This buy tetracycline canada drug may not be the right treatment for you if griseofulvin sale you have certain medical conditions or other factors that affect discount atrovent side effects usa your health. For example, they may have had another stroke, glucophage for order or the underlying condition that caused their vascular dementia may cheapest generic viagra online have worsened. Individuals living with neuropathy who do not feel order alesse (ovral l) they are experiencing sufficient pain relief from traditional therapies can atrovent no prescription speak with a doctor. However, It is unclear whether obesity buy allopurinol causes PCOS or if PCOS leads to weight gain that triamterene online sales can cause obesity. To find out what the cost of buy cheap spiriva online Myrbetriq will be for you, talk with your doctor, pharmacist, buy serevent online or insurance provider. According to the American Academy of Dermatology find cialis online Association (AAD), early signs of PsA may include swollen and compare augmentin prices online stiff joints. If possible, water, low sugar sports drinks, electrolyte buy generic lumigan drinks, or diluted juice may be better options to help viagra rehydrate during stomach flu. Though the process may vary by employer,.

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.