Slashdot Mirror

Why -1 this guy? They're idiots .. They're so late to the BIG DATA party that the dance is almost over, legislations google is facing ala https://pando.com/2013/12/16/g... http://www.consumerwatchdog.or... Is true for ms(with win10) or apple as well. The whole business model of windows10, big-data-ads up your arse is a dying concept. When has ms NOT been late to the party? Kind of their catch frase "late to the party" is it not.

Here's the letter that was sent.

A different FA has some comments and/or speculation on how some ISPs are (ab)using customer info.

So based on this,the story is basically as follows:

- Google decides to lease an airfield from NASA for corporate jets
- NASA agrees to sell Google fuel at discounted rates (no state or local tax) in exchange for Google planes collecting climate data
- After 6 years of this, a NASA auditor notices ALL Google planes receive the discount, not just those carrying out NASA experiments.
- NASA stops selling them discounted fuel in September of 2013.
- Google now wants to renew the lease (without the discounted fuel)
- ???
- Therefore, evil!

I seem to be missing a step in Consumer Watchdog's logic here. Anyone able to fill me in?

If NASA was inappropriately selling discounted fuel, that is NASA's fault, not Google's. It should have nothing to do with renewing the lease now.

The NSA system is automatic too...
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/gmail-judge-holds-internet-accountable-wiretap-laws-key-consumer-victory
Long term the US legal system seems to be returning to the "neither instrumental to the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services" side.
Another aspect is the http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/supreme-court-holds-warrantless-gps-tracking-unconstitutional/
near the end under "Sotomayor attacks the third-party doctrine"
"ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers."
The public wants their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" back ie to be protected from a gov in cahoots with a .com.

The link that suggests that Los Angeles was unhappy with their switch to Google does not, in fact, say that. The link is to a letter of a consumer group bitching to LA about their switch to Google. Given, by all accounts, things did not go smoothly, but maybe a better link would be this?

Just for kicks I went to consumerwatchdog.org and used their search engine to search on microsoft . Top 20 header results :

1. There's no privacy in third world America - (anti-google article, no mention of bing)
2. Top trustbuster says DOJ watching search industry
3. Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes
4. Critics Call on Feds to Squelch a Google Monopoly
5. Data Show Google Abuses Search Role, Group Contends
6. Watchdog Backs Google Antitrust Complaint with (More) Data
7. Google's Wi-Fi Data Harvest Facing More Probes, Lawsuits
8. Google Using Search Engine To Muscle Into Internet Businesses, Study Finds
9. Google Worth $1 Billion to Pa. Commerce
10. Google Raises Its Game In Washington
11. Google shows the way on search engine encryption; others must follow
12. FTC Clears Google Purchase of Mobile Ad Service
13. White House Reprimands Ex-Googler After Consumer Watchdog FOIA Request
14. Few Hardballs from Shareholders at Google's Annual Meeting
15. Google's Growth Markets Include Lobbying
16. Consumer Watchdog Targets Google
17. Privacy Groups, Business Firms Firing Warning Shots on New Online Ad Privacy Bill
18. Boucher's Privacy Bill Scolded by Consumer Groups
19. Google Spent $1.3 Million on Lobbying, What Are They Buying?
20. Consumer Group to Call for Google Break up

Damn, that's a lot of google mention for a search on microsoft. Hell, even on a search on facebookhas "google" in 6 of the top 10 results returned! Facebook doesn't appear until the 11th result, and is in 5 of the headers. What a joke, this site makes fox news looks fair and balanced.

Just for kicks I went to consumerwatchdog.org and used their search engine to search on microsoft . Top 20 header results :

1. There's no privacy in third world America - (anti-google article, no mention of bing)
2. Top trustbuster says DOJ watching search industry
3. Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes
4. Critics Call on Feds to Squelch a Google Monopoly
5. Data Show Google Abuses Search Role, Group Contends
6. Watchdog Backs Google Antitrust Complaint with (More) Data
7. Google's Wi-Fi Data Harvest Facing More Probes, Lawsuits
8. Google Using Search Engine To Muscle Into Internet Businesses, Study Finds
9. Google Worth $1 Billion to Pa. Commerce
10. Google Raises Its Game In Washington
11. Google shows the way on search engine encryption; others must follow
12. FTC Clears Google Purchase of Mobile Ad Service
13. White House Reprimands Ex-Googler After Consumer Watchdog FOIA Request
14. Few Hardballs from Shareholders at Google's Annual Meeting
15. Google's Growth Markets Include Lobbying
16. Consumer Watchdog Targets Google
17. Privacy Groups, Business Firms Firing Warning Shots on New Online Ad Privacy Bill
18. Boucher's Privacy Bill Scolded by Consumer Groups
19. Google Spent $1.3 Million on Lobbying, What Are They Buying?
20. Consumer Group to Call for Google Break up

Damn, that's a lot of google mention for a search on microsoft. Hell, even on a search on facebookhas "google" in 6 of the top 10 results returned! Facebook doesn't appear until the 11th result, and is in 5 of the headers. What a joke, this site makes fox news looks fair and balanced.

There are quite a few signs pointing to Microsoft funding them. Searching 'Microsoft' on http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ gives you mostly Google results, despite Microsoft being a convicted monopolist with a long history of abuse, which is the kind of thing a consumer watchdog should be reporting on

I'm confused, how are they competing again? They're making people get private insurance... There's no government health care plan (a la Canada, UK, AU, Sweden, France, &c, &c...).

My sarcastic point was that many politicians bitch that the private sector is better, more efficient and cost-effective than government alternatives, yet this guy implies that the private sector cannot compete with those alternatives.

As for health care, the US has universal health care plans for two of the three segments of the population: Medicare for those 65+ and TriCare for the military. One of the ideas for last third was to extend Medicare to everyone, but some people complained that private insurance provided better care, was more efficient and cost-effective (which it isn't - Medicare's overhead is just 2%).

A poll in 02/2009 here and here shows that +60% favor giving anyone the option of signing up with Medicare. In addition, another poll in 05/2009 shows those with Medicare overwhelmingly like it better and get better service than those with private insurance:

• Medicare beneficiaries are more satisfied with their insurance coverage. Only 8 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their insurance "fair or poor," in contrast with 18 percent of individuals with employer-based insurance. Thirty-two percent of Medicare beneficiaries had at least one negative insurance experience, compared with 44 percent of those covered by an employer plan.
• Medicare beneficiaries report easier access to physicians. Ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries' physicians did not accept their insurance, compared with 17 percent of respondents with employer-sponsored plans.
• Medicare beneficiaries are less likely to report not getting needed services. Twelve percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported going without care, such as prescribed medications or recommended tests, because of cost restraints. Of individuals with employer-based plans, 26 percent reported experiencing these cost/access issues.
• Medicare beneficiaries are sicker and poorer but report fewer medical bill problems. Elderly Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to rate their health as fair or poor than the employer-coverage group (28% vs. 11%); more likely to have multiple chronic conditions (38% vs. 11%); and more likely to have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (51% vs. 27%). Yet, Medicare beneficiaries were less likely to report a medical bill problem than those covered by employer plans.

I'm not saying that Medicare (or a state-run ISP) is absolutely and/or always better than the private sector, but the reverse isn't a given either. As for Medicare, there may be fraud and waste - by the users - but there's also probably not the greed and lack of compassion of the private sector. You might get denied something my Medicare, but it's probably because of the rules, not concern for the quarterly profits.

Personally, I think the lack of universal health care is a crime against our general population perpetrated by the rich and greedy - who can afford private health care. For the rest of us, it's a carrot and stick used by our employers to keep us in line.

The article criticizing the dashboard has already been slashdotted but (oh irony) it was in my chrome cache.

The group also said that the Dashboard, though useful, is not easy to find.

“If they want people to use this, why isn’t there a direct link from the home page?” asked Simpson. “In other contexts Google likes to say competition is one click away. They’ve buried the Dashboard. The extra password verification is a good security measure, but why can’t you get there with one click from a Dashboard link on the home page?”

The google dashboard is cleverly "buried" at google.com/dashboard

Navigating to it requires the user to select the "Settings => Google Account settings" dropdown at the top right of the page when you're logged in. Maybe I've been around computers for more than a few minutes and that gives me an advantage, but that felt like a pretty natural way to find this.

Shh, it's supposed to be a secret!

The article criticizing the dashboard has already been slashdotted but (oh irony) it was in my chrome cache.

The group also said that the Dashboard, though useful, is not easy to find.

“If they want people to use this, why isn’t there a direct link from the home page?” asked Simpson. “In other contexts Google likes to say competition is one click away. They’ve buried the Dashboard. The extra password verification is a good security measure, but why can’t you get there with one click from a Dashboard link on the home page?”

The google dashboard is cleverly "buried" at google.com/dashboard

Navigating to it requires the user to select the "Settings => Google Account settings" dropdown at the top right of the page when you're logged in. Maybe I've been around computers for more than a few minutes and that gives me an advantage, but that felt like a pretty natural way to find this.

I agree that Google needs to take more steps to make user behavior anonymous, but at least they're honest about that and have a means for providing dashboard feedback.

And FWIW I don't see anything in the Microsoft Online Privacy Statement about giving users a way to control their data. Nor in the Yahoo Privacy Center.

Maybe it's just too hard to find.

AT&T/Cingular already tried these terms with their cel-phone service. They failed.

In the US, wholesale transactions are corrected to 60 F, but retail transactions are not:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/DPReportHotFuelUSAJune07.pdf

However, there is a lawsuit pending on the subject:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/hot_fuel.html

Walt Mossberg
http://walt.allthingsd.com/

Harvey Rosenfield:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/about/
(scroll down about one-third of the page)

Quite frequently recently, OPEC has been producing at 100% capacity and still not producing enough to keep the price of oil down. This is one of the oft-quoted symptoms of the "Peak Oil" theory.

I was under the impression that high prices (domestically, at least) were due to a shortage of refining capacity http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/co/?postId= 4441&pageTitle=EXTRACTING+TOP+DOLLAR%3B

...in the same way that cockroaches scale well.

I work at place that has a million EDS idiots running around.
Meetings are a joke, you are on a conference call with 23 people and there are exactly 2 who are involved in actually doing the work.
They are a blackhole for money and only add negative value to any process they are involved in. As a previous comments says, be aware that your interests are no where on EDS's radar.

And don't forget EDS masterminds some of the techniques used by Enron to profit from the California Energy Crisis Hoax/Theft/Fraud/Conspiracy

Ashcroft and SSNs.... Reminds me of this. I don't think he was pleased with the demonstration.

In 2003, a financial privacy bill came up in California. Several lawmakers voted against the bill. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights obtained the SSNs for 8 of these 9 lawmakers (the information was not available for one individual.) The first four digits of each SSN were posted on the Internet with the name of each individual. They also released the first three digits of the SSN for Governor Davis. The affected lawmakers were rather upset as a result.

In another incident, Citigroup supported a bill that would have overturned financial privacy protections in California. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights acted by publicly releasing the first five digits of the Citigroup CEO's SSN. The digits were written in the sky by a professional skywriter.

In 2003, a financial privacy bill came up in California. Several lawmakers voted against the bill. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights obtained the SSNs for 8 of these 9 lawmakers (the information was not available for one individual.) The first four digits of each SSN were posted on the Internet with the name of each individual. They also released the first three digits of the SSN for Governor Davis. The affected lawmakers were rather upset as a result.

In another incident, Citigroup supported a bill that would have overturned financial privacy protections in California. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights acted by publicly releasing the first five digits of the Citigroup CEO's SSN. The digits were written in the sky by a professional skywriter.

I know this is heresy for a technology site, but why allow all this privacy-invading electronics in the car if we could do it much more simply with a gas tax? Sure it's not perfect but it doesn't require any extra technology costs and it eliminates a lot of overhead from the current system.

Actually, there was a group in California pushing for a corporate three-strikes law. Here's a transcript from a CNN interview with one of the proponents, and here's an article on the failure of the bill.

Oh, and for those of you who don't want to click through to that article, here are the names of the three Democrats that helped kill that bill (we expect this kind of behavior from anyone with an R after their name, right?):

Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach)
Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco)
Michael Machado (D-Stockton)

I believe the term is 'Whore'.

...property and casualty insurers also saw investment earnings drop last year by $13 billion. Doug Heller of the watchdog Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights complains insurance companies now expect customers to make up for their investment decisions.

In the insurance industry game, it's heads we win; tails the consumer loses. When the stock market is doing well, the insurance industry reaps the benefits. When the stock market falls apart, the consumer pays the price.

I think this is a very good example of someone pulling a story out of his a**. There are 6 insures listed for emergency room malpractice insurance in Nevada. That's one less than the number listed for Texas with a set of "written by the insurance industry itself" limits on lawsuits.
And California, with one of the better insurance company oversight systems also has 6. Many states only have two or so providers. So what have the "reforms" got to do with anything. See Malpractice Insurance Providers by State. The company named (American Physicians Insurance) is listed there as only doing business in Texas. So Dr. Gondy is going to have to work in Texas, or so it seems.... And of course Texas has the highest homeowner and automobile insurance rates in the country, so she had better not plan on living in the state or buying a car there....

Another view is presented in Malpractice Rates Whitepaper. It appears that malpractice caps in California did not prevent them from having the highest insurance rates in the country (a 450% increase in the 13 years following their tort "reform"). That lead directly to Proposition 103, controlling the insurance companies directly and imposing a 20% rate reduction. Notice those insurance companies keep doing business in California because they MAKE MONEY doing so.

By the way, this directly contradicts your assertion that "the rate of growth in protected states is lower than that of unprotected states." But it does not keep the ACEP web site from asserting that MICRA has "lowered" rates 6% since 1988, forgetting to mention that from the passage of MICRA in 1975 to California's forced rollback of insurance rates in 1988, rates went up 450%. See the Q & A titled Was MICRA effective?.

And note that in Connecticut a "physician owned" insurance provider is jacking rates up 30% after a 20% increase in the same period that California rates dropped 6%: American Academy of Family Physicians "challenges".

Finally, I can't find any information anywhere about what rates really are other than urban legends about $300,000/year premiums. Doesn't that strike you as interesting, too?

Note that I am for torte reform, but it appears that in this case it is not the lawsuits that are driving up the insurance costs but rather cycles in the malpractice insurance market itself.

I don't think most people realize that those recorded ads are already against federal law. According to the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: RESTRICTIONS ON TELEMARKETING AND TELEPHONE SOLICITATION:

It is illegal to "Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party...."

Add to that that the call was made to a cell phone:

"No person or entity may...Initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,...To any telephone number assigned to a...cellular telephone service,...or any service for which the called party is charged for the call."

The penalty varies, but it is generally $500, unless the telemarketer is judged to be in willful violation (aren't they all?), in which case the penalty triples.

Xesdeeni

Good luck enforcing this law. Last week it was mandatory health insurance. According to a Long Beach Press-Telegram article, Boeing pays $1 million in worker's compensation insurance (not claims, just the insurance payment) per plane. Thats quite a few $45,000 jobs right out the window. I think tonight I am going to buy myself a 40, go down to Long Beach, sit on the sand and watch the jobs sail right out of the port. At least I'll be there to wave good-bye.

A little offtopic, but "the punishment doesn't fit the crime" card doesn't apply here, since they violated laws created as deterrents, not punishment. I just sent a few demand letters to some local mass-faxers, and one called me back with "you want $1000 for one lousy fax?". No, I want $1000 because you will lose in small claims, and owe me $1500. The law is a deterrent in that case, nothing to do with fitting the crime. Don't get me wrong, RIAA sucks yadda yadda - just don't think that the law needs to fit the crime. Its all about how much can you get in the settlement.

It's not 30 cents per kWh. It's between 58 cents and 1.58 cents, depending on where you live. That's between 594 kWh at the low end price, and 218 kWh usage, neither of which is high.

In any event, bitching about this guy using "too much" is complaining to the wrong person. Davis is the one that locked in these contracts, and he's to blame, not the poor guy trying to pay his bills.

I think you missed something somewhere.

Check out this article

Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.

Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.

This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.

I think you missed something somewhere.

Check out this article

Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.

Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.

This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.

Most taxes don't come from the rich and go to the poor. The rich (I'm talking top 1 percent here, not merely upper middle class) pay tax consultants to reduce their taxes to almost nothing. Not to mention that I never hear on talk shows how too much of our tax money is going to the rich. But farm subsidies aren't going to small farmers. They are going to billion dollar companies with fabulously wealthy CEOs who can afford to buy congressmen.

The US tax rates on the highest bracket are the lowest they have been since 1928, the year before the big crash. In the 1950s, that Golden Era of Republicanism, the top tax rate was 78 percent. It remained that high until JFK cut it. How tax and spend of him.

I'm rambling too, so I'll just reiterate, the idea that the rich are taxed for the benefit of the poor is nonsense. What is happening is that the middle class is being taxed for the benefit of both the rich and the poor. This allows the current American political system to continue as the middle is played off against both ends. If the middle class ever decided that the taxes they pay should be used for their own benefit, then things might change.