Google corteja a China tras años de enfrentamiento a través del juego del go – El Mostrador

Google, el buscador más popular de internet y una de las mayores empresas del mundo, está bloqueado en China desde 2010, pero esta semana la compañía estadounidense ha intentado ganarse de nuevo a las autoridades del país con más internautas del mundo con algo tan sorprendente como un torneo de un juego mental.

Fuente: Google corteja a China tras años de enfrentamiento a través del juego del go – El Mostrador


Google forced to open up Android to rival search engines in Russia | Technology | The Guardian

Google has been forced to open up Android to rival search engines and applications in Russia, after settling a two-year battle with competition authorities for 439m roubles (£6.2m).

Fuente: Google forced to open up Android to rival search engines in Russia | Technology | The Guardian


Las 25 noticias más censuradas 2015-2016 (04): ¿Cómo controlar las máquinas electrónicas de votación? | Resumen

Desde los algoritmos de motor de búsqueda (search engine) a las máquinas electrónica de votación, la tecnología ofrece oportunidades para la manipulación de votantes y de los sufragios de maneras que podrían afectar profundamente los resultados de una elección.

Fuente: Las 25 noticias más censuradas 2015-2016 (04): ¿Cómo controlar las máquinas electrónicas de votación? | Resumen


Russian court ruling could hit Google – FT.com

A recent court decision could see Google’s market share in online search drop significantly in Russia and have repercussions for a similar antitrust case in the EU, according to Yandex, Google’s main competitor in Russia.

Fuente: Russian court ruling could hit Google – FT.com


Does it matter if Google is rewiring our minds? Ask Plato | Steven Poole | Opinion | The Guardian

Does anyone know anything any more? The ease with which one can look up facts on a phone at any time is one of the wonders of the modern age. But are we becoming too reliant on it? A new study indicates, at least, that there might be a snowball effect to such reliance. The more we depend on Google for information recall, it suggests, the more we will do so in the future.

Fuente: Does it matter if Google is rewiring our minds? Ask Plato | Steven Poole | Opinion | The Guardian


Yahoo was all too human for the internet — FT.com

Yahoo’s valuation grew to $128bn in spring 2000 because of investors’ faith that human curation could beat search engines — people browsing on slow dial-up lines needed a human interface. But technology triumphed over humanity. The internet was more powerful than they imagined and all that was left for Yahoo was likeability.

Fuente: Yahoo was all too human for the internet — FT.com


Search engines’ role in radicalisation must be challenged, finds study | Technology | The Guardian

Although the UK government’s Prevent strategy claims the internet must not be ungoverned space for Islamist extremism and British diplomats have taken the lead in the global communications fight against Islamic State on the net, the study suggests government agencies are only at the beginning of a “labyrinthine challenge”. So-called counter-narrative initiatives led by governments and civil society groups are “under-resourced and not achieving sufficient natural interest”, suggesting the battle of ideas is not even being engaged, let alone won.

Fuente: Search engines’ role in radicalisation must be challenged, finds study | Technology | The Guardian


Google es sancionado por primera vez en Perú por desconocer el Derecho al Olvido | Hiperderecho

La Dirección General de Protección de Datos Personales ha resuelto el primer caso donde se aplica la doctrina del “derecho al olvido” en Perú. Por primera vez, en una Resolución de marzo pasado, esta entidad administrativa que depende del Ministerio de Justicia le ordenó al buscador Google que ocultara ciertos resultados de búsqueda cuando alguien buscara el nombre de un ciudadano peruano. Decisiones similares han sido muy polémicas en otros países y, de seguro, acá también lo serán.

Fuente: Google es sancionado por primera vez en Perú por desconocer el Derecho al Olvido | Hiperderecho


Google search engine baffles public, Ofcom study shows — FT.com

Half of adults in Britain are unable to identify which Google search results are paid advertisements, according to a study by communications regulator Ofcom.The findings reveal a widespread lack of understanding about the workings of the world’s most popular search engine. They also come as Google faces increased regulatory scrutiny by European authorities.

Fuente: Google search engine baffles public, Ofcom study shows — FT.com


El “derecho al olvido” y los derechos humanos en América Latina y el Caribe: imprecisiones conceptuales, imprecisiones históricas « Digital Rights

En agosto de 2015, la Ciudad de México fue sede de la 8va reunión preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (LACIGF8). Allí, representantes de todos los sectores involucrados en el tema, venidos de América Latina y el Caribe, se reunieron para intercambiar experiencias y discutir los desafíos para la construcción de un Internet libre y de acceso universal. En la última década la región ha experimentado avances increíbles, sin embargo, los viejos problemas, como la concentración de acceso –a raíz de la concentración del ingreso– o la calidad de las redes, permanecen. Además, surgen nuevas preguntas, como los límites de acción del Estado en la lucha contra la delincuencia informática y las fronteras entre la libertad de expresión y el discurso de odio.

Fuente: El “derecho al olvido” y los derechos humanos en América Latina y el Caribe: imprecisiones conceptuales, imprecisiones históricas « Digital Rights


Google paid Apple $1bn to be default iOS search engine | Technology | The Guardian

Lawsuit proceedings reveal Apple was paid handsomely to make Google default search engine on mobile Safari, while company’s total revenue from Android just $31bn

Fuente: Google paid Apple $1bn to be default iOS search engine | Technology | The Guardian


Can anything curb the dominance of the internet's big guns? | Technology | The Guardian

Can anything curb the dominance of the internet’s big guns? | Technology | The Guardian.

An Amazon warehouse ‘We must all now pay rent to Amazon forever, or be bankrupted by the red-tape that it (and only it) can handily dispense with.’ Photograph: John Macdougall/AFP/Getty Images

The European anti-trust action against Google uses a silly rubric to get at a serious underlying problem.

The nominal issue is that Google preferentially directed comparison shoppers to its own e-commerce sites even when they weren’t the cheapest option. This would be sleazy if true. What’s certainly true is that Google’s shopping site has always sucked, is barely used, and is the least worrisome competition question raised by Google’s online dominance. Busting Google for sleazy e-commerce search results is like taking down Al Capone for tax-evasion.

The 21st-century has a competition problem. As we lurch toward the Piketty-complete apocalypse, every industry grows more winner-takes-all, dominated by titans with unthinkable market power, whose transgressions are largely unpunishable, because every one of them ends up being too big to fail.

The internet is no exception, though it might be. Other industries have intensive capital needs. Once a firm has globalised and amassed its war-chest of billions, an upstart doesn’t stand a chance. The thing that made the internet such a harbinger of disruption was the relatively small capital demands needed to start a service that competes with those behemoths. When you can start a payment processor, online marketplace or publisher without a fortune in furnished offices, manufacturing apparatus or mass-scale advertising, the fact that the incumbents needed to pay for all these things worked to your advantage. When you could show an ad and take an order from anywhere in the world as cheaply as you could serve a customer next door, the fact that yesterday’s collossuses had gone to the expense of opening offices on five continents give you the superior financial picture.


Google’s dominance faces a challenge at last. Shame it’s too late | Comment is free | The Guardian

Google’s dominance faces a challenge at last. Shame it’s too late | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Denmarks Economy Minister Margrethe Vest Taking on the search giant: EC competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager. Photograph: Keld Navntoft/AFP/Getty Images

So the European commission has finally decided that Google may have a case to answer in relation to claims that it has been abusing its monopoly position in search. On Thursday, Margrethe Vestager, the competition commissioner, announced that the preliminary findings of the commission’s investigation supported the claim that Google “systematically” gave prominence to its own ads, which amounted to an abuse of its dominant position in search. “I’m concerned,” she said, “that Google has artificially boosted its presence in the comparison shopping market with the result that consumers may not necessarily see what’s most relevant for them or that competitors may not get the commercial opportunity that their innovative services deserve.” Google, which, needless to say, disputes these claims, now has 10 weeks in which to respond.

To those of us who follow these things, the most interesting thing about Thursday’s announcement is the way it highlights the radical differences that are emerging between European and American attitudes to internet giants. The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that the US Federal Trade Commission had investigated similar claims about Google’s abuse of monopoly power in 2012 and that some of the agency’s staff had recommended charging the company with violating antitrust (unfair competition) laws. But in the end, the FTC backed off.

Now it turns out that its staff had been in regular communication with the European commission’s investigators in Brussels, which means that the Europeans knew what the Americans knew about Google’s activities. But the commission has acted, whereas the FTC did not. Why?

Leaving aside conspiracist explanations (eg that the American authorities don’t wish to enfeeble US companies that will ensure continued US economic hegemony in the digital era), the difference may be a reflection of the way in which antitrust law has been gradually infected by neoliberal ideology. Once upon a time, it was taken for granted that industrial monopolies were, by their very nature, intolerable for the simple reason that, as Lord Acton famously observed, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But then a radically different idea was injected into the legislative bloodstream by Robert Bork, a distinguished American lawyer, in his 1978 book, The Antitrust Paradox. One implication of Bork’s argument was that overwhelming market dominance was not necessarily a bad thing. Monopoly could be a reflection of a firm’s superior efficiency: we should expect truly exceptional firms to attract the majority of the customers, and so overzealous antitrust prosecutions could effectively punish excellence and thus disadvantage, rather than protect, consumers.


Europe accuses Google of illegally abusing its dominance – FT.com

Europe accuses Google of illegally abusing its dominance – FT.co

 

European Union's competition chief Margrethe Vestager speaks during a media conference regarding Google at EU headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, April 15, 2015. The European Union's executive hit Google with an official antitrust complaint on Wednesday that alleges the company abuses its dominance in Internet searches and also opened a probe into its Android mobile system. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)©AP

The EU’s antitrust chief has formally accused Google of illegally using its dominance in online search to steer European consumers to its own in-house shopping services in the opening salvo of what is expected to be a defining competition case of the internet era.

Margrethe Vestager also announced the European Commission would open an investigation into Google’s Android mobile platform amid allegations it forces wireless companies into uncompetitive contracts to use its software.

Ms Vestager made clear the move against Google Shopping was potentially just the first step in her case. She said her staff continued to investigate whether other Google services, such as its travel search function, similarly advantaged the company’s in-house service providers. She vowed to widen the case if abuses were found.

“I am concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service, in breach of EU antitrust rules,” Ms Vestager said. “Google now has the opportunity to convince the commission to the contrary.”

In an outline of its so-called statement of objections, the commission said that the US-based tech giant “systematically positions and prominently displays” its own shopping service in search results regardless of its merits, arguing the conduct started in 2008.

The commission said the conduct enabled Google’s service to achieve “higher rates of growth, to the detriment of rival comparison shopping services”.

Shopping was the first area in which the commission received a complaint over Google’s conduct, from the British price comparison site, Foundem. The complaints have since snowballed to include online travel services such as Expedia, as well as large players including Microsoft, and French and German publishers.

Google now has 10 weeks to respond and allay the commission’s concerns. It also has a right to a hearing in the coming months, normally attended by national representatives, in which all the main arguments can be aired.

If Google’s defence is unsuccessful, it faces a large fine, theoretically as much as 10 per cent of the previous year’s turnover, some $66bn in 2014.

 


Yahoo's search and rescue | afr.com

Yahoo’s search and rescue | afr.com.

Microsoft and Yahoo, numbers two and three in US internet search, could revisit their search agreement with each other.

by Lex

Internet search is a lucrative business – just ask Google. The company accounts for two-thirds of desktop searches in the US. But change is afoot this year. Microsoft and Yahoo, numbers two and three in US search, could revisit their search agreement with each other. Yahoo’s market share in this field has risen (now 13 per cent, ComScore says) after it became the default for Mozilla Firefox. Meanwhile Google’s exclusive search deal with Apple’s Safari browser is up for grabs; UBS estimates that the Safari deal could drive nearly $US8bn in sales for Google this year. So 2015 could become the year of the search wars.

This all matters more for Yahoo than for most of its rivals. Search will be a crucial part of the company after its stake in Alibabais spun out. Its search agreement with Microsoft accounted for 35 per cent of revenues last year.


Memex, el buscador de DARPA que rastrea la Deep Web

Memex, el buscador de DARPA que rastrea la Deep Web.

La Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), que depende del Gobierno de EEUU, ha creado un buscador capaz de bucear en las profundidades de la Deep Web

Algunas autoridades estadounidenses ya están usando Memex para investigar delitos relativos al tráfico de personas

Iceberg - Wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceberg_-_NOAA.jpg

Si internet fuera un iceberg, la Deep Web sería la parte oculta: se calcula que es mucho mayor que la Web visible

El término proviene de un artículo de 1945, publicado durante las últimas semanas de la II Guerra Mundial por el ingeniero y director de la U.S Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) Vannevar Bush. En él se describía Memex como una especie de invento electromecánico capaz de almacenar todos los libros, grabaciones y todo tipo de información con el fin de poder rescatarla a placer.

El ingenio no fue desarrollado, claro está, y hoy lo más parecido que hay son los buscadores de Internet. Pero estos se dejan una parte sustancial de la Red sin acceder, la Deep Web, que en 2013 saltó a los titulares de los medios por el caso Silk Road. La agencia gubernamental estadounidense DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) ha desarrollado un buscador que puede llegar a todos estos sitios donde no llegan Google, Yahoo o Bing. Lo han llamado Memex.

Aunque en principio la idea de DARPA es que Memex también pueda usarse en el ámbito comercial, lo que significaría que cualquier usuario podría utilizarlo, por el momento son las autoridades estadounidenses las que operan con él. Desde enero de 2014 sirve para las investigaciones sobre tráfico de personas que lleva a cabo el fiscal del distrito de Manhattan.


Google pierde terreno ante Yahoo! y Mozilla es el responsable – BioBioChile

Google pierde terreno ante Yahoo! y Mozilla es el responsable – BioBioChile.

AFP

AFP

Publicado por Eduardo Woo | La Información es de Agencia AFP
Google perdió porciones de mercado de la búsqueda en internet en Estados Unidos, mientras que Yahoo! empieza a remontar y está en su nivel más alto desde 2009, publicó la firma independiente StatCounter este jueves.

En diciembre, Google tenía el 75,2% del mercado en términos de páginas vistas, contra 79,3% en el mismo período en 2013. Es su nivel más bajo desde 2008, cuando comenzó el estudio de StatCounter, según un comunicado de la compañía.

Google se mantiene no obstante líder del mercado delante de Bing (12,5%) y Yahoo! (10,4%) que mejoró su participación. El grupo encabezado por Marissa Mayer sólo poseía 7,4% del mercado de búsquedas en internet en Estados Unidos en diciembre de 2013. Con 10,4%, está en su mejor nivel desde el 2009.

StatCounter indica que el repunte de Yahoo! coincide con el hecho de que Mozilla lo convirtió en su motor de búsqueda por defecto.


Bruselas reclama a Google un nuevo plan para cerrar el caso de abuso de posición | Economía | EL PAÍS

Bruselas reclama a Google un nuevo plan para cerrar el caso de abuso de posición | Economía | EL PAÍS.


La sede de Google en Fráncfort, Alemania. / BORIS ROESSLER (EFE)

Enviar a LinkedIn3
Enviar a TuentiEnviar a Eskup

EnviarImprimirGuardar

La Comisión Europea exigirá un nuevo acuerdo a Google para cerrar el mayor caso de abuso de posición dominante de los últimos años. El comisario de Competencia y vicepresidente del Ejecutivo comunitario, Joaquín Almunia, pidió ayer en una entrevista con Bloomberg TV “nuevas soluciones” para cerrar el caso de posible monopolio en el mercado de buscadores en internet. “Algunos denunciantes [competidores de Google] han presentado nuevos argumentos y datos que tenemos que analizar. Son preocupaciones que consideramos justificadas”, comentó Almunia.

 El Ejecutivo comunitario da así marcha atrás respecto al acuerdo presentado a principios de año. Google y la UE alcanzaron en febrero un principio de acuerdo por el cual el gigante tecnológico evitaba una multa millonaria —que podría alcanzar el 10% de sus ventas, unos 4.300 millones de euros— a cambio de añadir los logos y posicionar mejor los enlaces de sus rivales en los resultados de las búsquedas desde PC o móviles. La mayor preocupación de Bruselas era el trato preferencial que daba a sus propios buscadores especializados —Google Shopping o Google Finance— respecto a herramientas similares de la competencia.

Las negociaciones parecían haber llegado a un punto aceptable para todas las partes. Pero los nuevos argumentos presentados por la competencia del buscador hegemónico en Europa y en EE UU obligan a dar marcha atrás sobre un acuerdo que parecía cerrado.


El ‘derecho al olvido’ enreda a Google | Sociedad | EL PAÍS

El ‘derecho al olvido’ enreda a Google | Sociedad | EL PAÍS.

El buscador sondea qué criterios seguir para aplicar la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE

El logotipo de la compañía Google en su sede alemana de Berlín, el pasado mes de agosto /ADAM BERRY (GETTY )

A Gregory Sim, un hombre de negocios de Richmond, lo pillaron manteniendo relaciones sexuales en un tren camino a Londres. Los pasajeros alarmados avisaron a la policía, quien se lo llevó detenido. La historia la recogió el Daily Mail hace seis años. Sim, que debe ser un hombre de los que no olvida una humillación, este verano solicitó a Google que su desliz dejara de aparecer en el buscador. Y lo consiguió. Ejerció el derecho al olvido en Internet que el pasado mayo otorgó a cualquier europeo una sentencia lograda por otro ciudadano de a pie:Mario Costeja. Este español, cansado de aparecer en Google como moroso cuando tecleaba su nombre, reclamó al buscador que hiciera borrón y cuenta nueva. Cinco años después —el pasado mayo—, el Tribunal Europeo le concedía su deseo.

Hace tres meses que se puede pedir al gigante de Internet que olvide un nombre y a sus buzones ya han llegado más de 90.000 peticiones. La mitad han recibido un sí por respuesta, lo que supone que unos 328.000 enlaces no sean localizables con un simple tecleo. Pero el buscador ha tenido que dar marcha atrás en algunos casos tras las protestas de los medios afectados. Para intentar fijar unos criterios de cancelación, la empresa ha creado un comité. El próximo martes arrancan en Madrid una serie de encuentros en diferentes ciudades europeas en las que los expertos debatirán qué arrinconará la web y qué no. En paralelo, han surgido voces contrarias, entre ellas la de la fundación en pro de la libre información Wikimedia, que luchan por su particular derecho al no olvido: dos webs recogen las noticias que están siendo eliminadas.

Obligación de eliminar

La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre el derecho al olvido es taxativa: “El gestor de un motor de búsqueda está obligado a eliminar de la lista de resultados, obtenida tras una búsqueda efectuada a partir del nombre de una persona, vínculos a páginas web, publicadas por terceros y que contienen información relativa a esta persona, también en el supuesto de que este nombre o esta información no se borren previa o simultáneamente de estas páginas web, y, en su caso, aunque la publicación en dichas páginas sea en sí misma lícita”.

TelegraphThe Independent o The Guardian han visto cómo algunas de sus noticias se diluyen en el mundo virtual. Pero Google no tiene claro qué criterios seguir a la hora de desindexar las búsquedas. “Se trata de decisiones difíciles”, confiesa en su web. José Luis Piñar, titular de la cátedra Google sobre Privacidad, Sociedad e Innovación de la Universidad CEU San Pablo de Madrid y miembro del nuevo comité del buscador, confirma la dificultad ya que deben “fijar los criterios para evaluar y ponderar los derechos al olvido para miles de casos”. El experto apuesta por definir una serie de “categorías” en las que se puedan encajar las peticiones y que podrían estar listas a principios del próximo año.

“Que no se encuentre en Google no quiere decir que desaparezca”, explica Didac Sánchez, director de Eliminalia, una web especializada en limpiar biografías en Internet. Google cancela de sus resultados de búsqueda los enlaces que llevan a las páginas, pero la información no desaparece de la web de origen. “La sentencia solo habla del buscador, no del editor; hay que diferenciar los actantes”, explica Piñar.

Para evitar caer en el pozo del olvido, Wikimedia anunció el pasado agosto el lanzamiento de una página donde recogería los links que Google les había comunicado que serían desindexados. Son cerca de 50 pero aumentan cada semana. Entre ellos están las páginas de Wikipedia dedicadas a la Banda della Comasina, un grupo criminal activo durante los años setenta en Milán, y a su líder, Renato Vallanzasca. Otro que ha querido desaparecer es Gerry Hutch, conocido como El Monje, acusado de cometer los mayores robos a mano armada de Irlanda.

“Es un grave problema porque atenta contra el derecho de buscar y acceder a información libremente”, opina Jorge Sierra, presidente de Wikimedia en España. Para la organización existe una amenaza contra el conocimiento libre que puede provocar lo que llaman “agujeros de memoria”, que impiden un “acceso completo a una información veraz, neutral y exhaustiva”.


France requests most 'right to be forgotten' removals from Google | Technology | theguardian.com

France requests most ‘right to be forgotten’ removals from Google | Technology | theguardian.com.

Data made public puts Germany second and UK third, in response to Article 29 interrogation

 

 

google right to be forgotten
France tops the ‘right to be forgotten’ league table with more requests than any other European country. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

 

France has submitted more “right to be forgotten“ removal requests than any other European nation, Google revealed in a 13-page response to European data regulators.

About 17,500 individual requests involving around 58,000 URLs were received from France, with Germany second with 16,500 requests. The UK’s 12,000 requests placed it third, with Spain, Italy and the Netherlands following with 8,000, 7,500 and 5,500 requests respectively.

The data was made public in Google’s lengthy response to questions raised by the EU’s Article 29 working party, after it was hauled in by Europe’s data protection authorities in July.

Article 29, the collective working party Europe major data regulators, left Google, Microsoft and Yahoo a 26-point questionnaire demanding answers after Europe’s displeasure with the current handling of “right to be forgotten” requests.

Around 53% removed

Google has removed about 53% of URLs requested, with more information requested for around 15% of URLs. Around 32% of requests have been denied.

The requests only affect European searches, which has led Google and others to only remove search results from their European domains, such as google.co.uk, google.fr or google.de. Requests from Germany, for instance, will only be removed from searches made through the google.de site.

Google says that fewer than 5% of European users use its US domain google.com, of which it suggests travellers from the US make up a significant portion.

The removals only affect web and image search, as well as Google News. It is unknown whether removals affect video searches.

‘Ensures transparency and makes corrections possible’

Regulators have shown particular displeasure over Google’s notification of publishers of link removals from its search results.

Peter Fleischer, Google’s Global Privacy Counsel, defended the practice saying that it was an important part of the balancing act between the rights of citizens and information being in the public interest, as well as catching false claims.

“The notice to webmasters both ensures transparency and makes corrections possible when a removal proves to be a mistake,” Fleischer said in the letter. “We have received information from webmasters that has caused us to re-evaluate removals and reinstate search results.”

Google does not yet have any formal way for publishers to respond to the removal notices.

“In many cases, we lack the larger factual context for a request, without which it is difficult to balance the competing interests,” Fleischer explained.

People conveniently forget to include current information that may affect a removal request, like a recent conviction as an adult when requesting the removal of links to news about juvenile convictions.

Google is beholden to the accuracy of the information that the requester submits in many cases, making decisions over some nuanced removals difficult.

‘Fifty per cent of removal requests originated with competitors targeting each others’ sites’

Fleischer explained that abuse of removals procedures is already occurring through the right to be forgotten ruling, saying that some professional journalists have asked Google to remove articles that they wrote for a publication that they no longer work for.

“We have seen see many cases of business competitors trying to abuse removals processes to reduce each others’ web presence,” he said. “We have also seen examples of data subjects who indiscriminately submit many URLs that are displayed as search results for their name, even though some URLs are actually about another person with the same name.”

“Abuse of such processes is a well-documented phenomenon – one academic study based on Google’s published information about copyright-based removals estimated that more than 50% of removal requests originated with competitors targeting each others’ sites for removal from search results,” said Fleischer.


Gabriel Weinberg, de DuckDuckGo: "Si algo aprendimos es que nuestros datos personales no están a salvo"

Gabriel Weinberg, de DuckDuckGo: “Si algo aprendimos es que nuestros datos personales no están a salvo”.

DuckDuckGo es uno de los servicios que han experimentado un mayor crecimiento tras conocerse los programas de espionaje en Internet de la NSA al ofrecer al usuario un buscador que no rastrea nuestra actividad

Detrás de este proyecto está Gabriel Weinberg, un graduado del MIT que ha visto cómo su servicio ha experimentado un crecimiento del 300% en el último año

“Los usuarios están buscando alternativas que respeten su privacidad”

DuckDuckGo CEO with Logo.jpg

Gabriel Weinberg, CEO y fundador de DuckDuckGo

Cuando Edward Snowden destapó los programas deespionaje masivo en Internet de la NSA, fueron muchos los usuarios que miraron con recelo a las empresas de Internet. Prácticamente, toda nuestra actividad en la red acaba formando parte de un registro; empresas como Facebook o Google (como curiosidad vale la pena revisar nuestro historial de búsquedas) recopilan nuestra actividad como parte del “pago” que hacemos por usar sus servicios y, como ya nos mostró Snowden, estos datos han estado al alcance de Gobiernos como el de Estados Unidos.

Tras Snowden hemos tomado mucha más conciencia de la importancia de proteger nuestra privacidad y mantener a salvo nuestros datos personales; un cambio en nuestros hábitos que se ha visto reflejado en la adopción de servicios alternativos a los de las grandes empresas de la red.

El buscador de Google es el más utilizado por los usuarios; seguramente, cuando hablamos de buscadores pocos nombres nos vengan a la cabeza más allá de Google o Bing. Sin embargo, en el último año, se ha hecho popular un servicio llamado DuckDuckGo que nos ofrece un buscador capaz de conjugar lo mejor de la red (Yahoo!, Google o Wikipedia entre otros servicios) y, además, respetar nuestra privacidad, ya que este buscador no rastrea a sus usuarios. Gracias a esta premisa ha visto cómo su base de usuarios ha crecido exponencialmente.

Aprovechando el reciente lanzamiento de la nueva versión de DuckDuckGo, hemos tenido la oportunidad de hablar con Gabriel Weinberg, CEO y fundador de este servicio.


Righting the right to be forgotten | LinkedIn

Righting the right to be forgotten | LinkedIn.

The F-T just published a piece I wrote about the implementation of the right to be forgotten in Europe. Here is a draft from which the op-ed was drawn:

Last week Google formally launched a blue-ribbon committee of advisors to help it implement the European Court of Justice’s new “right to be forgotten.” Its work is cut out for it, as the search giant processes more than 70,000 requests since May to decouple a claimant’s name from possibly true but still “irrelevant” (and presumably reputation-damaging) search results. Turning theory into practice has revealed unanswered questions – and some outright flaws – in the Court’s decision, regardless of where you might stand on the right’s philosophical merits.

The first puzzle is transparency. Other types of compelled redactions, such as for alleged copyright infringement, occasion a notification to searchers that results have been altered. But a specific notice that a search on someone’s name is missing something could lead to a negative inference about the person even worse than the substance of whatever has been removed. So how to report on compelled takedowns in a way that is neither Orwellian nor self-defeating?

One idea is for Google and other affected search engines to contribute to a database of takedowns that independent academics can analyze in order to produce credible insights about how the new right is working in practice. Are public figures looking to scrub their records to avoid scrutiny, or are the requestors more often private citizens? Are the takedowns focusing on content within obscure Web-originating message boards, or on archives of government records or newspaper articles? Without a record of takedowns, there will be no way to understand how the use and impact of the right are unfolding.

The second puzzle is accountability. With Google’s European market share around 90%, name-specific content that’s delisted might as well be gone entirely – indeed, it’s Google’s power that makes the assertion of the right meaningful. But here state power is being exercised without the involvement of the state: a request is made of Google for a redaction, and Google decides how to handle it. If the request is denied, the claimant might escalate the issue to his or her local data protection authority. But if the request is agreed to, there’s no means for review. Under the Court’s decision, the public’s right to know is to be balanced against a claimant’s right to privacy – but there’s no easy way for the public to remonstrate against poor balancing.


From Paris’s Left Bank, tiny Qwant tries to take on Google – FT.com

From Paris’s Left Bank, tiny Qwant tries to take on Google – FT.com.

From quants to Qwant: Jean-Manuel Rozan’s eclectic career, including disaster at La Coupole and trading alongside Nassim Taleb, is a good fit for the daring of his initiative to offer search engine users a different experience©Magali Delpore

From quants to Qwant: Jean-Manuel Rozan’s career, including disaster at La Coupole and trading alongside Nassim Taleb, is a good fit for the daring of his search engine initiative

In a small, dark office, off a cobbled courtyard tucked away in a quiet street of Paris’s Left Bank, Jean-Manuel Rozan is plotting to take the fight to Google.

On paper, there can be few less promising ideas. Google dominates search engine markets in Europe and the US, and with every passing day, it seems, the California-based company expands into yet another realm of people’s lives – both virtual and real.

Yet in just over a year of getting up and running, Mr Rozan’s Qwant search engine has at­tract­ed a small but growing crowd of aficionados, thanks to its differences from Google, including an emphasis on privacy for users. The name is homage to the physics term “quantum” but al­so to “quants”, so-called because they specialise in quantitative, maths-based finance.

Last month, Mr Rozan even won the backing of Axel Springer, publisher of Bild, Europe’s top-selling newspaper. The German group, whose chief executive Mathias Döpfner has been an outspoken critic of Google, bought 20 per cent of Qwant for a figure estimated in the region of €5m.

Mr Rozan is quite clear about his start-up’s potential attraction to users: “The direction the internet is taking makes it inevitable that people are going to need privacy,” he says, speaking in the basement kitchen, with heavy timbered beams and two Nespresso machines side by side, that doubles as Qwant’s conference room.

That Mr Rozan, a 59-year-old investor born in Switzerland to French parents should be behind such a project fits with an eclectic, daring and even eccentric, career. Raised in Paris, he moved to the US to study at Wharton business school, and landed a job at Salomon Brothers. He left a year later for a disastrous foray into the restaurant business.

Convinced by a friend that his fut­ure lay in setting up and taking a stake in a New York branch of Paris’s famed La Coupole brasserie, it went horribly wrong when critics sank their teeth into the restaurant. Scathing write-ups included this from the New Yorker: “La Coupole is turning out badly prepared food that is a perfect match for the inept service.”

Faced with few options, Mr Rozan took up options trading as a market maker on the New York Futures Exchange thanks to a friend, who backed him with $50,000. But it was tough. “With $50,000, I had to make $7,000 – $8,000 a month to cover costs. Every time I had a bad streak, I was at starvation levels,” says Mr Rozan. “All my friends were doing great.”

The break came in 1985 when he got a job at Banque Indosuez, where he began trading currency options. There he shared a desk with Nassim Taleb, a pioneer of so-called “tail risk hedging”, who would later write The Black Swan. Mr Rozan describes Mr Taleb as “like a brother”. Mr Rozan’s own book Le Fric, also about financial markets and derivatives trading, published in French in 1999, did less well.

Yet those years in finance set up Mr Rozan, a talented amateur show jum­per who once finished fourth in France’s national championships, for his current investor role. So far, he has sunk €1m of his own money into Qwant, with another €2.5m raised most­ly from friends. His co-founders are Éric Léandri, a computer whizz, and Patrick Constant, whose work as a search-platforms developer caught the eye.

So what do Axel Springer and others see in Qwant? There are two main answers – social and privacy.

Quant

The Qwant search engine is intended to offer users a different experience

On the first, Qwant turns up content from social networks such as Twitter, giving search results a more lively and up-to-date feel. “Type ‘Obama’ into Google and most of what you will see is what you saw yesterday,” says Mr Rozan. “Our results change all the time.”

Unlike Google’s homepage, Qwant is supremely customisable, so users can not only easily undertake an internet search based on specific language and geography, but also arrange the findings in many different formats. Video content from a range of sources is displayed in a horizontal strip across the top.

In default mode, Qwant’s findings for any given search term are display­ed in five distinct vertical columns: one that resembles a traditional Google result; a second based on the latest news rel­ated to the search term; a third, Qnowledge Graph, that piggy backs on Wikipedia entries; and a fourth that picks up breaking comments from social networks.

The fifth column, Shopping, which is where Qwant plans to make its money, lists sites selling a wide range of products related to your search term. Entering “Mexico” a few minutes after it lost to the Netherlands in the World Cup turned up a pair of Onitsuka Tiger Mexico 66 retro sports shoes. Put all this together, and Mr Rozan believes that Qwant is “more exploration engine than search engine”.

The more Google expands and buys other internet businesses it wants you to visit, the more there is a market for products like ours

But perhaps the more compelling reason to use Qwant is that it does not track its users or monitor their behaviour. “You don’t need to keep someone’s data to give them something relevant,” says Mr Rozan.

That leads to another potential benefit: the absence of annoying and intrusive advertising related to recent searches or even to things mentioned in an email to a family member.

In other words, says Mr Rozan, Qwant offers users privacy in an experience that is removed from the in­creas­ingly joined-up online world of Google. “The more Google expands and buys other internet businesses it wants you to visit, the more there is a market for products like ours.”

The company has 25 employees, with most of the software engineers based in Nice – “software engineers are happier if they have sun and sea” – as well as some employees in Poland.

Instead of mainstream advertising, Mr Rozan and his partners have turned to the hacker and search engine optimiser communities to spread the word. “They like our values, the privacy issue, and they understand that our technology res­pects that promise,” he says. “We are trying to appeal to the top 100 hackers and SEOs, who are respected and followed by the next 50,000. The internet has a centre and it spins off energy to the outside.”

With Qwant still at a very early stage, Mr Rozan declines to reveal revenues. Its 6m to 10m web sear­ches a day, compared with Goog­le’s 3.5bn, means Qwant is a long way yet from being a serious contender. It is also not for everyone, possibly bec­ause of the unfamiliar interface and functions: an unscientific poll of local Parisians, for instance, turns up responses from “hate it” to “maybe”.

But Mr Rozan and Mr Léandri bel­ieve Google’s expansion into different businesses and its attempts to join them together provides an important space in the market as users want a choice.

“They are going to want and need alternatives,” says Mr Rozan.


Google comienza a aplicar el derecho al olvido y varios medios se quejan

Google comienza a aplicar el derecho al olvido y varios medios se quejan.

Varios medios de comunicación se han quejado por la retirada de los resultados de Google de algunos de sus artículos, que ellos consideran de interés público

El buscador ha empezado a aplicar la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, que garantiza el derecho al olvido a los ciudadanos europeos, aunque la AEPD considera que podría estar extralimitándose

 

 

Medios británicos critican la "torpeza" de Google al aplicar el derecho al olvido

 

 

La puesta en marcha del ‘ derecho al olvido’ por parte de Google, según lo dictado por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE), ha sembrado la polémica entre los medios de comunicación. Los primeros en dar la voz de alarma han sido los afectados, como la BBC o The Guardian, a quienes el buscador ha notificado la retirada de algunos de sus artículos a causa de las solicitudes recibidas.

Una noticia en The Guardian sobre un árbitro de fútbol que mintió sobre un penalti fue retirada, aunque ante las quejas del periódico británico la compañía ha dado marcha atrás. La BBC recibió una comunicación sobre un artículo en el que se contaba la historia del ex CEO de Merrill Lynch, Stan O’Neal, cuyas prácticas de riesgo llevaron a la institución financiera a una situación desastrosa y quien después cobró una prima por despido de 161,5 millones de dólares. En este caso no se sabe quién ha pedido la eliminación de los resultados porque el enlace sigue apareciendo si se busca ‘Stan O’Neal’.

Los artículos no desaparecen de los resultados de Google (ni mucho menos de Internet, aunque a veces el buscador se identifique con la Red), solamente permanecen ilocalizables si se busca el nombre del implicado en cuestión, quien ha realizado la solicitud de retirada, desde dentro de la Unión Europea. También aparecen buscándolos desde google.com.

Si se buscan los hechos que se narran en el artículo los resultados del buscador lo muestran. El formulario online que tienen que rellenar quienes quieren hacer uso de su derecho al olvido exige que la petición la haga la persona en cuestión o su representante legal, aportando la identificación correspondiente.

El autor del artículo sobre Stan O’Neal, Robert Peston, ha aclarado en un post que el artículo cuenta con un buen número de comentarios y es posible que uno de sus autores haya sido el que ha enviado la petición a Google. A raíz de esto lanza una cuestión al aire y se pregunta sobre toda la gente que ha dejado comentarios en sitios web y blogs.

El periódico El Mundo, en España, también ha recibido una notificación por parte de Google, sobre la retirada de una noticia relacionada con un proceso judicial contra varios directivos de la entidad Riviera Coast Invest. Pese a que gran parte de la polémica se ha generado en torno al artículo sobre Stan O’Neal en la BBC, donde el protagonista del mismo no ha tenido nada que ver, la preocupación ante la retirada de enlaces de interés público por parte del buscador persiste.


Forget Me: the real reasons people ask Google to erase their online presences | Technology | The Guardian

Forget Me: the real reasons people ask Google to erase their online presences | Technology | The Guardian.

Irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate? A new website helps you to explain exactly how to get information about yourself removed from Google – so what are the most frequent reasons customers give?
erase history delete button

Forget everything … more than 40,000 requests for removal of online data have been made via the Forget Me website. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian

Why do people exercise their “right to be forgotten” by Google? The website Forget Me, which launched last week and offers users a submission service to Google with templated forms that tick all the search engine’s legal boxes, has released a breakdown of its customer’s motivations.

Invasion of privacy accounted for 306 of the 1,106 submissions that Forget Me filed to Google as of Tuesday, with disclosure of home address the largest subcategory (66 submissions). “Negative opinions”, “redundancy” and “origin, nationality or ethnic identity” follow. Sexual orientation appears way down the list of privacy-related reasons for removing web pages, below disclosure of income and philosophical belief. Forget Me’s sample of just over 1,000 submissions represents a small percentage of the 40,000-plus requests received by Google, but is still large enough to indicate the most pressing concerns.


Derecho al olvido: Parlamentarios chilenos presentan ley para que Google elimine datos personales – BioBioChile

Derecho al olvido: Parlamentarios chilenos presentan ley para que Google elimine datos personales – BioBioChile.

 

Robert Scoble (CC)Robert Scoble (CC)

Publicado por Christian Leal | La Información es de Senado de Chile
 

¿Qué pasaría si cada uno de nosotros pudiera solicitar que nuestros datos publicados en la web pudieran ser borrados para siempre? Seguramente muchas personas se evitarían una serie de complicaciones que se generan porque demasiada información está a disposición de todos a un clic.

Con esa idea en mente, los senadores Francisco Chahuán, Carlos Bianchi, Hernán Larraín, Baldo Prokurica y Eugenio Tuma presentaron una moción que modifica la ley sobre protección de la vida privada, para establecer el derecho al olvido de los datos personales almacenados en motores de búsqueda y sitios web.

La propuesta recientemente ingresada será vista por la Comisión de Economía, la que deberá estudiar las ideas matrices.

Sentencia Internacional

Los citados legisladores reconocen que es necesario ajustar nuestra legislación a los estándares internacionales. Esto puesto que en mayo pasado, el Tribunal Europeo de Justicia declaró que los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea (UE) tienen derecho a pedir el retiro de información irrelevante o bochornosa que apareciera al buscar su nombre.

Así las cosas, la empresa Google empezó a eliminar algunos resultados de sus búsquedas a petición de los usuarios. Previamente, la firma estableció una interfaz en Internet para que éstos registren sus quejas.

Ley actual en Chile

El llamado derecho al olvido no está consagrado en nuestra legislación. La norma sobre protección de la vida privada de 1999, establece que “los datos personales deberán ser eliminados o cancelados cuando su almacenamiento carezca de fundamento legal o cuando hayan caducado”.

Asimismo, indica que “la información deberá ser modificada cuando sea errónea, inexacta, equívoca o incompleta”. También establece que “se bloquearán los datos personales cuya exactitud no pueda ser establecida o cuya vigencia sea dudosa y respecto de los cuales no corresponda la cancelación. El responsable del banco de datos personales procederá a la eliminación, modificación o bloque de los datos, en su caso, sin necesidad de requerimiento del titular”.

Los congresistas en la comisión, reconocen que la norma en vigencia solo hace alusión al tratamiento que hacen los registros o bancos de datos. “Sin embargo no se contempla este mismo derecho para eliminar los datos que se contengan en motores de búsqueda o sitios web”.


Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’.

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf, National Post
Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2014

Damian Dovarganes/The Associated Press files

In a week-long series, National Post contributors reflect on a recent European Court of Justice judgment requiring Internet search providers to remove links to embarrassing information. Should Canadian citizens have a ‘right to be forgotten’?

A man walks into a library. He asks to see the librarian. He tells the librarian there is a book on the shelves of the library that contains truthful, historical information about his past conduct, but he says he is a changed man now and the book is no longer relevant. He insists that any reference in the library’s card catalog and electronic indexing system associating him with the book be removed, or he will go to the authorities.

The librarian refuses, explaining that the library does not make judgments on people, but simply offers information to readers to direct them to materials from which they can make their own judgment in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.” The librarian goes on to explain that if the library had to respond to such requests, it would become a censorship body — essentially the arbiter of what information should remain accessible to the public. Moreover, if it had to respond to every such request, the burden would be enormous and there would be no easy way to determine whether a request was legitimate or not. The indexing system would become swiss cheese, with gaps and holes. And, most importantly, readers would be deprived of access to historical information that would allow them to reach their own conclusions about people and events.

The librarian gives this example: What if someone is running for office but wants to hide something from his unsavory past by blocking access to the easiest way for voters to uncover those facts? Voters would be denied relevant information, and democracy would be impaired.

The man is not convinced, and calls a government agent. The government agent threatens to fine or jail the librarian if he does not comply with the man’s request to remove the reference to the unflattering book in the library’s indexing system.

Is this a scenario out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four? No, this is the logical extension of a recent ruling from Europe’s highest court, which ordered Google to remove a link to truthful information about a person, because that person found the information unflattering and out of date. (The scale of online indexing would of course be dramatically more comprehensive than a library indexing system.)


Google begins removing 'right to be forgotten' search links | Technology | The Guardian

Google begins removing ‘right to be forgotten’ search links | Technology | The Guardian.

Google has had thousands of requests, but will not say how many search histories or web pages have been tweaked
google search histories

Google will not reveal how many search histories it has been asked to change, following the European court of justice ruling in the ‘right to be forgotten’ case. Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters

Google has begun removing search links to content in Europe under the “right to be forgotten” ruling, which obliges it not to point to web pages with “outdated or irrelevant” information about individuals.

Searches made on Google’s services in Europe using peoples’ names includes a section at the bottom with the phrase “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”, and a link to a page explaining the ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) in May 2014.

However searches made on Google.com, the US-based service, do not include the same warning, because the ECJ ruling only applies within Europe.

Google would not say how many peoples’ search histories have been tweaked, nor how many web pages have been affected. The companyrevealed in an interview with chief executive Larry Page at the end of May that it had received thousands of requests for changes to search results within days of the ECJ ruling.


Senadores lanzan proyecto de ley del derecho al olvido en Internet – El Mostrador

Senadores lanzan proyecto de ley del derecho al olvido en Internet – El Mostrador.

Proponen agregar el siguiente párrafo: “La falta de pronunciamiento sobre la solicitud del requirente o denegación de la misma por parte del responsable de dichos motores de búsqueda o sitios web, le dará derecho al titular a ejercer el recurso contemplado en el artículo 16 (recurrir de amparo ante los tribunales de Justicia)”.

facebook-menores-nios-internet

Un grupo de senadores lanzó un proyecto de ley para instaurar el derecho al olvido, que obliga a que los buscadores de internet eliminen información equivocada, innecesaria o perjudicial sobre los ciudadanos en la red de redes, informaron fuentes parlamentarias.

La Corte Europea de Justicia, con sede en Luxemburgo, dictó sobre esta materia un fallo que tuvo fuertes repercusiones más allá de las fronteras de la Unión Europea, el Atlántico y el Ecuador.

En ese contexto, senadores chilenos de distintas corrientes políticas plantearon que se modifique el artículo 1 de la ley 19.628, sobre protección de la vida privada, agregándole el siguiente párrafo:

“Toda persona tiene derecho a exigir de los motores de búsqueda o sitios web la eliminación de sus datos personales. La falta de pronunciamiento sobre la solicitud del requirente o denegación de la misma por parte del responsable de dichos motores de búsqueda o sitios web, le dará derecho al titular a ejercer el recurso contemplado en el artículo 16 (recurrir de amparo ante los tribunales de Justicia)”.

Este proyecto de ley está siendo impulsado por Francisco Chahuán (RN), Carlos Bianchi (independiente), Hernán Larraín (UDI), Baldo Prokurica (RN) y Eugenio Tuma (PPD).

En Europa, el derecho al olvido ha estado cargado de polémicas. Por un lado, se critica que no se eliminen las páginas web con datos personales, algo que la propuesta chilena sí quiere incluir.

Por otro lado, se debate el gran riesgo que corre la libertad de expresión y preocupa en Europa que desde el fallo del tribunal expolíticos tratando de limpiar su pasado, personas condenadas por pedofilia, y médicos que quieren eliminar críticas negativas por parte de sus pacientes, se hayan acogido a la ley.


¿Derecho al olvido? Cuatro razones para no precipitarse | Jan Malinowski

¿Derecho al olvido? Cuatro razones para no precipitarse | Jan Malinowski.

 

Jan Malinowski Headshot
Publicado: Actualizado:

 

 

 

La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en el caso Google es un punto de inflexión importante. Algunos ven en ella un triunfo del derecho a la privacidad. Otros consideran que es la mayor amenaza a la libertad de expresión que hayamos presenciado en décadas, y que amenaza la posibilidad misma de exigir responsabilidades en el interés público. O vaticinan el apocalipsis en un supuesto derecho a reescribir la historia.

Se acumulan las solicitudes para que Google elimine contenido de los resultados de búsqueda, incluso información sobre conductas censurables por parte de personas del mundo de la política. Google ha anunciado un formulario en línea para que los usuarios puedan solicitar la eliminación de contenidos. Está claro que habrá un antes y que habrá un después de la sentencia del TJUE en el caso Google. Pero no hay que exagerar las consecuencias de la sentencia. Eso es, si las cosas no se tuercen. Ahí van cuatro razones para no precipitarse.


Google search results may indicate 'right to be forgotten' censorship | Technology | The Guardian

Google search results may indicate ‘right to be forgotten’ censorship | Technology | The Guardian.

Search engine considering alert at bottom of results pages to show links have been removed after landmark EU privacy rulingl
Google search

Google may include an alert on search results pages to indicate legally requested links have been removed. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Google is planning to flag up search results it has censored following a controversial ruling that allows European citizens the right to demand information on them be erased.

The search engine is considering placing an alert at the bottom of each page where it has removed links in the wake of the landmark “right to be forgotten” ruling last month.

The decision by Europe’s highest court allows people living in Europe to ask for links to “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” material to be removed from search results, although it will still be available on the original web page.

Google has since been deluged with tens of thousands of requests frominternet users to take down sensitive information on them since the ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) on 13 May.

It is understood Google is planning to flag censored search results in a similar way to how it alerts users to takedown requests over copyright infringing material. For example, a Google search for “Adele MP3” shows that it has removed a number of results from that page after receiving complaints under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Google is also planning to include information about “right to be forgotten” removals in its biannual transparency report, which reveals the number of government requests worldwide to remove material from its search results.

Google said last Monday that it had so far received 41,000 requests to take down sensitive material from people in Europe since the landmark ruling, including a politician with a murky past, a convicted paedophile and a man who had attempted to murder his family and wanted to remove links about his crime. Google chief executive Larry Page has said that nearly a third of the 41,000 requests received related to a fraud or scram, one fifth concerned serious crime, and 12% are connected to child pornography arrests.


“Derecho al Olvido”: Un rompecabezas para Google – BioBioChile

“Derecho al Olvido”: Un rompecabezas para Google – BioBioChile.

 

Google DoodleGoogle Doodle

 

Publicado por Gabriela Ulloa | La Información es de Agencia AFP

 

En nombre del “derecho al olvido”, impuesto por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, cientos de miles de páginas deberían ser ocultadas por Google.

¿Cómo y a quién se aplicará esa regla? Los expertos en “e-reputación” auguran un gigantesco rompecabezas.


Google recibe 12.000 solicitudes de europeos que quieren borrar sus datos | Sociedad | EL PAÍS

Google recibe 12.000 solicitudes de europeos que quieren borrar sus datos | Sociedad | EL PAÍS.


Google ofrece desde el viernes un formulario para que los europeos soliciten la retirada de información sobre ellos. / FRANCOIS LENOIR (REUTERS)

Enviar a LinkedIn39
Enviar a TuentiEnviar a MenéameEnviar a Eskup

EnviarImprimirGuardar

Google ha recibido en un día más de 12.000 solicitudes de usuarios europeos que quieren que el buscador de Internet borre sus datos personales no relevantes de la Red, según confirmaron fuentes de la compañía estadounidense. Cuando Google cerró el viernes sus oficinas tras el anuncio ese mismo día por parte de su consejero delegado, Larry Page, de la introducción en Europa de un formulario en línea que permite a los usuarios ejercer el “derecho al olvido” en la Red, ya tenía en sus buzones de entrada más de 12.000 peticiones. Hubo ciertos momentos a lo largo de esa jornada en los que el gigante estadounidense de Internet recibió de media unas 20 solicitudes por minuto, según las mismas fuentes.

Google ha lanzado el formulario en respuesta a una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (UE), que reconoció el derecho de los ciudadanos a ser “olvidados” en Internet, es decir, a poder reclamar a éste y a otros buscadores que retiren los enlaces a informaciones que les perjudican y ya no son pertinentes.


Privacy call for internet browsing in the wake of Edward Snowden leaks | Technology | The Guardian

Privacy call for internet browsing in the wake of Edward Snowden leaks | Technology | The Guardian.

Survey reveals that more than eight out of 10 internet users believe their search history should be kept private

 

 

online privacy

85% of people surveyed in the poll thought it ‘fairly important’, ‘very important’ or ‘essential’ to keep browsing records private. Photograph: Alamy

 

More than eight out of 10 internet users believe browsing history should be kept private, according to a survey.

The poll, commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust one year after US whistleblower Edward Snowdon leaked top-secret files revealing the activities of UK and US intelligence agencies, showed 85% believe it is “fairly important”, “very important” or “essential” to keep browsing records private.

Only 12% believe it is not important, the survey conducted by Ipsos Mori showed.

In addition, respondents supported a call by the Don’t Spy On Us campaign for senior judges rather than ministers to sign off on warrants for data collection of electronic communications, when asked where oversight of the intelligence agencies should lie.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “This research clearly highlights that the British public has little faith that politicians are properly monitoring how the security services are using surveillance powers.


Google abre la puerta al “derecho al olvido” digital en Europa – BioBioChile

Google abre la puerta al “derecho al olvido” digital en Europa – BioBioChile.

 

GEORGES GOBET / AFP PHOTOGEORGES GOBET / AFP PHOTO
Publicado por Gabriela Ulloa | La Información es de Agencia AFP
 

Google abrió a los europeos la posibilidad de pedir que sus servicios de búsqueda en Internet “olviden” la información que les concierne, acatando una decisión del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

La corte estimó el 13 de mayo que los particulares tenían el derecho de pedir directamente a los motores de búsqueda que se eliminaran las páginas con información personal, especialmente si era perjudicial o inexacta.

El gigante estadounidense, por mucho el motor de búsqueda en Internet más importante del mundo, publicó el jueves un formulario accesible a los europeos que les permite pedir la supresión de resultados de las búsquedas.

“El fallo judicial implica que Google tiene que encontrar un difícil equilibrio entre el derecho al olvido de un particular y el derecho a la información del público”, dijo un portavoz del grupo en una declaración enviada a la AFP.

Google creará un comité de consulta para ayudar a establecer este equilibrio en el que estarán, entre otros, Eric Schmidt, ex directivo de Google; Jimmy Wales, fundador de Wikipedia; y el profesor de ética del Instituto Oxford Internet, Luciano Floridi.

“Estoy muy complacido de integrar el comité asesor internacional de Google para evaluar los desafíos éticos y legales que presenta Internet”, dijo Floridi en una declaración escrita.

“Es una interesante iniciativa que probablemente requiera pensarlo profunda y filosóficamente”.

El formulario que se titula “Supresión de contenido de Google”, publicado en el apartado de ayuda del usuario, exige que los usuarios se identifiquen, concreten qué vínculos (links) quieren eliminar y expliquen el motivo.

Los particulares que quieran utilizar esta opción deberán enviar una copia de su documento de identidad y poner su firma electrónica en el formulario.

Las peticiones serán examinadas de manera individualizada y no se tratarán de forma automática.


Only the powerful will benefit from the 'right to be forgotten' | Mark Stephens | Comment is free | The Guardian

Only the powerful will benefit from the ‘right to be forgotten’ | Mark Stephens | Comment is free | The Guardian.


The European search engine ruling weakens our democratic foundations and could lead to our history being rewritten
'Those with the resources to pursue complaints are likely to be political and business elites.'

‘Those with the resources to pursue complaints are likely to be political and business elites about whom the public should demand unfettered search results.’ Photograph: Datacraft/Getty Images/Sozaijiten

Last week’s judgment by the European court of justice allowing anyone to demand that a search engine should remove unwanted information from its index – even if it is accurate, lawful, and publicly available elsewhere – is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

Since the ruling an ex-politician seeking re-election, a man convicted of possessing child abuse images and a doctor seeking to remove negative reviews from patients, are reported to be among the first to send takedown notices to Google. Privacy is a universal right that must be protected, but this overreaching judgment is far more likely to aid the powerful in attempts to rewrite history, than afford individuals more influence over their online identities.

Last June the EU’s advocate general argued that search engine suppression of legitimate public domain information “would amount to censorship”. The ruling, in a case brought by a Spanish citizen about links to the auctioning of his home that appeared in search results, allows individuals to petition search engine operators – a term that, as well as Google, could also include Facebook, Microsoft, Baidu, Yandex, DuckDuckGo and more – to remove content they consider “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant”.

What’s more, it puts companies in the nearly impossible position of deciding what information meets this vague threshold. Holding intermediaries responsible for determining what information is in the public interest is dangerous and unworkable: more than 100 billion searches occur each month on Google alone, which could in theory be subject to review-on-demand for adequacy and relevance, rather than accuracy or lawfulness.

The unprecedented burden the court seeks to place on online intermediaries would damage the internet for all users, especially those in Europe. Online innovation stemming from the internet, from search engines to social media, has been made possible by protecting intermediaries, not by incentivising them to censor information.

The individuals with the motivation and resources to pursue complaints are likely to be those political and business elites about whom the public interest should demand unfettered search results. And companies will face pressure to remove whatever is asked of them rather than face the legal costs of challenging illegitimate requests.


No, Google did not rig Indian elections | Technology | theguardian.com

No, Google did not rig Indian elections | Technology | theguardian.com.

Reports based on press release from unpublished study suggesting search results could be used to ‘fix’ election untrue

 

 

Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate for India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), shows his ink-marked finger to his supporters after casting his vote at a polling station during the seventh phase of India's general election in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.
Prime ministerial candidate and Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi shows his ink-marked finger to supporters after casting his vote. Photograph: AMIT DAVE/REUTERS

 

“Did Google fix Lok Sabha elections?” asks the India Times. Computer Business Review appeared more certain with the “How Google search results are influencing elections” headline for its version of the story.

Even the Daily Mail joined in, asking “Could Google fix an election?”

Only one thing: Google is not “fixing” the Lok Sabha elections. The company is absolute in its denial. “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning,” a spokesman told the Guardian. “Our results reflect what’s on the web, and we rigorously protect the integrity of our algorithms. It would undermine people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course.”

Indeed, Google has no intention of doing so; and its search results have not influenced the Indian elections beyond providing links to information that is on the web.

So why the furore? The stories all lead back to a press release put out on 13 May by the “American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology“, an independent – that is, unaffiliated with any major university – research organisation based in California. That release was headlined “Could Google have fixed the Lok Sabha elections? A landmark new study in India shows it’s possible”.


La UE obliga a Google a retirar enlaces con información lesiva | Sociedad | EL PAÍS

La UE obliga a Google a retirar enlaces con información lesiva | Sociedad | EL PAÍS.

 

Una tableta con Google en la página de inicio. / reuters

La justicia europea defiende el derecho al olvido. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) ha fallado hoy que “en determinadas condiciones” los buscadores están obligados a eliminar de su lista de resultados (obtenida tras una búsqueda con el nombre de una persona) los enlaces a páginas web publicadas por terceros que contengan información relativa a esa persona. El alto tribunal precisa que el interesado debe presentar su solicitud “directamente” al gestor del motor de búsqueda (Google, Yahoo, Bing o cualquier otro), que deberá examinar si es fundada. En caso de que el buscador no acceda a retirar la información, la persona afectada podrá acudir a la autoridad de control o a los tribunales con el fin de que estos lleven a cabo las comprobaciones necesarias y, en su caso, ordenen al motor de búsqueda la retirada de la información. Es decir, el TJUE abre la puerta a un examen caso por caso de cada una de las reclamaciones presentadas a cualquier buscador. El Tribunal de Luxemburgo se pronuncia así sobre el denominado derecho al olvido en el litigio que enfrenta a la Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) y a Google.

El fallo del Tribunal de Luxemburgo tiene incidencia en dos centenares de casos en los que se reclama el derecho al olvido y que están congelados en la Audiencia Nacional a la espera de la resolución dictada hoy martes.


Microsoft reconoce un fallo de seguridad en el navegador Explorer | Tecnología | EL PAÍS

Microsoft reconoce un fallo de seguridad en el navegador Explorer | Tecnología | EL PAÍS.

Madrid 28 ABR 2014 – 09:42 CET

Microsoft trata de corregir un error en su navegador Internet Explorer después de que una firma de seguridad informática revelara un fallo en el programa, asegurando que algunos hackers lo están aprovechando con algunas empresas estadounidenses.

 

La gravedad del fallo es aún mayor porque los ordenadores con el sistema operativo Windows XP ya no reciben actualizaciones, ya que a principios de mes dejó de darle soporte técnico, después de 13 años de vida. Como el sistema sigue funcionamiento, la expansión del fallo aún es mayor. Las empresas de seguridad estiman que entre el 15% y el 25% de los ordenadores del mundo aún funcionan con Windows XP.

 

Microsoft reveló el sábado sus planes para solucionar el error, que, según dijo, está presente en las versiones de Internet Explorer 6 a 11 . Esas versiones son las más populares en los ordenadores fijos, con el 55% del total, según NetMarketShare.

 

La firma de seguridad FireEye dijo que un grupo de hackers sofisticados ha estado explotando el fallo. FireEye, cuya división Mandiant ayuda a las empresas a responder a los ataques cibernéticos, se negó a nombrar a las víctimas específicas o a identificar el grupo de hackers.

 

“Es una campaña de ataques dirigidos aparentemente contra las empresas con sede en EE.UU., ligadas a la defensa y al sector financiero”, dijo el portavoz de FireEye, Vitor De Souza, por correo electrónico. “No está claro cuáles son los motivos de este grupo de ataques, aunque podría ser la recolección de datos sensibles”.

 

Microsoft explicó que la vulnerabilidad podría permitir a un atacante tomar el control completo de un sistema afectado y, a continuación, suprimir datos, instalar programas maliciosos o crear cuentas que darían a los hackers todos los datos del usuario.

El fabricante de software, en un comunicado enviado a Reuters, pidió que los usuarios de Windows XP se actualicen a las dos versiones más recientes de su sistema operativo, Windows 7 y 8. OTra solución, que no ha querido dar Microsoft, es cambiarse de navegador.


Google keeps throwing googlies over its market dominance | Tom Watson | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Google keeps throwing googlies over its market dominance | Tom Watson | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

If Google is found to be again gaming the system with its latest package of reforms, EU sanctions must be brought

 

 

Man looking at a Google webpage

‘Google has every incentive to drag out these proceedings and to devise complicated proposals full of exceptions and loopholes.’ Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features

 

In June last year, in an article for Comment is free, I drew attention to Google’s efforts to escape investigation by the European commission over alleged anti-competitive behaviour, by offering commitments to change its ways. At that time it looked like the case might be drawing to a close, but it took longer than expected. We now find ourselves in a position where the commissioner responsible seems ready to accept Google’s third set of commitments in a case that has now been running since at least 2010.

The commission has concluded that Google, with over 95% of the markets for online search and search advertising, is in a dominant position and that it may have abused that dominance. In particular, it has been penalising smaller competitors including UK companies, and pushing its own results to the top of the search page, even when they are not objectively the best answers to the user’s queries.

The fact that Google has been obliged to offer changes in how it presents search results is welcome. Less reassuring is the time it has taken and the way that Google has continued to make offers that fall far short of what is needed.


Razones del Navegar Holista

Coco-Pierart
En última instancia, lo que pretendemos con O-b-s-e-r-W-e-b, es fomentar una discusión social del fenómeno Internet. Una que ojalá a la larga contribuya a una buena síntesis social; tanto en lo que se refiere a la comprensión del fenómeno que nos interesa, como a la acción social.


Microsoft blames 'system error' but denies censoring Chinese search results | Technology | theguardian.com

Microsoft blames ‘system error’ but denies censoring Chinese search results | Technology | theguardian.com.

Tech giant denies Bing censorship and puts blame on technical problem but activists say Microsoft’s claims ‘simply not true’

A Chinese language search for 'Dalai Lama' returned radically different results from an English-language search.
A Chinese language search for ‘Dalai Lama’ in the US returned radically different results from an English-language search. Photograph: Utpal Baruah/Reuters

Microsoft has blamed an “error in our system” for producing results on its Bing search engine that appear to censor information for Chinese language users in the same way it filters results in mainland China.

The admission is an embarrassment for Microsoft, which is making a major push to expand its business in China and has just appointed a new CEO, Satya Nadella, who has been a public critic of government surveillance in the US.

On Tuesday, campaigners at FreeWeibo, a tool that allows uncensored search of Chinese blogs, revealed that Bing returns radically different results in the US for English and simplified Chinese language searches on a series of controversial terms, including “Dalai Lama”, “June 4 incident” (how Chinese people refer to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989) and “Bo Xilai”, the former high-flying government official now serving life in prison for corruption.


Bing censoring Chinese language search results for users in the US | Technology | theguardian.com

Bing censoring Chinese language search results for users in the US | Technology | theguardian.com.

English and Chinese language queries for terms like ‘Dalai Lama’ return radically different results on Microsoft search engine

Bo Xilai
A Bing search in Chinese for Bo Xilai, the former Chinese government official, shows different results from an English search. Photograph: Jason Lee/Reuters

Microsoft’s search engine Bing appears to be censoring information for Chinese language users in the US in the same way it filters results in mainland China.

Searches first conducted by anti-censorship campaigners at FreeWeibo, a tool that allows uncensored search of Chinese blogs, found that Bing returns radically different results in the US for English and Chinese language searches on a series of controversial terms.

These include Dalai Lama, June 4 incident (how the Chinese refer to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989), Falun Gong and FreeGate, a popular internet workaround for government censorship.

A Chinese language search for the Dalai Lama (达赖喇嘛) on Bing is lead by a link to information on a documentary compiled by CCTV, China’s state-owned broadcaster. This is followed by two entries from Baidu Baike, China’s heavily censored Wikipedia rival run by the search engine Baidu. The results are similar on Yahoo, whose search is powered by Bing.


Google ultima un acuerdo con Bruselas para evitar la multa de Competencia | Economía | EL PAÍS

Google ultima un acuerdo con Bruselas para evitar la multa de Competencia | Economía | EL PAÍS.


El logo de Google, ante su sede en Mountain View. / DAVID PAUL MORRIS (BLOOMBERG)

Enviar a LinkedIn15
Enviar a TuentiEnviar a MenéameEnviar a Eskup

EnviarImprimirGuardar

Google está ultimando un acuerdo con las autoridades de Competencia europeas con vistas a evitar una multa de miles de millones de euros por abuso de posición dominante, según han informado a Reuters en fuentes comunitarias. Según estas fuentes, el buscador habría realizado una tercera oferta al comisario del ramo, Joaquín Almunia, que rechazó las dos anteriores. En esta propuesta, que es “mucho mejor” a ojos de Bruselas, Google realiza mayores concesiones a sus rivales a la hora de dar sus resultados de búsqueda para poner fin a un proceso que se dilata ya durante varios años y que podría costarle 5.000 millones de euros, el 10% de sus ingresos en 2012.

En su nueva propuesta, el gigante de Mountain View accede a presentar los logos de sus rivales y sus enlaces en los resultados de las búsquedas. Además, también facilitaría a los anunciantes mover sus campañas a otros buscadores como Yahoo! o Bing, de Microsoft. Almunia también exigió a Google aplicar las modificaciones no solo a las búsquedas a través de PC sino a las realizadas desde los smartphonesde última generación.

Tras recibir la propuesta de Google, que hasta la fecha ha salido ganando en las otras batallas que ha mantenido con las autoridades comunitarias, Bruselas ha descartado consultar a cada uno de los 125 rivales que denunciaron las prácticas de la empresa que preside Eric Schmidt. Así, la Comisión argumenta que, tras tres años de proceso y numersosos contactos, tienen una idea clara de cuales son sus posturas al respecto.