collect it and report it to the federal government.
But Google late last month swung open the door by revealing the gender and racial breakdown of its work force, bringing to the fore an issue that Silicon Valley has long wanted to keep hidden from public view: that these work forces are predominantly white and male.
Google made the move after Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. stood up at its annual shareholder meeting to urge Google to disclose its numbers. He made a similar plea at the Facebook shareholder meeting. But the giant social network where Sheryl Sandberg is the No. 2 executive, said it preferred to share the data internally first.
Yahoo, which is also run by a woman and another former Google executive, Marissa Mayer, said 50% of its work force of more than 12,000 is white, 39% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 2% black and 4% undisclosed or more than one race.
Asians comprise 57% of Yahoo's tech workers while 35% of tech workers are white. About 37% of Yahoo workers are women and 23% of senior managers are women.
Last week, LinkedIn also disclosed its diversity figures, which were very similar to those released by Google and Yahoo. But LinkedIn also released the demographic report it provides to the federal government.
Only Intel, Cisco and a smattering of other companies routinely disclose their demographic reports to the federal government.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
HACKER HELPED DISRUPT 300 WEB ATTACKS, PROSECUTORS SAY
Original Story: NYTimes.com
A prominent hacker set to be sentenced in federal court this week for breaking into numerous computer systems worldwide has provided a trove of information to the authorities, allowing them to disrupt at least 300 cyberattacks on targets that included the United States military, Congress, the federal courts, NASA and private companies, according to a newly filed government court document.
The hacker, Hector Xavier Monsegur, also helped the authorities dismantle a particularly aggressive cell of the hacking collective Anonymous, leading to the arrest of eight of its members in Europe and the United States, including Jeremy Hammond, who the Federal Bureau of Investigation said was its top “cybercriminal target,” the document said. Mr. Hammond is serving a 10-year prison term.
The court document was prepared by prosecutors who are asking a judge, Loretta A. Preska, for leniency for Mr. Monsegur because of his “extraordinary cooperation.” He is set to be sentenced on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan on hacking conspiracy and other charges that could result in a long prison term.
It has been known since 2012 that Mr. Monsegur, who was arrested in 2011, was acting as a government mole in the shadowy world of computer hacking, but the memorandum submitted to Judge Preska late on Friday reveals for the first time the extent of his assistance and what the government perceives of its value. It also offers the government’s first explanation of Mr. Monsegur’s involvement in a series of coordinated attacks on foreign websites in early 2012, though his precise role is in dispute.
The whereabouts of Mr. Monsegur have been shrouded in mystery. Since his cooperation with the authorities became known, he has been vilified online by supporters of Anonymous, of which he was a member. The memo, meanwhile, said the government became so concerned about his safety that it relocated him and some members of his family.
“Monsegur repeatedly was approached on the street and threatened or menaced about his cooperation once it became publicly known,” said the memo, which was filed by the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
Born in 1983, Mr. Monsegur moved to the Jacob Riis housing project on the Lower East Side of Manhattan at a young age, where he lived with his grandmother after his father and aunt were arrested for selling heroin. He became involved with hacking groups in the late 1990s, drawn, he has indicated, to the groups’ anti-government philosophies.
Mr. Monsegur’s role emerged in March 2012 when the authorities announced charges against Mr. Hammond and others. A few months later, Mr. Monsegur’s bail was revoked after he made “unauthorized online postings,” the document said without elaboration. He was jailed for about seven months, then released on bail in December 2012, and has made no further postings, it said.
The memo said that when Mr. Monsegur (who used the Internet alias Sabu) was first approached by F.B.I. agents in June 2011 and questioned about his online activities, he admitted to criminal conduct and immediately agreed to cooperate with law enforcement.
That night, he reviewed his computer files with the agents, and throughout the summer, he daily “provided, in real time, information” that allowed the government to disrupt attacks and identify “vulnerabilities in significant computer systems,” the memo said.
“Working sometimes literally around the clock,” it added, “at the direction of law enforcement, Monsegur engaged his co-conspirators in online chats that were critical to confirming their identities and whereabouts.”
His primary assistance was his cooperation against Anonymous and its splinter groups Internet Feds and LulzSec.
“He provided detailed historical information about the activities of Anonymous, contributing greatly to law enforcement’s understanding of how Anonymous operates,” the memo said.
Neither Mr. Bharara’s office nor a lawyer for Mr. Monsegur would comment about the memo.
Mr. Monsegur provided an extraordinary window on the activities of LulzSec, which he and five other members of Anonymous had created. The memo describes LulzSec as a “tightly knit group of hackers” who worked as a team with “complementary, specialized skills that enabled them to gain unauthorized access to computer systems, damage and exploit those systems, and publicize their hacking activities.”
The memo said that LulzSec had developed an “action plan to destroy evidence and disband if the group determined that any of its members had been arrested, or were out of touch,” and it credits Mr. Monsegur for agreeing so quickly to cooperate after being confronted by the bureau. Had he delayed his decision and remained offline for an extended period, the document said, “it is likely that much of the evidence regarding LulzSec’s activities would have been destroyed.”
After his arrest, Mr. Monsegur provided information that helped repair a hack of PBS’s website in which he had been a “direct participant,” and helped patch a vulnerability in the Senate’s website. He also provided information about “vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, including at a water utility for an American city, and a foreign energy company,” the document said.
The coordinated attacks on foreign government websites in 2012 exploited a vulnerability in a popular web hosting software. The targets included Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Brazil, according to court documents in Mr. Hammond’s case. The memo said that “at law enforcement direction,” Mr. Monsegur tried to obtain details about the software vulnerability but was unsuccessful.
“At the same time, Monsegur was able to learn of many hacks, including hacks of foreign government computer servers, committed by these targets and other hackers, enabling the government to notify the victims, wherever feasible,” the memo said.
The memo does not specify which of the foreign governments the United States alerted about the vulnerabilities.
But according to a recent prison interview with Mr. Hammond as well as logs of Internet chats between him and Mr. Monsegur, which were submitted to the court in Mr. Hammond’s case, Mr. Monsegur seemed to have played a more active role in directing some of the attacks. In the chat logs, Mr. Monsegur directed Mr. Hammond to hack numerous foreign websites, and closely monitored whether Mr. Hammond had success in gaining access to the sites.
Sarah Kunstler, a lawyer for Mr. Hammond, said on Saturday: “The government’s characterization of Sabu’s role is false. Far from protecting foreign governments, Sabu identified targets and actively facilitated the hacks of their computer systems.”
At his sentencing in November, Mr. Hammond was prohibited by Judge Preska from naming the foreign governments that Mr. Monsegur had asked him to hack. But, according to an uncensored version of a court statement by Mr. Hammond that appeared online that day, the target list included more than 2,000 Internet domains in numerous countries.
Mr. Hammond’s sentencing statement also said that Mr. Monsegur encouraged other hackers to give him data from Syrian government websites, including those of banks and ministries associated with the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad.
A prominent hacker set to be sentenced in federal court this week for breaking into numerous computer systems worldwide has provided a trove of information to the authorities, allowing them to disrupt at least 300 cyberattacks on targets that included the United States military, Congress, the federal courts, NASA and private companies, according to a newly filed government court document.
The hacker, Hector Xavier Monsegur, also helped the authorities dismantle a particularly aggressive cell of the hacking collective Anonymous, leading to the arrest of eight of its members in Europe and the United States, including Jeremy Hammond, who the Federal Bureau of Investigation said was its top “cybercriminal target,” the document said. Mr. Hammond is serving a 10-year prison term.
The court document was prepared by prosecutors who are asking a judge, Loretta A. Preska, for leniency for Mr. Monsegur because of his “extraordinary cooperation.” He is set to be sentenced on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan on hacking conspiracy and other charges that could result in a long prison term.
It has been known since 2012 that Mr. Monsegur, who was arrested in 2011, was acting as a government mole in the shadowy world of computer hacking, but the memorandum submitted to Judge Preska late on Friday reveals for the first time the extent of his assistance and what the government perceives of its value. It also offers the government’s first explanation of Mr. Monsegur’s involvement in a series of coordinated attacks on foreign websites in early 2012, though his precise role is in dispute.
The whereabouts of Mr. Monsegur have been shrouded in mystery. Since his cooperation with the authorities became known, he has been vilified online by supporters of Anonymous, of which he was a member. The memo, meanwhile, said the government became so concerned about his safety that it relocated him and some members of his family.
“Monsegur repeatedly was approached on the street and threatened or menaced about his cooperation once it became publicly known,” said the memo, which was filed by the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
Born in 1983, Mr. Monsegur moved to the Jacob Riis housing project on the Lower East Side of Manhattan at a young age, where he lived with his grandmother after his father and aunt were arrested for selling heroin. He became involved with hacking groups in the late 1990s, drawn, he has indicated, to the groups’ anti-government philosophies.
Mr. Monsegur’s role emerged in March 2012 when the authorities announced charges against Mr. Hammond and others. A few months later, Mr. Monsegur’s bail was revoked after he made “unauthorized online postings,” the document said without elaboration. He was jailed for about seven months, then released on bail in December 2012, and has made no further postings, it said.
The memo said that when Mr. Monsegur (who used the Internet alias Sabu) was first approached by F.B.I. agents in June 2011 and questioned about his online activities, he admitted to criminal conduct and immediately agreed to cooperate with law enforcement.
That night, he reviewed his computer files with the agents, and throughout the summer, he daily “provided, in real time, information” that allowed the government to disrupt attacks and identify “vulnerabilities in significant computer systems,” the memo said.
“Working sometimes literally around the clock,” it added, “at the direction of law enforcement, Monsegur engaged his co-conspirators in online chats that were critical to confirming their identities and whereabouts.”
His primary assistance was his cooperation against Anonymous and its splinter groups Internet Feds and LulzSec.
“He provided detailed historical information about the activities of Anonymous, contributing greatly to law enforcement’s understanding of how Anonymous operates,” the memo said.
Neither Mr. Bharara’s office nor a lawyer for Mr. Monsegur would comment about the memo.
Mr. Monsegur provided an extraordinary window on the activities of LulzSec, which he and five other members of Anonymous had created. The memo describes LulzSec as a “tightly knit group of hackers” who worked as a team with “complementary, specialized skills that enabled them to gain unauthorized access to computer systems, damage and exploit those systems, and publicize their hacking activities.”
The memo said that LulzSec had developed an “action plan to destroy evidence and disband if the group determined that any of its members had been arrested, or were out of touch,” and it credits Mr. Monsegur for agreeing so quickly to cooperate after being confronted by the bureau. Had he delayed his decision and remained offline for an extended period, the document said, “it is likely that much of the evidence regarding LulzSec’s activities would have been destroyed.”
After his arrest, Mr. Monsegur provided information that helped repair a hack of PBS’s website in which he had been a “direct participant,” and helped patch a vulnerability in the Senate’s website. He also provided information about “vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, including at a water utility for an American city, and a foreign energy company,” the document said.
The coordinated attacks on foreign government websites in 2012 exploited a vulnerability in a popular web hosting software. The targets included Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Brazil, according to court documents in Mr. Hammond’s case. The memo said that “at law enforcement direction,” Mr. Monsegur tried to obtain details about the software vulnerability but was unsuccessful.
“At the same time, Monsegur was able to learn of many hacks, including hacks of foreign government computer servers, committed by these targets and other hackers, enabling the government to notify the victims, wherever feasible,” the memo said.
The memo does not specify which of the foreign governments the United States alerted about the vulnerabilities.
But according to a recent prison interview with Mr. Hammond as well as logs of Internet chats between him and Mr. Monsegur, which were submitted to the court in Mr. Hammond’s case, Mr. Monsegur seemed to have played a more active role in directing some of the attacks. In the chat logs, Mr. Monsegur directed Mr. Hammond to hack numerous foreign websites, and closely monitored whether Mr. Hammond had success in gaining access to the sites.
Sarah Kunstler, a lawyer for Mr. Hammond, said on Saturday: “The government’s characterization of Sabu’s role is false. Far from protecting foreign governments, Sabu identified targets and actively facilitated the hacks of their computer systems.”
At his sentencing in November, Mr. Hammond was prohibited by Judge Preska from naming the foreign governments that Mr. Monsegur had asked him to hack. But, according to an uncensored version of a court statement by Mr. Hammond that appeared online that day, the target list included more than 2,000 Internet domains in numerous countries.
Mr. Hammond’s sentencing statement also said that Mr. Monsegur encouraged other hackers to give him data from Syrian government websites, including those of banks and ministries associated with the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
EUROPE'S TOP COURT SUPPORTS 'RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN' IN GOOGLE PRIVACY CASE
Original Story: Edition.CNN.com
(CNN) -- People have the "right to be forgotten" and search engines like Google must remove certain unwanted links, Europe's top court decided in a surprise ruling Tuesday.
The case, which spotlighted the clash between privacy and freedom of information advocates, centered on a Spanish man's efforts to remove historic links to his debt problems.
In its decision, the European Court of Justice found operators of search engines such as Google were the "controller" of information. They were therefore responsible for removing unwanted links if requested.
"An Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties," the judges said in a statement about the ruling.
A Google spokesman, in an email to CNN, said the ruling was "disappointing," and that the company needed time to "analyze the implications." Google had previously argued it was only hosting the data and said it was up to the individual websites to remove the data.
The decision came as a surprise to the industry and legal experts, as it ran contrary to the court's Advocate General opinion, whose guidance is usually followed.
Does Google know too much about us?
Your G-mail is watching you
Getting caught on Google maps
"For Google, this result creates a headache -- and potentially huge costs," University of East Anglia Law School lecturer Paul Bernal said. "The ruling looks like a strong decision in favor of privacy and individual rights -- and against the business models of search engines, and certain aspects of freedom of speech."
The case arose in 2010, when Mario Costeja Gonzalez complained to the Spanish Data Protection Agency about an old newspaper notice detailing his social security debts.
The advertisement was placed in a Spanish newspaper by the Ministry of Labour in 1998. It detailed a property auction being held to recover the debts.
Gonzalez argued that he had long resolved his debts and the information was no longer relevant. He complained that details about his old debts were coming up in Google search results, which he said violated his data protection rights.
The Spanish privacy watchdog rejected the complaint against the newspaper, saying it was right to publish the information at the time of the auction.
However, it also said that Google had no right to spread the news about Gonzalez further and ruled that the search engine must remove the link from the list of results. Google challenged the ruling with the Spanish High Court which referred the case up to EU's top court.
International watchdog Index on Censorship said the ruling "violates the fundamental principles of freedom of expression."
"It allows individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like with no legal oversight. This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books." Index said in a statement.
(CNN) -- People have the "right to be forgotten" and search engines like Google must remove certain unwanted links, Europe's top court decided in a surprise ruling Tuesday.
The case, which spotlighted the clash between privacy and freedom of information advocates, centered on a Spanish man's efforts to remove historic links to his debt problems.
In its decision, the European Court of Justice found operators of search engines such as Google were the "controller" of information. They were therefore responsible for removing unwanted links if requested.
"An Internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties," the judges said in a statement about the ruling.
A Google spokesman, in an email to CNN, said the ruling was "disappointing," and that the company needed time to "analyze the implications." Google had previously argued it was only hosting the data and said it was up to the individual websites to remove the data.
The decision came as a surprise to the industry and legal experts, as it ran contrary to the court's Advocate General opinion, whose guidance is usually followed.
Does Google know too much about us?
Your G-mail is watching you
Getting caught on Google maps
"For Google, this result creates a headache -- and potentially huge costs," University of East Anglia Law School lecturer Paul Bernal said. "The ruling looks like a strong decision in favor of privacy and individual rights -- and against the business models of search engines, and certain aspects of freedom of speech."
The case arose in 2010, when Mario Costeja Gonzalez complained to the Spanish Data Protection Agency about an old newspaper notice detailing his social security debts.
The advertisement was placed in a Spanish newspaper by the Ministry of Labour in 1998. It detailed a property auction being held to recover the debts.
Gonzalez argued that he had long resolved his debts and the information was no longer relevant. He complained that details about his old debts were coming up in Google search results, which he said violated his data protection rights.
The Spanish privacy watchdog rejected the complaint against the newspaper, saying it was right to publish the information at the time of the auction.
However, it also said that Google had no right to spread the news about Gonzalez further and ruled that the search engine must remove the link from the list of results. Google challenged the ruling with the Spanish High Court which referred the case up to EU's top court.
International watchdog Index on Censorship said the ruling "violates the fundamental principles of freedom of expression."
"It allows individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like with no legal oversight. This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books." Index said in a statement.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Warnings Along F.C.C.’s Fast Lane
Original Story: NYTimes.com
The next time the loudmouth in the next cubicle interrupts you with yet another recap of his weekend, just start talking about “net neutrality.”
He will immediately bury his head back in his work, perhaps even lay it on the desk and begin napping.
But a topic that generally begets narcolepsy is about to become, well, interesting. The government is contemplating changing the rules for how content is delivered over the Internet, which could mess with people’s TV programming and web browsing, so there may soon be fire in those glazed-over eyes.
Wait, we’ve seen this before: Remember the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, the dispute two years ago in which the entertainment companies, backed by the government, took on Silicon Valley? It was the Little Big Horn. Time and again, when the government tries to insert itself between the Internet and its users, it gets clobbered. This could end up the same way. Here’s why:
This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to move forward with a proposal that would allow broadband providers to charge extra to content providers if they want their programming delivered in a fast lane so it streams reliably.
In a letter released on Friday, Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, said he cared deeply about the principle of net neutrality, or the equal treatment of content on the Internet.
“My commitment to protect and preserve the open Internet remains steadfast,” he wrote. But regardless of how he spins it, Mr. Wheeler is really proposing two Internets: One slow, where most of the traffic lives, and one fast, for those who can afford it. On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Wheeler would propose new language, as soon as Monday, saying that the agency will not allow the web to be divided into fast and slow lanes.
Netflix already cut such a deal with Comcast, complained about it, and then turned around and struck essentially the same deal with Verizon, which is kind of a nifty trick when you think about it. Comcast and other broadband providers point out that Netflix sucks up about 30 percent of the system’s capacity, so that it should pay more than others only makes sense.
But why should you, as someone who just wants to use the web to surf or watch programming, care whether companies like Netflix and Hulu have to pay companies like Comcast and Verizon to ensure smooth feeds? Well, even though consumers won’t be charged directly for the faster service, we all know where those fee increases will end up landing. I just received a notice from Netflix that the price of a new membership is rising $1, to $8.99. It’s still small money and a bargain at that, but as its costs and that of other companies go up, what had been a cheap alternative for lots of programming could start to become costly.
The bifurcation of the Internet is a scary prospect and the F.C.C. itself is divided over the proposed rules: Jessica Rosenworcel, a commissioner, has called for a delay in any changes, and Mignon Clyburn, a fellow Democrat on the five-member panel, has joined her in pushing back against the aggressive plan that Mr. Wheeler has set out.
A potentially more threatening pushback arrived on Wednesday when a coalition of tech companies — Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, and just about every other digital company you have ever heard of — registered their opposition to the changes in a letter to the F.C.C.
The signatories did not mince words, calling the proposal “a grave threat to the Internet.”
The letter goes on: “The commission’s longstanding commitment and actions undertaken to protect the open Internet are a central reason why the Internet remains an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth,” it reads, continuing, “This commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America continues to lead the world in technology markets.”
Translation: You are about to break the Internet and you will be deeply sorry if you do.
In the debate between the Beltway vs. the Valley, my money is on the Valley. Remember in 2012 when a clueless Congress lumbered into Internet regulation by coming up with SOPA and a companion bill in the Senate (the Protect I.P. Act)? The entertainment companies that backed the legislation thought it was no big deal, but then a group of Silicon Valley players — many of the same ones who are now coalescing to oppose new Internet regulations — unleashed their user base and a huge wave of protest erupted. Both bills went down hard.
In the weeks after the SOPA debacle, I was at the Sundance Film Festival and then in Hollywood, talking with entertainment executives. They looked like extras from “The Walking Dead,” with bite marks all over them. They didn’t know what hit them because they did not understand the intimate relationship that the Valley has with its customers.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like offer you an endless array of useful products, many of them at a cost of absolutely nothing. (You actually trade oodles of privacy and data for the privilege, but that’s another column.) By contrast, cable companies, which provide most of the broadband, supply an endless array of entertainment, but at a very dear price that is not going to endear them to anyone. Add in the fact that broadband providers are the ones we call when the web isn’t working — have you ever contacted Netflix when your movie was endlessly buffering? — and you can see how they get the blame for everything and credit for nothing.
All this comes as Comcast, the No. 1 cable company, is also appearing before the F.C.C. and Congress seeking to acquire Time Warner Cable, the No. 2 cable company. Between looking for approval on the merger and greater flexibility in how it delivers web content, Comcast is asking for a great deal of permission and control, all at the same time.
The F.C.C. is in the position of proposing new rules because in January, a three-judge panel struck down the commission’s previous attempts to exercise control to ensure that all traffic is treated equally. So far, the commission has declined to treat the web as a public utility because it did not want to discourage investment by the big providers, but if it had the will and foresight, many believe it could exercise more authority in a way that would pass judicial muster. It would mean going back to the drawing board, and taking on some powerful interests, but it might be worth it.
The public has an expectation that the web will work like other utilities: When people turn on a light switch, the room lights up, and when they twist a faucet handle, water comes out. People expect the same of the Internet — always on, always working.
We don’t want two Internets — a good one and a bad. We want the money and investment to flow toward a single infrastructure that works rapidly and efficiently, as it does in so many other countries. It should be a medium in which videos of your niece dancing to Beyoncé, streaming coverage of Occupy Wall Street and “House of Cards” all play smoothly when you hit a button.
Given the mounting opposition, the F.C.C. commissioners would be well advised to delay any changes this Thursday. And if they don’t, they may end up starring in a sequel: “SOPA II: When Nerds Bite Back.”
The next time the loudmouth in the next cubicle interrupts you with yet another recap of his weekend, just start talking about “net neutrality.”
He will immediately bury his head back in his work, perhaps even lay it on the desk and begin napping.
But a topic that generally begets narcolepsy is about to become, well, interesting. The government is contemplating changing the rules for how content is delivered over the Internet, which could mess with people’s TV programming and web browsing, so there may soon be fire in those glazed-over eyes.
Wait, we’ve seen this before: Remember the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, the dispute two years ago in which the entertainment companies, backed by the government, took on Silicon Valley? It was the Little Big Horn. Time and again, when the government tries to insert itself between the Internet and its users, it gets clobbered. This could end up the same way. Here’s why:
This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to move forward with a proposal that would allow broadband providers to charge extra to content providers if they want their programming delivered in a fast lane so it streams reliably.
In a letter released on Friday, Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, said he cared deeply about the principle of net neutrality, or the equal treatment of content on the Internet.
“My commitment to protect and preserve the open Internet remains steadfast,” he wrote. But regardless of how he spins it, Mr. Wheeler is really proposing two Internets: One slow, where most of the traffic lives, and one fast, for those who can afford it. On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Wheeler would propose new language, as soon as Monday, saying that the agency will not allow the web to be divided into fast and slow lanes.
Netflix already cut such a deal with Comcast, complained about it, and then turned around and struck essentially the same deal with Verizon, which is kind of a nifty trick when you think about it. Comcast and other broadband providers point out that Netflix sucks up about 30 percent of the system’s capacity, so that it should pay more than others only makes sense.
But why should you, as someone who just wants to use the web to surf or watch programming, care whether companies like Netflix and Hulu have to pay companies like Comcast and Verizon to ensure smooth feeds? Well, even though consumers won’t be charged directly for the faster service, we all know where those fee increases will end up landing. I just received a notice from Netflix that the price of a new membership is rising $1, to $8.99. It’s still small money and a bargain at that, but as its costs and that of other companies go up, what had been a cheap alternative for lots of programming could start to become costly.
The bifurcation of the Internet is a scary prospect and the F.C.C. itself is divided over the proposed rules: Jessica Rosenworcel, a commissioner, has called for a delay in any changes, and Mignon Clyburn, a fellow Democrat on the five-member panel, has joined her in pushing back against the aggressive plan that Mr. Wheeler has set out.
A potentially more threatening pushback arrived on Wednesday when a coalition of tech companies — Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, and just about every other digital company you have ever heard of — registered their opposition to the changes in a letter to the F.C.C.
The signatories did not mince words, calling the proposal “a grave threat to the Internet.”
The letter goes on: “The commission’s longstanding commitment and actions undertaken to protect the open Internet are a central reason why the Internet remains an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth,” it reads, continuing, “This commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America continues to lead the world in technology markets.”
Translation: You are about to break the Internet and you will be deeply sorry if you do.
In the debate between the Beltway vs. the Valley, my money is on the Valley. Remember in 2012 when a clueless Congress lumbered into Internet regulation by coming up with SOPA and a companion bill in the Senate (the Protect I.P. Act)? The entertainment companies that backed the legislation thought it was no big deal, but then a group of Silicon Valley players — many of the same ones who are now coalescing to oppose new Internet regulations — unleashed their user base and a huge wave of protest erupted. Both bills went down hard.
In the weeks after the SOPA debacle, I was at the Sundance Film Festival and then in Hollywood, talking with entertainment executives. They looked like extras from “The Walking Dead,” with bite marks all over them. They didn’t know what hit them because they did not understand the intimate relationship that the Valley has with its customers.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like offer you an endless array of useful products, many of them at a cost of absolutely nothing. (You actually trade oodles of privacy and data for the privilege, but that’s another column.) By contrast, cable companies, which provide most of the broadband, supply an endless array of entertainment, but at a very dear price that is not going to endear them to anyone. Add in the fact that broadband providers are the ones we call when the web isn’t working — have you ever contacted Netflix when your movie was endlessly buffering? — and you can see how they get the blame for everything and credit for nothing.
All this comes as Comcast, the No. 1 cable company, is also appearing before the F.C.C. and Congress seeking to acquire Time Warner Cable, the No. 2 cable company. Between looking for approval on the merger and greater flexibility in how it delivers web content, Comcast is asking for a great deal of permission and control, all at the same time.
The F.C.C. is in the position of proposing new rules because in January, a three-judge panel struck down the commission’s previous attempts to exercise control to ensure that all traffic is treated equally. So far, the commission has declined to treat the web as a public utility because it did not want to discourage investment by the big providers, but if it had the will and foresight, many believe it could exercise more authority in a way that would pass judicial muster. It would mean going back to the drawing board, and taking on some powerful interests, but it might be worth it.
The public has an expectation that the web will work like other utilities: When people turn on a light switch, the room lights up, and when they twist a faucet handle, water comes out. People expect the same of the Internet — always on, always working.
We don’t want two Internets — a good one and a bad. We want the money and investment to flow toward a single infrastructure that works rapidly and efficiently, as it does in so many other countries. It should be a medium in which videos of your niece dancing to Beyoncé, streaming coverage of Occupy Wall Street and “House of Cards” all play smoothly when you hit a button.
Given the mounting opposition, the F.C.C. commissioners would be well advised to delay any changes this Thursday. And if they don’t, they may end up starring in a sequel: “SOPA II: When Nerds Bite Back.”
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
SOON ON HULU: AD THAT LETS YOU ORDER PIZZA
Original Story: Money.CNN.com
Just when you thought it couldn't get any easier to order pizza ...
Later this year, the streaming video service Hulu will serve up a Pizza Hut advertisement that allows viewers to order a pizza right within the ad.
The feature combines Pizza Hut's online ordering system with Hulu's interactive advertising system. It's the kind of thing that could become more common as companies take advantage of emerging interactive ad capabilities.
Mike Hopkins, the chief executive of Hulu, promoted the Pizza Hut ad campaign at Hulu's annual presentation for advertisers in New York on Wednesday. He called the ad an "in-stream purchase unit" and said other advertisers could use it to initiate product sales in the future.
Hopkins also promoted the fact that whatever TV show a viewer is watching will resume right after the order -- in this case, for a 3-Cheese Stuffed Crust Pizza or a comparable delicacy -- is placed. Pizza Hut is owned by Yum! (YUM, Fortune 500) Brands.
Hulu, which is owned by the parent companies of ABC, Fox and NBC, includes ads on both its free and paid streaming services. This differentiates it from the ad-free services of two rivals: Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) Prime.
Hopkins also promoted other ad innovations, including 360-degree ads for mobile devices. He showed an example for a car company that let a user look up, down and around from the drivers' seat of a car, taking advantage of the accelerometers inside some smart phones.
Hulu's free service is currently only available on desktop computers, while its subscriber service, Hulu Plus, works on phones, tablets and other devices. But Hulu said it would enable part of its free service on phones this summer.
Hopkins also confirmed what has been widely reported for months: Hulu is in what he called "active discussions" with cable and satellite distributors to "integrate Hulu Plus into their set-top-boxes."
Netflix is also in talks with distributors about making its streaming service available through set-top-boxes, and announced several deals with small distributors last week. To top of page
Just when you thought it couldn't get any easier to order pizza ...
Later this year, the streaming video service Hulu will serve up a Pizza Hut advertisement that allows viewers to order a pizza right within the ad.
The feature combines Pizza Hut's online ordering system with Hulu's interactive advertising system. It's the kind of thing that could become more common as companies take advantage of emerging interactive ad capabilities.
Mike Hopkins, the chief executive of Hulu, promoted the Pizza Hut ad campaign at Hulu's annual presentation for advertisers in New York on Wednesday. He called the ad an "in-stream purchase unit" and said other advertisers could use it to initiate product sales in the future.
Hopkins also promoted the fact that whatever TV show a viewer is watching will resume right after the order -- in this case, for a 3-Cheese Stuffed Crust Pizza or a comparable delicacy -- is placed. Pizza Hut is owned by Yum! (YUM, Fortune 500) Brands.
Hulu, which is owned by the parent companies of ABC, Fox and NBC, includes ads on both its free and paid streaming services. This differentiates it from the ad-free services of two rivals: Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) Prime.
Hopkins also promoted other ad innovations, including 360-degree ads for mobile devices. He showed an example for a car company that let a user look up, down and around from the drivers' seat of a car, taking advantage of the accelerometers inside some smart phones.
Hulu's free service is currently only available on desktop computers, while its subscriber service, Hulu Plus, works on phones, tablets and other devices. But Hulu said it would enable part of its free service on phones this summer.
Hopkins also confirmed what has been widely reported for months: Hulu is in what he called "active discussions" with cable and satellite distributors to "integrate Hulu Plus into their set-top-boxes."
Netflix is also in talks with distributors about making its streaming service available through set-top-boxes, and announced several deals with small distributors last week. To top of page
Friday, April 25, 2014
FUROR ERUPTS OVER NET NEUTRALITY RULES
Original Story: USAToday.com
A battle has erupted over the Federal Communications Commission chairman's new proposal for net neutrality rules that would allow content providers to pay for Internet express lanes.
In the first formal step toward reinstating net neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler presented a draft of the revised rules to his fellow commissioners Thursday. The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content.
But the proposal allows fast lanes to consumers' homes, the so-called "last mile," that content providers such as Netflix can purchase as long as the same opportunities are available to others on "commercially reasonable" terms. The new rules give the FCC the authority to review such arrangements to ensure that they don't harm consumers and competition.
Critics of the new approach immediately asserted that fast lanes are a form of discrimination that could leave small businesses and entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. The FCC should include specific language to prevent such deals, or ISPs should be classified as public utilities that can be regulated more strictly, they say.
"Net neutrality prevents that overcharge, which gets passed along to consumers and stifles innovation," says Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Net neutrality proponents were also concerned that the new rules do not address traffic over the back-end Internet pipes used by content providers to send data to ISPs' front doors.
Netflix caused an industry furor earlier this year when it agreed, albeit reluctantly, to pay Comcast for a more direct connection between its servers and Comcast's network to provide faster delivery. "Where they are headed with this is down the wrong path, as ISPs get explicit legal permission to do deals with Internet companies," says Netflix spokesman Joris Evers.
The FCC's Open Internet rules were enacted in 2010 to ensure that Internet providers do not discriminate against lawful content. Following an industry challenge, a federal appeals court invalidated the rules earlier this year but allowed the FCC to recast them.
Wheeler said his goal is to enact rules similar to the earlier ones that pass muster with the court. The commission will vote on them at the agency's May 15 meeting. If they are approved, public comment will be taken before the rules go into effect, which Wheeler hopes will be by the end of the year.
A battle has erupted over the Federal Communications Commission chairman's new proposal for net neutrality rules that would allow content providers to pay for Internet express lanes.
In the first formal step toward reinstating net neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler presented a draft of the revised rules to his fellow commissioners Thursday. The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content.
But the proposal allows fast lanes to consumers' homes, the so-called "last mile," that content providers such as Netflix can purchase as long as the same opportunities are available to others on "commercially reasonable" terms. The new rules give the FCC the authority to review such arrangements to ensure that they don't harm consumers and competition.
Critics of the new approach immediately asserted that fast lanes are a form of discrimination that could leave small businesses and entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. The FCC should include specific language to prevent such deals, or ISPs should be classified as public utilities that can be regulated more strictly, they say.
"Net neutrality prevents that overcharge, which gets passed along to consumers and stifles innovation," says Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Net neutrality proponents were also concerned that the new rules do not address traffic over the back-end Internet pipes used by content providers to send data to ISPs' front doors.
Netflix caused an industry furor earlier this year when it agreed, albeit reluctantly, to pay Comcast for a more direct connection between its servers and Comcast's network to provide faster delivery. "Where they are headed with this is down the wrong path, as ISPs get explicit legal permission to do deals with Internet companies," says Netflix spokesman Joris Evers.
The FCC's Open Internet rules were enacted in 2010 to ensure that Internet providers do not discriminate against lawful content. Following an industry challenge, a federal appeals court invalidated the rules earlier this year but allowed the FCC to recast them.
Wheeler said his goal is to enact rules similar to the earlier ones that pass muster with the court. The commission will vote on them at the agency's May 15 meeting. If they are approved, public comment will be taken before the rules go into effect, which Wheeler hopes will be by the end of the year.
Monday, April 21, 2014
APPLE'S IPAD IN BIG TROUBLE
Original Story: USAToday.com
Less than two years ago, Apple's (ticker: AAPL) iPad absolutely dominated the tablet space. As of mid-2012, Apple still claimed nearly 70% of the tablet market, while Android tablet manufacturers were struggling to make any headway.
Furthermore, the iPad Mini's fall 2012 arrival was an open secret by then. As a result, tablet market analysts expected Apple to further solidify its dominance of the tablet market over time.
However, the opposite has occurred. Not only has Apple's market share lead crumbled, but iPad sales growth has also come to a crashing halt. Tablet rivals such as Amazon.com (AMZN) and Samsung are gaining momentum by closing the quality gap with Apple and offering lower price points. Unless Apple can deliver vastly improved iPads later this year, the iPad's growth days are over.
Where did all the iPad buyers go?
It's hard to imagine right now, but just two years ago, Apple was growing iPad revenue by more than 60% and iPad unit sales by 80% -- even without an entry in the growing 7- and 8-inch tablet market! Last year, despite the addition of the iPad Mini, unit sales growth slowed to 22%.
Furthermore, Apple introduced the iPad Mini at a lower price point to combat cheap tablets from Amazon.com and other vendors. This led to a sharp drop in the average iPad selling price. As a result, iPad revenue grew only 3% in FY13. While iPad production costs are falling, it's safe to say that with iPad unit sales growth outpacing revenue growth 22% to 3%, iPad margins dropped dramatically.
iPad revenue growth did tick up to 7% last fall on a 14% increase in unit sales. However, that may prove to be Apple's best quarter of the new fiscal year. Demand appears to have fallen off a cliff after the holiday season.
As of Dec. 28 -- the last day of Apple's fiscal Q1 -- the iPad Air and iPad Mini Retina combined to account for 8.6% of all iPad usage, according to Fiksu. By the last day of Q2, usage for the new iPads had grown to 14.1% of the total, a 5.5 percentage point increase.
Considering that Apple benefited from "channel fill" in Q1 -- selling the new iPads to build up inventory at third-party retailers -- iPad unit sales could easily have fallen 40% sequentially this quarter. That would entail a significant step backward from Apple's 19.5 million iPad sales in Q2 last year, when Apple was meeting pent-up demand for the original iPad Mini.
The iPad Mini Retina is a flop
If I had to boil down Apple's iPad problems to a single issue, it's that the new iPad Mini Retina is a flop. After five months on the market, the iPad Mini Retina accounts for just 3.7% of all iPad usage (as of Thursday). By contrast, the third-generation iPad (the first to offer a Retina display) still accounts for 13.6% of iPad usage, even though it was on the market for less than eight months in 2012.
To some extent, weak sales of the iPad Mini Retina could be the result of a crowded iPad market. For just $100 more, tablet buyers can get a whole lot of extra screen real estate with the iPad Air. Alternatively, the original iPad Mini is $100 cheaper and offers "good enough" specs for many users.
However, there's also a quality issue. To be sure, the iPad Mini Retina has gotten good reviews from some respected publications. That said, many reviewers have found that Amazon's Kindle Fire HDX offers a much higher-quality display than the iPad Mini Retina.
This is a big problem for Apple, which spent most of 2012 training consumers to demand high-quality Retina displays for their mobile devices. Not only is Amazon offering lower price points -- the Kindle Fire HDX starts at $229 for the 7-inch version and $379 for the 8.9-inch version -- but it's also offering better quality on at least one critical feature.
Will Apple reclaim the lead?
In some respects, Apple's commanding lead in the tablet market remains intact. There are far more iPad-optimized apps than tablet-optimized Android apps. Even though Apple's technical lead has shrunk (or disappeared, perhaps), it still offers a superior overall user experience. That's a major reason iPad usage still dwarfs usage of all other tablets combined.
The iPad can still be a meaningful contributor to Apple's profitability even if sales growth remains small. As long as engagement remains high and the installed base of iPads increases, Apple can take a page out of Amazon.com's playbook by making money while people use their iPads: by selling apps, books, movies, and so on.
Indeed, strong iPad usage is undoubtedly one of the factors driving big gains in Apple's revenue from iTunes and the App Store. This revenue stream will become increasingly important to Apple's earnings in the next few years. However, what Apple shareholders really want to see is a return to solid sales growth for the iPad -- even if it continues losing market share.
Apple needs to double down on display quality if it wants to reignite iPad sales growth.
To reignite iPad sales growth, Apple may need to become somewhat more aggressive on pricing for the iPad Mini Retina. More importantly, it needs to make the display at least as good as what Amazon and other competitors are offering (and preferably better). Adding a faster processor and a fingerprint sensor may help sales a bit, but improving the display is the X-factor.
Foolish final thoughts
While I remain bullish about Apple's long-term prospects, the iPad no longer appears to be a major part of the Apple growth story -- aside from its role in driving content and app sales. iPad sales have stagnated in the last year, and the introduction of two new iPads last fall provided only a modest short-term sales bump.
To reverse this discouraging trend, Apple needs to double down on its pursuit of perfection for the next iPad Mini. If Apple can deliver an updated iPad Mini Retina with a best-in-class display this fall, it could rejuvenate iPad sales, especially if Apple can lower the price. Otherwise, investors may need to look to other product lines for long-term growth.
Less than two years ago, Apple's (ticker: AAPL) iPad absolutely dominated the tablet space. As of mid-2012, Apple still claimed nearly 70% of the tablet market, while Android tablet manufacturers were struggling to make any headway.
Furthermore, the iPad Mini's fall 2012 arrival was an open secret by then. As a result, tablet market analysts expected Apple to further solidify its dominance of the tablet market over time.
However, the opposite has occurred. Not only has Apple's market share lead crumbled, but iPad sales growth has also come to a crashing halt. Tablet rivals such as Amazon.com (AMZN) and Samsung are gaining momentum by closing the quality gap with Apple and offering lower price points. Unless Apple can deliver vastly improved iPads later this year, the iPad's growth days are over.
Where did all the iPad buyers go?
It's hard to imagine right now, but just two years ago, Apple was growing iPad revenue by more than 60% and iPad unit sales by 80% -- even without an entry in the growing 7- and 8-inch tablet market! Last year, despite the addition of the iPad Mini, unit sales growth slowed to 22%.
Furthermore, Apple introduced the iPad Mini at a lower price point to combat cheap tablets from Amazon.com and other vendors. This led to a sharp drop in the average iPad selling price. As a result, iPad revenue grew only 3% in FY13. While iPad production costs are falling, it's safe to say that with iPad unit sales growth outpacing revenue growth 22% to 3%, iPad margins dropped dramatically.
iPad revenue growth did tick up to 7% last fall on a 14% increase in unit sales. However, that may prove to be Apple's best quarter of the new fiscal year. Demand appears to have fallen off a cliff after the holiday season.
As of Dec. 28 -- the last day of Apple's fiscal Q1 -- the iPad Air and iPad Mini Retina combined to account for 8.6% of all iPad usage, according to Fiksu. By the last day of Q2, usage for the new iPads had grown to 14.1% of the total, a 5.5 percentage point increase.
Considering that Apple benefited from "channel fill" in Q1 -- selling the new iPads to build up inventory at third-party retailers -- iPad unit sales could easily have fallen 40% sequentially this quarter. That would entail a significant step backward from Apple's 19.5 million iPad sales in Q2 last year, when Apple was meeting pent-up demand for the original iPad Mini.
The iPad Mini Retina is a flop
If I had to boil down Apple's iPad problems to a single issue, it's that the new iPad Mini Retina is a flop. After five months on the market, the iPad Mini Retina accounts for just 3.7% of all iPad usage (as of Thursday). By contrast, the third-generation iPad (the first to offer a Retina display) still accounts for 13.6% of iPad usage, even though it was on the market for less than eight months in 2012.
To some extent, weak sales of the iPad Mini Retina could be the result of a crowded iPad market. For just $100 more, tablet buyers can get a whole lot of extra screen real estate with the iPad Air. Alternatively, the original iPad Mini is $100 cheaper and offers "good enough" specs for many users.
However, there's also a quality issue. To be sure, the iPad Mini Retina has gotten good reviews from some respected publications. That said, many reviewers have found that Amazon's Kindle Fire HDX offers a much higher-quality display than the iPad Mini Retina.
This is a big problem for Apple, which spent most of 2012 training consumers to demand high-quality Retina displays for their mobile devices. Not only is Amazon offering lower price points -- the Kindle Fire HDX starts at $229 for the 7-inch version and $379 for the 8.9-inch version -- but it's also offering better quality on at least one critical feature.
Will Apple reclaim the lead?
In some respects, Apple's commanding lead in the tablet market remains intact. There are far more iPad-optimized apps than tablet-optimized Android apps. Even though Apple's technical lead has shrunk (or disappeared, perhaps), it still offers a superior overall user experience. That's a major reason iPad usage still dwarfs usage of all other tablets combined.
The iPad can still be a meaningful contributor to Apple's profitability even if sales growth remains small. As long as engagement remains high and the installed base of iPads increases, Apple can take a page out of Amazon.com's playbook by making money while people use their iPads: by selling apps, books, movies, and so on.
Indeed, strong iPad usage is undoubtedly one of the factors driving big gains in Apple's revenue from iTunes and the App Store. This revenue stream will become increasingly important to Apple's earnings in the next few years. However, what Apple shareholders really want to see is a return to solid sales growth for the iPad -- even if it continues losing market share.
Apple needs to double down on display quality if it wants to reignite iPad sales growth.
To reignite iPad sales growth, Apple may need to become somewhat more aggressive on pricing for the iPad Mini Retina. More importantly, it needs to make the display at least as good as what Amazon and other competitors are offering (and preferably better). Adding a faster processor and a fingerprint sensor may help sales a bit, but improving the display is the X-factor.
Foolish final thoughts
While I remain bullish about Apple's long-term prospects, the iPad no longer appears to be a major part of the Apple growth story -- aside from its role in driving content and app sales. iPad sales have stagnated in the last year, and the introduction of two new iPads last fall provided only a modest short-term sales bump.
To reverse this discouraging trend, Apple needs to double down on its pursuit of perfection for the next iPad Mini. If Apple can deliver an updated iPad Mini Retina with a best-in-class display this fall, it could rejuvenate iPad sales, especially if Apple can lower the price. Otherwise, investors may need to look to other product lines for long-term growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)