Google as Big Brother?

            In recent history, the number of relevant search engines has dwindled to a select few.  Of these few engines left, Yahoo, Google, and a new crawler created by Microsoft have taken the lead as the two most popular and powerful search engines on the web.  However, Google is definitely king.  Google, Inc. has done the most of any search engine to expand the depth of their WebCrawler’s searching ability and it has paid off well for the company.  At the time of this article, Google provided about 75% of external references to most websites.

 

            Given its supremacy, Google has also created a formula for advertising that has helped make the company massive profits.  By posting ads on the side of the search page based on keywords in the search term, Google and other engines have spread the popularity of “personalized” advertisements that reflect the items that match with what we most commonly search for.  On the other hand, Yahoo and Microsoft are happy with their current systems of pay-for-placement to generate revenue.

 

This new system, (new because when Google was first taking off, it was ad-free), leads people to wonder what interest the company has in the trouble and expense of crawling the World Wide Web’s non-commercial sector.  Because the org, edu, and gov domains do not provide direct income to the company, it is curious that nobody has established a search engine specialized for public-sector websites.

 

Since 9/11, there has been an increase in a desire of gathering information on Internet users themselves.  This increase in interest has come directly from our own Federal Government.  Google has made no statements about their stance on the rights to privacy of their users or the rights of Washington spies who desire access to that information.  Because the information that Google has access to is so far-reaching, the ultimate decision of Google, Inc. on these issues are incredibly important and could be a huge statement on the position of government and Internet.  Either decision, whether siding with consumer protection or government surveillance, would be very critical to deciding how the future of the Internet operates.

 

It is not a statement of fact that Google is evil, it is simply that many people believe that Google is at a major turning point where they could very likely change the lives of all users of the web.  In 2003, Google Watch and “500 others” nominated Google for the Big Brother Award, citing a nine points, which included:

1.     A cookie that does not expire until 2038.  Google was the first engine to make such a long lasting cookie file.

2.     Google’s indefinite retention of collected data.

3.     Secrecy over why they need this data.

4.     Spyware toolbar.

5.     This toolbar updates itself without permission.

And more.

 

            This fear that Google is watching our every move and is simply building a database of our deepest darkest secrets in order to sell to the government is an absolutely ridiculous and paranoid vision.  By selling information to the government and becoming a tool for the “spies in Washington” who are supposedly chomping at the bit for this information, Google stands to make a lot less money than they are currently making.  By simply working with an incredibly successful business plan of providing results to users at no cost than to have to “put up with” advertising on the side of the page, Google will continue to grow and make record profits.  Google is already becoming one of the biggest names in business and is generating incredible wealth for the company.  Jumping into bed with the government holds no financial benefits for a company this large.  Most of the points made to show how Google can possibly use their incredibly in-depth WebCrawler to ruin our lives is nothing more than speculation.  Everything that Google takes part in is something that most people with a healthy understanding of the Internet already understand.  If there are things that you don’t want anybody to know about you, don’t live those secrets out over the web, even in the privacy of your own home.  Google simply accesses information that we have generated on our own.  Also, if a person has a mistrust of the Google Toolbar, simply don’t install it.  While the implications of what Google may one day be capable of are astounding, the idea that they would partake in action that are damaging to their consumer base is even more astounding in its absurdity.

Domain Names

 

            Beginning on January 1, 2000, domain name registrars began a new dispute policy that incorporates ICANN’s new Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).  Along with complying with ICANN’s dispute methods, they are also following the policies and laws set forth in an amendment to the United States Trademark law, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“The Act”).

 

            These dispute policies are intended to resolve arguments over whether the registered owner of a domain name is acting in good faith by owning a domain name that violates another party’s registered trademark.  In order for a registration for the domain name use to be found illegal, the domain must be identical or “confusingly similar” to the trademark, as well as be found to be used in bad faith.

 

            Whether use is in bad faith is decided on a case by case basis.  The issues considered include: if the domain name owner acquires the domain name with the express intention of selling, renting, or in some other sense transfer it to a party who owns a registered trademark, or to a competitor of that trademark; registration with the intention of preventing the trademark owner from registering the domain; using the domain to disrupt the business of a competitor; or attempting to draw visitors through creating a chance of confusion between the domain and the trademark.

 

            Finding the domain owner to be in bad faith is a tool for the trademark owner to use in order to warrant a dispute claim.  The defendant (domain name owner) then has the right to attempt to defeat the claim of bad faith by proving they have a legitimate right to own the domain.

 

            Claims against a domain name registration may be made through the United States trademark law or through the UDRP, with different variations on actions to be made, depending on the route through which the claimant decides to proceed.

 

            Before the new policies were put in place, a hold would be put on a domain name simply by the claimant proving to have a registered trademark dated prior to the domain name registration date.  However, because this acts as a non-judicial injunction, this practice has been repealed.  Under the new policies, the registrar will cancel, transfer, or otherwise change a domain status only after it receives either authorization from the domain name owner, a court order requiring such changes, or a decision requiring changes by the ICANN panel.

 

            In the case of Julia Roberts v. juliaroberts.com, the famous actress filed a dispute against the owner of juliaroberts.com.  The owner of the domain name was also the owner of several other celebrities and had put juliaroberts.com up for sale on an auction.  Once the dispute was filed, the UDRP had to determine: whether the domain was identical to the actress’s name; whether the actress had a trademark or trademark rights; whether domain owner had any legitimate rights to the domain name; and whether the domain owner was in bad faith.

 

            Issue 1 was simply solved because Julia Roberts and juliaroberts.com are clearly identical names.  In the case of issue 2, the actress did not have a trademark on her name, but it was decided that the name had established a “secondary meaning,” and therefore held “trademark rights,” even without a registered trademark.  A secondary meaning implies that the name is instantly recognizable by the general public as meaning one particular thing (i.e.: Kleenex tissue, Band-Aids, Xerox, etc.).  In issue 3, the domain name owner was found not to have rights to the domain name through fair use because the owners name was not the same as the actress, and the page did not relate to the actress in any form, such as a fan-club or parody site.  Lastly, because the owner had created a pattern of buying and selling domain names of famous celebrities for profit, the owner indeed owned the domain name in bad faith.  The UDRP ordered the domain’s ownership to be transferred to Julia Roberts.

 

            A similar case involving the domain name “jimihendrix.com” ended with the domain owner transferring the domain to the estate of the famous Jimi Hendrix.  When it was found that “The Jimi Hendrix Fan Club” that owned the domain also owned various other domains including jethrotull.com and elvispresley.com, it was decided that the owner possessed the ownership in bad faith.

 

            When Jerry Falwell filed a similar case against the owner of both jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com, his case was overturned because the ownership was found to be in fair use and good faith.  The owner was using the websites as parody sites, which are protected as fair use practices.  The ownership was also in good faith because there were no attempts made to sell these domains back to Jerry Falwell himself in order to make a profit.

 

            I believe that the courts’ decisions in all three cases were completely fair and right.  The owners of the domains containing Julia Roberts and Jimi Hendrix’s names were acting in the sole expectation of making money off of the ownership and exploitation of the famous people’s successes.  Had the owners been using the sites for anything useful, such as a fan club, or as in Jerry Falwell’s case, a parody site, and NOT be attempting a sale of the domain, their ownership would have been justified and there would be no case against them.  This reasoning was upheld in the case of Jerry Falwell’s crusade against the owner of the domain containing his name.  His attempts at blocking the site were purely political, attempting to block a completely legal parody of his character.  Had his case succeeded, it would have been a huge blow to First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights.