A dispute in Australia between members of the public and photographers gathering data for Google’s Street View service has been referred to the country’s police, the country’s Attorney General (senior law officer) has said.

Robert McLelland told journalists ahead of a conference on internet security in the Australian city of Melbourne, that the Federal Police were looking into complaints from members of the public that concern a possible breach of the country’s telecommunications laws.

Google said it would co-operate with the Australian police investigation, and a spokeswoman told Reuters that the company had made an error: “This was a mistake. We are talking to the appropriate authorities to answer any questions they have,” she said.

The ‘Street View’ service has recently been criticised in several countries. The company has said it inadvertently picked up personal data from some unencrypted wi-fi services over several years.

The search giant’s admission that it recorded private communications sent over unsecured wireless networks brought an immediate call from the German data protection commissioner, Peter Schaar, for a detailed investigation. 

He alleged in The Financial Times that “one of the largest companies in the world, the market leader on the internet, simply disobeyed normal rules in the development and usage of software.”

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission was believed to be close to announcing its own inquiry into the matter, according to people who spoke to agency officials. 

An inquiry could look at whether the collection of data breached rules on unauthorised access to computers and private communications, according to privacy campaigners. 

“This may be one of the most massive surveillance incidents by a private corporation that has ever occurred”, said Marc Rotenberg, leader of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in Washington. 

A few days before this revelation, Google had reversed earlier assertions denying that it had monitored and collected data on individuals’ activity. 

It said the data was inadvertently culled as a fleet of camera-equipped Street View vehicles, which take pictures for the group’s imaging services, assembled a database of electronic WiFi addresses intended to enhance its maps and other location services. 

Google said the project leaders ignored that the vehicles were also taking in snippets of activity on the WiFi networks. 

“We didn’t want to collect this data in the first place and we would like to destroy it as soon as possible,” said Google’s spokesman Peter Barron. 

The data in question had never been available to outsiders, the company said. 

Ilse Aigner, the German minister for consumer protection, said the new revelation “is alarming and yet another proof that privacy protection is still alien to Google.” 

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office said that Google appeared to have breached the data protection act. 

But it added that after receiving assurances from Google that it would delete the data “as soon as reasonably possible”, the commissioner would not be taking further action against the company. 

The Google controversy follows a recent uproar over Facebook’s erosion of privacy settings. 

“Both Google and Facebook have given the privacy groups an unsolicited contribution,” said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. 

The UK Government has made 1,166 requests for information about its citizens from Google in the last six months, the internet search giant has revealed.

It came third out of almost 100 countries where Google operates, placing it behind only Brazil and the United States, both of which made more than three times as many requests as the UK.

The figures were revealed as Google launched a new tool showing where it faces government pressure to censor its material and results, and details requests received to turn over personal information about its users.

Google released the data through its official blog, after its own approach to privacy was criticised. The data released covers the second half of 2009, and will be updated every six months.

The highly controversial Digital Economy Bill has been passed by MPs following its third reading in the House of Commons.

Despite over 20,000 people writing to their MPs over recent days to help try and get the Bill put on hold, it was passed by 189 votes to 47, according to a report by the Telegraph.

Before Parliament is dissolved prior to an election, outstanding bills can be voted on and passed into law during what is known as the “wash-up” period. Opponents of the Bill say this has resulted in a lack of proper debate.

Labour MP Kate Hoey said the bill could be passed as a result of a “stitch-up” involving the front benches.

She said: “The reality is that, out there, the ordinary person who has only begun to realise the repercussions of this Bill, are going to feel totally let down by Parliament just before a General Election.”

The Bill is aimed at cutting down on online piracy and protecting artists’ copyright, but many believe the new legislation would give the government too much control and could well affect internet users that do not download pirate content.

The Telegraph said one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill which gave the government the power to “block pirate websites without primary legislation” was removed during parliamentary readings but later replaced with an amended clause.

“This could indeed allow the Secretary of State for Business to block any site which ‘the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright’ “, the paper said.

The Bill will now return to the House of Lords where it is expected to be approved as a formality.

News home

Lawyers acting for the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are said to be considering whether to mount a challenge to Google’s purchase of mobile advertising company AdMob.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the FTC has written to AdMob’s competitors asking them to detail the effects a successful purchase by Google would have on their businesses.

People familiar with the matter told the newspaper the FTC has also spoken to congress with regard to its concern that if the deal goes unchallenged it will result in Google dominating the mobile advertising market.

Google announced it had acquired AdMob in November 2009 for $750m. Two months later, Apple purchased another mobile ad firm, Quattro Wireless, reportedly for $275m.

News home

Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google did not infringe trademark law by selling keywords to trigger advertisements, and rejected claims from bespoke luggage-maker Louis Vuitton and others that the practice undermined their brands.

The European Court of Justice said advertisers were free to buy keywords identical to trademarks of rivals as long as the way the advertisements were displayed did not mislead consumers over the authenticity of goods and services.

The court said that in cases where ads could confuse consumers, brand owners should invoke their rights against the advertisers concerned rather than Google — unless Google failed to act on a complaint, or actively manipulated keywords.

The ruling is good news for Google’s AdWords paid-search business at the core of Google’s $23 billion online advertising operations, as well as of competitors such as Yahoo! Inc, and gives brand owners a way to prevent wrongful use of their trademarks.

“It’s a good decision in large parts,” Fabian Ziegenaus, an intellectual property lawyer at Linklaters, told Reuters.

“It does not forbid Google per se to sell trademark keywords, so the business model is not at stake, and brand owners are also protected through the decision.”

Advertisers often buy brand names of their competitors as keywords to increase viewings for their own ads. Google says the practice is in the interests of consumers who do not want their search results to be limited to a single brand.

Brand owners can also bid for their own brand names as keywords and this auction process determines the order in which sponsored links are displayed in the Google search results.

Until 2004, Google banned advertisers from buying others’ brand names as keywords, but changed its policy in North America in that year, and four years later extended that to Britain and Ireland.

It says it will honour valid complaints from brand owners and prevent their rivals from using a trademarked keyword in their advertisements’ text.

Both Google and LVMH, the world’s biggest luxury-goods group, claimed the court’s decision as a victory.

“Trademarks … are key for companies to market and advertise their products and services. But trademark rights are not absolute,” wrote Google’s senior litigation counsel for Europe, Harjinder S. Obhi on the company’s European public policy blog.

“We believe that user interest is best served by maximising the choice of keywords, ensuring relevant and informative advertising for a wide variety of different contexts.”

LVMH Vice Chairman Pierre Gode told Reuters: “We are very happy with the decision. We consider the decision is very important as the liability of advertisers is well established.”

Members of the search engine optimisation community have come together to praise the work of Rhea Drysdale, who won her battle to prevent the term SEO from being trademarked earlier this month.

Drysdale spent two years fighting a trademark application by Jason Gambert for the term SEO. In a blog post, Drysdale recounts her battle which began with a notice of opposition to Gambert’s application on April 24, 2008 and ended on March 11, 2010 when the application was terminated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Matt Cutts, head of Google’s Webspam team, added a link to the story from his own blog and suggested making donations to help cover Drysdale’s legal costs which totalled $17,004.

Over 150 people have now written on Drysdale’s blog to show their appreciation. PayPal donations have also flooded in and $17,000 has now been raised by the industry.

Cutts said: “Rhea took on a big fight for the benefit of the SEO industry, saw it through to the end — and won! In the process, she earned the sort of credibility that you just can’t buy.”

In a message of thanks on her website, Drysdale said: “After an overwhelming show of support from the community, I wanted to take a minute to thank you.

“When I originally discussed the SEO trademark news with Search Engine Land, it was suggested that readers may want to donate to my legal funds. I tried to brush this off and we published the articles.

“I thought I was just telling the story of the past two years and this case, which took so much from me and the other opposers. Within minutes people were asking how they could send donations and I had to accept the fact that this was no longer just my fight.”

Drysdale has come in for a significant amount of praise from SEO professionals across the world, many leaving messages of thanks and congratulations on her website.

“Thank you for your courage and your fight to save our industry and its rights,” said one.

Many posters admitted they were unaware of the application to trademark the term SEO in the first place.

Another well-wisher said: “I applaud you for catching that this mark was even up for a Trademark, much less going to bat and putting money on the line to oppose its registration. Congrats, cheers, and thanks.”

News home

Internet users are joining an online campaign to get their MPs to vote against the government’s Digital Economy Bill which they believe is being rushed through parliament.

The legislation, aimed at tackling internet piracy, has been championed by business secretary Lord Mandelson and received backing from sections of the music industry.

However, part of the bill contains legislation that could see illegal file sharers have their internet connection suspended. This idea has drawn criticism from internet users and companies including BT and Google.

Although the House of Lords has now given passed the bill, members objected to, and subsequently defeated, a clause that would have allowed future governments to alter internet copyright law on the spot, without the need for further legislation.

The Digital Economy Bill is expected to be rushed through the Commons before the next election and internet users are now calling on their MPs to stop it being passed into law.

The Guardian newspaper reports that the bill had its first reading in the Commons on Tuesday night, and in response objectors are using the 38Degrees website to garner support against it.

The webpage says: “The government is trying to rush it through quietly just before the election without proper debate – without a chance for us to voice our opposition. Email your MP now and urge them to stop the government rushing this law through.”

News home

Almost two-thirds of shoppers say they are less likely to return goods bought online than those they buy from a shop, according to a new Government-backed survey.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says its findings are despite online shoppers being afforded more protection than those buying on the high street, in the form of a statutory seven-day ‘cooling-off’ period during which they can return purchases without affecting their rights.

UK consumers are the biggest users of internet shopping services in the whole of Europe. They spent GBP38billion online in 2009, which accounted for 10 per cent of total retail sales.

Among the survey’s findings were that:

- More than three-quarters of people surveyed didn’t know that they had different rights when buying online compared with making a shop purchase

- More than 60 per cent say they would be less likely to return goods bought online as against those bought in a shop, and

- More than one in eight of those questioned were unsure of their rights as an online buyer.

Consumer Minister Kevin Brennan said: “We are now Europe’s biggest online shoppers, so it’s important we all know that most online goods can be returned with no questions asked within seven days.

“We want confident consumers who can assert their rights and get a good deal.”

Michele Shambrook, operations manager for Consumer Direct said: “People who are knowledgeable about their rights are more likely to get a fair deal, save money and resolve problems when things go wrong.”

A working party looking into the use of images of private property on Google's enhanced Street View service has asked the internet giant to shorten the period of time for which it retains images taken by its camera teams for posting on its website.

The EU justice commission-established group wants to restrict the length of time Google can keep these images to six months, according to a Reuters report. It says that it currently dispenses with them after a year.

Many people have criticised the service as it shows unobscured views of private property, and say Google has set its cameras so that they can see over walls and hedges.

Google’s global legal advisor, Peter Fleischer, was written to by the European Commission, which asked that it should halve the length of time it holds onto these images, to six months.

In its letter, the working group said it “believes that a maximum retention of six months for the unblurred copies of the images would strike the right balance between the protection of privacy and the ability to eliminate false positives.”

European Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding reiterated the EU’s intention to be vigilant in safeguarding the high standards of data protection which she believes the Union sets.

“I expect that all companies play according to the rules of the game,” she said in a statement.