Page 1 of 2

Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It

Posted: 08-05-2010 06:37 PM
by Linnea
Okay - this is a Big Deal. So, posting entire article. Posted on HuffPo by Josh Silver - Aug 5th, 2010:
For years, Internet advocates have warned of the doomsday scenario that will play out on Monday: Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

The deal marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it. Since its beginnings, the Net was a level playing field that allowed all content to move at the same speed, whether it's ABC News or your uncle's video blog. That's all about to change, and the result couldn't be more bleak for the future of the Internet, for television, radio and independent voices.

How did this happen? We have a Federal Communications Commission that has been denied authority by the courts to police the activities of Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast. All because of a bad decision by the Bush-era FCC. We have a pro-industry FCC Chairman who is terrified of making a decision, conducting back room dealmaking, and willing to sit on his hands rather than reassert his agency's authority. We have a president who promised to "take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality" yet remains silent. We have a congress that is nearly completely captured by industry. Yes, more than half of the US congress will do pretty much whatever the phone and cable companies ask them to. Add the clout of Google, and you have near-complete control of Capitol Hill.

A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online. A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us.

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It's like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Fortunately, while they are outnumbered, there are several powerful Net Neutrality champions on Capitol Hill, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, Jay Rockefeller, Ed Markey, Jay Inslee and many others. But they will not be able to turn this tide unless they have massive, visible support from every American who uses the Internet --- whether it's for news, email, shopping, Facebook, Twitter --- whatever. So stop what you're doing and tell them you're not letting the Internet go the way of Big Oil and Big Banks. The future of the Internet, and your access to information depends on it.

Author's note: Notice how a company can change their tune in the name of profitmaking. From Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."
Be heard:

Link to article: ... 71617.html

Posted: 08-05-2010 10:08 PM
by Rombaldi
((ahem...)) ... eutrality/

Google, Verizon Deny NYT Story On Their Undermining Of Net Neutrality

by Jason Kincaid on Aug 5, 2010

Yesterday, the New York Times published a story that detailed an agreement in the works between Verizon and Google that would effectively kill off net neutrality by allowing “Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege”. The news sparked outrage in the tech community, because Google has a long history of advocating net neutrality. Now both Google and Verizon are coming out to claim that the New York Times story is incorrect.

A report in The Guardian cites a Google spokesperson as saying ” “The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

Verizon’s policy blog has posted a statement as well:

“The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.”

Google’s own public policy blog doesn’t have anything on the story yet, but its Twitter account did comment on the matter:

“@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”


Posted: 08-05-2010 10:56 PM
by Linnea
Should we just go forward then, with a hope and a prayer? This is an issue for which we need to clamor very loudly for a fix - at the level of govt and the FCC.

To just look the other way and put our faith in Verizon/Google and etc... seems a disastrous course.

Can you hear me now?

Posted: 08-05-2010 11:05 PM
by Rombaldi
Linnea wrote: Should we just go forward then, with a hope and a prayer? This is an issue for which we need to clamor very loudly for a fix - at the level of govt and the FCC.

To just look the other way and put our faith in Verizon/Google and etc... seems a disastrous course.
To sign Sen. Franken's petition is a wise thing, no argument, but I don't think we need to get torches and pitchforks out yet... watch, monitor, be alert.. but not panic striken...
Can you hear me now?

Loud and clear... but then I use T-Mobile :D (9+ years)

Posted: 08-05-2010 11:06 PM
by SquidInk
The demise of "net neutrality" is inevitable (imho). The dollars are too big. I see no way to prevent this situation within our current societal framework.

Having said that, yeah, we need to fight it tooth and nail - the free, unfettered movement of information should be the ultimate goal. Without access to the full spectrum of information, most serious discussion quickly devolves into guesswork.

Individuals can leverage their influence by seeking out opportunities to support organizations aligned against those corporate-government entities which attempt to throttle the flow.

Posted: 08-06-2010 01:58 AM
by Linnea
Guess mobile devices are screwed too. Sat phones? Amateur Radio has got some communications satellites up as well...

It would really be nice to have something together that was freely accessible. Radio waves...I guess. It's not possible to jam them all.

Posted: 08-06-2010 06:00 AM
by kbot
We already have this to some degree - Verizon's FIOS product is limited to the cities only. I am a ten-minute ride from one of Massachusetts' largest cities, and even less than that from Providence, and Verizon has no FIOS service out here. So the alternative's are the cable provuiers (in my case Comcast) or AOL, which has either broadband (at an arm and a leg) or dial-up. Dial-up is slower, but a heck of a lot cheaper than any of the alternatives.

As far as Google goes, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them because they record and will readily report every site you visit. Ixquick doesn't record this information, and hasn't signed any agreement with the government to do so.

Posted: 08-06-2010 10:54 AM
by Cherry Kelly
This has also been a topic in an OnComputers chat - and everyone seems to be 'we will see it when or if we ever do" -- still people in the countryside would be royally "screwed" in such cases.

Posted: 08-06-2010 08:13 PM
by Kaztronic
For the last couple of months I've been following reports about Google. As I see it, this situation is quite probably farther gone than we yet realize and it may already be too late to stop the momentum at Google's back. They've got powerful people in all the right places at this point - further, the lines between Google and the government have begun to blur over the past year. If Google wants to do this, I have no doubt they could pull it off with the government providing them cover.

I've got a whole bunch of links in my favorites folder and will try to tie some of them together and create a post drawing the picture of just how well Google has already dotted the I's and crossed the T's.

Posted: 08-06-2010 08:21 PM
by megman

I've posted this before and its time to do so again.

The more people involved and connected to it will help it grow.;)

Posted: 08-06-2010 08:45 PM
by Kaztronic
I started tracking the Google story due to my distrust of the Obama Administration, and my conviction that it is no better, no more transparent, no more honest, no more people centered than the Administration that preceded it. Considering it's promises and potential, I consider this Administration to be nothing other than a fraud on the American people.

In many ways, I consider the Obama Administration to be more dangerous than the Bush Administration - because they are getting a free pass from those who either still naively believe in the hope and change BS this shyster was selling during the primaries and election, or they are too embarrassed (or even stunned) to admit they read this Administration wrong.

Whether you agree or disagree with me is not relevant to the facts that on military matters, civil liberties, etc.... the Obama Administration is not treated with the level of distrust, disgust, and most importantly, scrutiny that the previous Administration had. From those who fought loudest to stop the awful practices of the Bush Administration we now hear pretty much nothing. There was a time when these folks were yelling from the mountaintops that Bush and Cheney should be subject to a warcrimes trial. Now that their own messiah is carrying out the same exact practices, and pushing even further on some of them they are silent about "war crimes". Next up will be an immigration reform policy that will be to the right of what Bush proposed several years ago - a policy that caused outrage on the left..... I can't help but wonder if those who remain infatuated with this President, or determined not to believe their own party is as feckless as the party they are sworn to oppose will be muted in their commentary this time round (heck, they may even celebrate it as progress when just a few years ago, a more lenient approach was awful). I can't even relate to the thought process or rationalize it anymore. We're lost, strangers in a strange land.

I write all that because it helps to explain my thought process as to whether or not I should bother putting in time and effort to researching stories, putting together posts, etc..... When I dig in to some of these posts, they can take hours to put together - with research done over the course of several days, or longer. One has to ask themself if the effort is worth it when nearly everyone's mind is already made up. How else to explain the silence in response to posts about the continued operations of black sites/secret prisons in Afghanistan? The lack of concern about Gitmo still being open? The lack of concern about expanded hostilities in Afghanistan? No worries about civilian casualties due to our dramatically expanded use of drone missiles in the war on terror (or whatever we call it these days).

For me the point was really driven home, and I lost a lot of hope when the Democrats began to sell out abortion rights during the Health Care debate. I knew in my heart the outrage that would have erupted from people had such decisions been made under a Republican President, yet these folks largely remained silent. The fact is, the pro-life movement has scored a larger victory under this Democratic Administration than has occured during the last several Republican Administrations. I recall all too well the anger and outrage that the U.S. would have the gall to insist that overseas healthcare aid not be used on abortions - now that this policy has come home to be enacted on our own shores their is largely silence (a free pass granted). On that topic, I'd also mention that we should perhaps be weary of Sotomayor and Kagan on aborition when it comes to their judicial philosophy - red flags were there, and were ignored. That would not have happened had they been appointed by a Republican. This topic would have much more thoroughly been explored). All told, that's dangerous stuff, I keep coming back to a: "willing suspension of disbelief" that has led to this scenario where a Democratic President can, and has been enacting policies a Republican would come under far more intense scrutiny for attempting.

The Google story is just another example of how this Administration is in fact no different than any other.


Right, this is too long an intro to my post - so will put it in the next post without an intro of any kind, I just wanted to explain why I've been tracking this story, and why it's difficult sometimes to put forth the effort these days (although this story has certainly got my motor running).

Posted: 08-06-2010 10:26 PM
by Kaztronic
Over the past year or so, watchdog groups have been screaming bloody murder about the inappropriate ties between the White House and heavy hitters at Google. Tech competitors have complained, government agents have raised red flags that their was a cozy, and perhaps nefarious relationship developing between Google and the intelligence community as well (specifically the CIA).

Back in June, this story got a little bit of play because of a piece in the NY Times detailing the back door method employed by the Obama Administration to meet with lobbyists, and to put forth the false impression of an Administration that does not deal with lobbyists (unfortunately, this will all be forgotten by the next election). CREW - which stands for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - was amongst the first out of the gate to call this as it was, a deceitful attempt to get past sharing White House visitor logs that track these types of meetings.


Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists — members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its “outsized influence” in the capital.

On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients.

But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.”

The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ “battalions” of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.



Attempts to put distance between the White House and lobbyists are not limited to meetings. Some lobbyists say that they routinely get e-mail messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts, which can become subject to public review. Administration officials said there were some permissible exceptions to a federal law requiring staff members to use their official accounts and retain the correspondence.

NY Times

Digging in to the very alarming, Nixonesque comment about White House officials hiding official communications by using their personal e-mails, watchdog groups uncovered major stuff about the relationship between Google and the White House - specifically dealing with Google's preferences regarding Net Neutrality.

We need to go back in time a little bit before we get to the nitty gritty of those e-mails, and whether or not we can expect Google's interests to come ahead of ours should push come to shove. The first thing you need to look at is the access Google has to the White House. Back in 2009, watchdog groups were again raising the alarm that Google was moving in to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Three senior Google execs, including a former Google lobbyist were given positions in this Administration - including oversight of the net neutrality efforts.


Two consumer groups today urged the White House not to move forward with the pending appointment of Google's top global public policy official to the position of Deputy Chief Technology Officer in the White House, saying it would violate the intent of President Obama's ethics rules meant to end the revolving door between lobbyists and the executive branch.

Although the choice of Andrew McLaughlin, Google's Director of Global Public Policy, for the position has been widely reported, it has yet to be announced by the White House.

In a letter to President Obama, John M. Simpson, consumer advocate at Consumer Watchdog, and Jeffery A. Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, wrote: "Given Mr. McLaughlin's role over the years at Google, and most recently his position with its political action committee, any post at the White House would violate the intent of your executive order."

The letter said that Google's growing influence in government and on the economy is not the primary reason the appointment should be withdrawn. "We do not object to Mr. McLaughlin's appointment because he is associated with Google per se," the letter said. "The problem is that he has been a lobbyist for the biggest digital marketing company in the world, and we believe no special-interest connected person should assume a position of vital importance to the country's future. It would be just as inappropriate for a lobbyist from Microsoft, Yahoo! or any similar technology company to be appointed Deputy Chief Technology Officer."

As Google's Director of Global Public Policy, McLaughlin led a team of corporate policy advocates working to influence a wide range of issues in the United States and globally. Simply put, he has been responsible for Google's worldwide lobbying efforts. McLaughlin was a registered lobbyist in 2007 working on Google's behalf. The statement of organization for Google's political action committee, Google Inc. NetPAC, filed on March 16, 2009, lists him as the committee's assistant treasurer and its designated agent.


Since the start of the year, two senior Google (NSDQ: GOOG) executives have joined the Obama administration—and CEO Eric Schmidt has been appointed to the president’s advisory board on science and technology. Concerned in part over the company’s growing influence, two consumer groups are publicly opposing the appointment of a third Google executive to the White House. In a letter to the president dated Wednesday, Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Digital Democracy call for Obama not to move forward with the appointment of Google public policy chief Andrew McLaughlin as the nation’s deputy chief technology officer. “Given ... your commitment to a new standard for ethics in government, it would be a mistake to put Google’s top global policy person in a key leadership position with critical technology decisions for the federal government,” they write. The two groups note that in his post at Google McLaughlin lobbied on behalf of the company and that Obama has signed an executive order with the intent of limiting the role of former lobbyists in the White House.

So, what has Mr. McLaughlin been up to since he joined the White House? Back in May, it came out that he was using his gmail account to communicate with his former google co-workers about official business. The White House released the e-mails in question, which seemed at face value not to be too alarming (with one major exception).


Nearly all of the e-mails are innocuous. Most come from Googler Vint "Father of the Internet" Cerf—but these concern keeping Internet access running in Haiti during the US relief efforts and the operation of ICANN, not about Google (Big Government charged in April that McLaughlin was lobbying hard for Clearwire during the Haiti disaster, though the report is unsourced). And Cerf currently serves on a federal advisory board, so the communications would be legitimate conversation between government employees.

Only one e-mail from Cerf stands out: a February 2010 message in which he asks McLaughlin to read a third-party white paper on public/private ownership of open-access middle-mile Internet connectivity. Cerf recommends the paper, which the paper's author says would "really drive home the value of what Google is proposing with its Gigabit to the home initiative."

More problematic are connections between McLaughlin and current Google DC lobbyist Alan Davidson. In a November 2009 e-mail, Davidson sent McLaughlin an e-mail saying, "Incoming. We got this from a reporter."

It was a statement from AT&T, bashing McLaughlin for some pro-open Internet remarks he made. "PS we've teed it up for the OIC gang, so some of those folks will have your back," wrote Davidson. (OIC is the Open Internet Coalition, it seems, of which Google is a member.)

Google and OIC then tried to kill the story on McLaughlin. "We and a few OIC folks talked to reporters," wrote Davidson. "It's possible that killed it, which is probably driving Cicconi crazy. :]" (James Cicconi is AT&T's top DC lobbyist.)

McLaughlin thanked them for their help and engaged in some brief back-and-forth, telling Davidson that the White House too would "push back hard, which is helpful."

This was one of the interactions that got McLaughlin into trouble. Another came when the Google Buzz story hit and Big Government wrote its March piece on McLaughlin. He turned immediately to his private-sector colleague Davidson, asking him to help out in quashing the story.

If it were to have ended there, perhaps it wouldn't be quite so alarming a story - but it gets worse, because the White House was hiding some of the emails by the looks of things. It took an FOIA request by another watchdog group to get all of the emails (we can hope) released. These were not quite as innocent. It turned out that this former lobbyist was using his official e-mail to arrange off-site meetings about policy with Google folks (of course we all know that a former lobbyist cannot work on issues they used to be involved in).


In September 2009, McLaughlin agreed to meet with a representative of Wilmer Hale Cutler Pickering and Dorr who was a registered Google lobbyist as recently as 2008 according to Senate lobby disclosure records. The representative, Becky Burr, proposed a meeting to discuss White House assistance in weighing in with the Federal Trade Commission on privacy regulation in ways that would appear to benefit Google.

Over a two-week period in February 2010, McLaughlin exchanged numerous emails with Free Press director Ben Scott, another prominent advocate for Net neutrality who has coordinated policy strategy with Google and attended joint meetings with Google at the FCC and White House on numerous occasions. They agreed to meet outside the White House at a nearby coffee shop to discuss Internet policy.

From January through March of this year, several email messages relating to intellectual property issues were sent to McLaughlin from the Executive Director of a Google-funded coalition. The emails appear to have been sent to keep McLaughlin “in the loop” regarding copyright and intellectual property issues – key policy issues for the Mountain View company.

National Legal & Policy Center

PDF's of some of the actual e-mails:


So, we have, really, we have THE former lobbyist for Google working in the White House (one of three former google execs in the Administration) who has been communicating with lobbyists for Google and associated interests improperly over his personal accounts, arranging off-site meetings to avoid showing up on the visitor logs, and further violating policy by working on issues, with companies he is prohibited from dealing with.

Does all of this underscore the point that Google might be working to do something nefarious? No - it doesn't prove that, but it does prove that Google has really, REALLY good access to the White House, that they do favors for each other with the press, and that they seem to be working together, or at least on the same page on issues such as net neutrality.

That's all I wanted to lay out up until this point.

So, let's say that Google really is up to no good with Verizon. Can we count on Congress perhaps to do the right thing?

Ummm...... No.


Subcommittee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) demanded a recorded vote on a motion to subpoena White House technology officer Beth Noveck, after saying that the absence of a White House witness “undermines the purposes of the hearing and prevents us from doing our job of conducting oversight of this issue.”

Chairman Lacy Clay (D-MO) immediately called an unexpected recess, and members sat waiting for 15 minutes before the subcommittee reconvened

The vote on the motion to subpoena was then defeated.

Republicans on the Oversight Committee are investigating why White House deputy web chief Andrew McLaughlin was in contact with former coworkers at Google from his personal Gmail account. In the emails, McLaughlin discussed many of Google’s high priority lobbying issues, including FTC rules on online privacy, the administration broadband policy, net neutrality and intellectual property rules. House Republicans claim that the conversations over private email were in violation of federal ethics and recordkeeping rules, such as the Presidential Records Act.

At the hearing, a consumer watchdog testified that he believed the White House was too cozy with Google, and the company’s lobbying interests. “I do think that Google specifically has perhaps too close a relationship with the government,” said John Simpson, director of the Stem Cell Project. “I think Mr. McLaughlin’s appointment is one of those ties that are inappropriate.”

The White House has argued that McLaughlin’s violation of the rules was unintentional, and the web chief was reprimanded for the incidents in May.

Thursday’s hearing had been originally scheduled for June 24, and was supposed to include testimony by technology officer Novek, but it was postponed after Democrats learned committee Republicans were planning to grill Novek about alleged violations of recordkeeping rules. Novek did not appear at the rescheduled hearing.


Posted: 08-06-2010 10:27 PM
by Kaztronic
So, if anything is going on, I suggest it's too late to stop it. The White House is obviously in bed with Google at this point (some watchdog groups have actually taken to calling Google "Obama's Halliburton" - yeah, it's that bad). Further, the parties will protect their own before stepping out on the line to do the right thing on this issue. If we learned anything from big pharma's disgusting deal with the White House to get them on board with healthcare reform, it's that corporate interests are being well served by this Administration as one might expect of any American Administration representing either of these political parties.

So, that leaves us with the question as to whether or not Google is a company we can place in trust in. Google's motto: "Do no evil"? Give that some thought while you consider what is written in the post above.

Here are a couple of hints about Google:


Former CIA clandestine case officer Robert David Steele made some very hot comments on his appearance on the Alex Jones radio show. Steele cites his contacts within the agency with the information that Google and the CIA are involved with one another.

Steele said, "I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off."

In reference to Google's fight against the U.S. Department of Justice for the privacy of its users, Steele claims that it was an elaborate charade intended for the public eye.

"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," concluded Steele.

From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims, and neither Google nor the CIA are yet commenting on the matter.

The Alex Jones show? Well, I didn't much of that article written in 2006 because of that connection - but had to reconsider that opinion in light of a more recent article:


The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

“The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science.

Which naturally makes the 16-person Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm attractive to Google Ventures, the search giant’s investment division, and to In-Q-Tel, which handles similar duties for the CIA and the wider intelligence community.

It’s not the very first time Google has done business with America’s spy agencies. Long before it reportedly enlisted the help of the National Security Agency to secure its networks, Google sold equipment to the secret signals-intelligence group. In-Q-Tel backed the mapping firm Keyhole, which was bought by Google in 2004 — and then became the backbone for Google Earth.

Let me wrap this up by saying that I think it is safe to say that if some type of "net neutrality" bill, regulation, whatever does move forward - it will benefit corporations like Google far more than it will benefit us - just like healthcare reform did (but hey, at least we'll have a partisan victory one-third of the country can celebrate, eh?).

Re: Continued.......

Posted: 08-06-2010 10:59 PM
by SquidInk
Kaztronic wrote: The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

Ah... epic post - from an epic poster. Thank you for taking the time to compile this information.

I agree with you regarding the current administration. The cinch has been tightened another notch - despite the rhetoric.

Having read your post (but not all of the links quite yet), I find the part quoted above to be the most interesting. For what reason would these people be interested in monitoring the net in real time?

Posted: 08-06-2010 11:03 PM
by HB3
They're talking about predicting the future. That's gotta be valuable information, if you know how to use it.
The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

“The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science.