Google Patents Country-Specific Content Blocking
theodp writes "Today Google was awarded US Patent No. 7,664,751 for its invention of Variable User Interface Based on Document Access Privileges, which the search giant explains can be used to restrict what Internet content people can see 'based on geographical location information of the user and based on access rights possessed for the document.' From the patent: 'For example, readers from the United States may be given "partial" access to the document while readers in Canada may be given "full" access to the document. This may be because the content provider has been granted full rights in the document from the publisher for Canadian readers but has not been granted rights in the United States, so the content provider may choose to only enable fair use display for readers in the United States.' Oh well, at least Google is 'no longer willing to continue censoring [their] results on Google.cn.'"
Step 1: Read leaked ACTA documents.
Step 2: Patent technologies and software logic that must follow to enforce ACTA.
Decision Gate A: Do you want to be stinking rich or fight for internet liberties? For stinking rich, proceed to step 3a. For valient political statement proceed to step 3b.
Step 3a: License patents under reasonable royalties and hire a legion of lawyers in countries around the world.
Step 3b: List licensing fees of one trillion dollars per patent and hire a legion of lawyers around the world to enforce it. Sit back and watch ACTA defeat itself (assuming it covers software intellectual property worldwide).
My work here is dung.
Strictly speaking, this is access control, not censorship. Censorship is prohibiting access based upon some moral or other judgment about the content itself. Access control is restricting the ability to obtain content based upon permissions.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I just filed a patent today too ... if it pans out, I'm gonna be rich.
"A method by which the mechanisms described in US Patent No. 7,664,751 can be circumvented by any fool who has access to a proxy server, thus making the payment of any licensing fees to Google an exercise in futility".
I do not think that means what you think it means ... if the boys with the big toys decide they want us to be free for less than 17 years, then there's nothing a Google pwned patent can do. Capisce?
2^3 * 31 * 647
Makes sense they are doing this with Youtube and online video rentals. Also could work for Google hosting book content online and only having the rights secured in select countries.
This may seem like a far stretch, but what if Google's intentions with this patent were in fact to disallow anyone from doing that? It seems rather surprising to me that the giant would suddenly switch sides like this, so I'll hope for the best.
Step 3b(I): Get forced to "grant" compulsory licenses in most countries which have that option in their patent system (for the common good, ofc).
The purpose of the parent's funny strategy (3b) is to let ACTA self-destroy on its own playground.
Of course some countries have way to circumvent too broad and/or stupid patents, but patents are not a problem in these countries to begin with because they can be circumvented.
But in country where all patent even the stupid one are followed, will have to follow that stupid patent too.
Until they start adding exception to their patent system, at which point the goal *is* achieved - If *Google* can be forced to give out a patent on a core technology of the web, any patent troll should be forced the same whenever they try to stifle fundamental and important innovation.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
A month after the much discussed attack on Google, google.cn continues to censor search results, though it appears to be less than prior to this incident. Ref. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/10/google_china/
The patent makes no sense, because it includes no description of a mechanism for achieving the stated objective. You should be able to get a patent on a particular method of doing something, but since when can you patent all possible methods of doing something? Especially when there aren't any. We have been doing this at work for over a decade, using IP address information from whois servers. It isn't very accurate, but it works well enough for us.
Daniel Feenberg
To protect the free flow of information which is at the core of a free society and an efficient and stable economy, location information must be eliminated from the network protocol.
No, I would only remind the companies doing business there that the day may come when they have to answer for their actions. Personally, if I was in a position where I had to do stuff like turn in dissidents, I would quickly seek another line of work. Even if you're not worried about the moral implications, the day could easily come when the existing government is overthrown and you could find your neck on the bad end of a noose.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Think that many have to do with their algorithms rather than censoring? When you search for sensitive terms atm it gives proper results, so maybe the register is being a bit jumpy?
.cn version compared to the .com version is likely that the tank man image is not featured as commonly in Chinese media. This makes perfectly good sense, and really should be obvious. The falun gong results are nearly EXACTLY the same.
tank man
falun gong
Seems to be right.... The reason that LESS images of tank man show up in the
Recently, working on a paper, I came across some papers on the National Bureau of Economic Research website that said they were $5 to access for me, but they are free for anyone in a developing or undeveloped country. I didn't try to find a proxy in Azerbaijan so I don't know how the site looks if you are from a country that gets free access, but I am curious how that works and how it differs from this patent.
My webcomic
...all you need is a proxy to see anything...
Great. All we have to do is maintain proxies in nations all over the world, and we can be treated fairly. Now if we could just teach everyone on the planet how to use international proxies, no one would be victimized by censorship. Surely governments will never try to close *this* hole. I feel like the world is a better place already due to poor implementations of evilness.
Youtube has been doing it for years... oh, wait
First, I'm trying to move from windows as much as possible. This process is made difficult by the excruciating difficulty of relearning an entirely new OS and the consequent hours spent on every step of the process (see my other post regarding my home server). Don't think I'll ever move away from it completely, though, as I have a few programs for which there is no linux version available at all or within my price range, and no equivalent product exists. But for most tasks (ie, everything outside of CAD, Matlab, and a game or two) I want to move to Ubuntu.
Second, what bugs me most about Google isn't the censorship (though it does still bother, and I know MS does it too, but I don't use Bing) but the datamining of their services. Gmail, documents, calendar, and their new facebook thing... I want to transition to something else. I know I'm a little late in the game realizing this stuff, but I actually want to try and fix it. Snarky holier-than-thou replies aren't helpful.
And just to vent... if linux is so easy and ideal for everyone, why the fuck does every step of every tutorial not work? I expect every now and then that some tasks might be more difficult than others... but every single one? Say what you want about Windows, and it certainly has its faults... but at least stuff generally works the first time, without having to spend hours digging through forums, searching websites and blogs, and dicking around with config files and cryptic command line inputs at each step of the process. And that's on a fresh install, too!
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.