Many discount diovan people with schizophrenia will take medications known as antipsychotics, helping cheap viagra tablets to reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia. The injury may be viagra medication mild, moderate, or severe, depending on the force of impact, buy cheapest viagra on line and type of muscle injured. Aloe One species of aloe, clindamycin gel online stores Aloe littoralis, has been shown to reduce inflammation and encourage diovan no prescription wound healing in animal studies. The WHO also recommends eating cheap atenolol pill a balanced diet filled with varied fruits and vegetables and sale lipitor get opting for water as the main drink. Stress is a robaxin without prescription common cause of psoriasis flares, and a psoriasis flare can azor side effects pill further worsen a person's stress. Should this be the case, find no rx atrovent a person should contact a doctor to review the steps order synthroid of the treatment plan, any medications, and if there are nexium sale alternative steps a person can take to help treat the clonidine sale condition. Radiation therapy uses high-energy X-rays or other sources of cialis sales radiation to kill cancer cells and help prevent them from dividing..

Yesterday was the “Fairness Hearing” in the Google Books Settlement case. The New York Times has a good report on it. Judge Chin’s questions suggest he is worried that the settlement goes way beyond what was needed to settle the issues between the parties—which is true, of course. A class action lawsuit over copyright infringement should not be a platform for a world-changing business partnership, with the biggest rewards going to the infringer.

Alas, so far I see nothing to suggest that the privacy issues with the settlement have caught the judge’s attention. I found this paragraph from the ACLU particularly interesting:

Because the settlement does not contain any privacy protections for users, Google’s system will be able to monitor which books users search for, which pages of the books they read and how long they spend on each page. Google could then combine information about readers’ habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive “digital dossier” that would be highly tempting and possibly vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.

Among the reasons Google will rue the day it decided to roll out Buzz as an opt-out product with your social network harvested from your Gmail address book is that it renders worries like the ACLU’s far more credible. With all that useful data about reader behavior, Google itself will be highly  tempted to repurpose it. After all, it has shown itself willing to do that with your address book, which many of us consider confidential information—why not do it with the information about which books, and which pages of which books, you spend your time reading?

This entry was posted on Friday, February 19th, 2010 at 10:54 am and is filed under Owning bits—copyright, Privacy, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.