Digital Copyright Canada

Posted by Mistique Cano, Manager, Public Policy Communications

YouTube’s Margaret Gould Stewart recently gave a TED talk about how YouTube’s Content ID system cross-references over 20 hours of uploaded content a minute with our rights holder database to give copyright owners choices. In the video, she shows how the Content ID technology works and explains, “The scale and speed of the system is breathtaking… We’re talking about over a hundred of years of video a day. It would be like 36,000 people staring at 36,000 monitors each and everyday without so much as coffee break.” Check it out.

Posted by Andrew Silverman, Senior Product Manager

Last month we announced our plans to acquire ITA Software. Today, after meeting with many companies in the industry, we're even more excited about building new tools that will make it easier for consumers to search for flights, compare flight options, and get you quickly to a site where you can buy a ticket.

We’ve been encouraged by the travel industry support we’ve seen for this acquisition -- from airlines to online travel agencies. Even longtime travel guru Arthur Frommer said that "the existence of so many competing airfare search engines convinces me that the field will remain competitive even after Google enters it.”

While we think this acquisition will benefit travelers as well as those seeking their business, we know that closer scrutiny has been one consequence of Google's success, and we said that we wouldn’t be surprised if there were a regulatory review before the deal closes. This week we received what's called a "second request," which means that the U.S. Department of Justice is asking for more information so that they can continue to review the deal.

While this means we won't be closing the deal right away, we're confident that the DOJ will conclude that online travel will remain competitive after this acquisition closes. In fact, over the past few weeks online travel companies have noted that they have alternatives to ITA’s product: Kayak's CEO called Expedia’s Best Fare Search alternative "awesome"; Orbitz said that "Worldspan's e-Pricing search technology is a good solution that Travelport is devoting resources to develop. So we have alternatives available to us”; and Continental Airlines noted that "there are alternatives to the [ITA] shopping solution in the marketplace, both internally and externally.”

While we of course hope to continue working with ITA’s current customers, these comments demonstrate that competition will remain alive and well. We’ll be working cooperatively with the Department of Justice as they continue their review.

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

• Newly enforceable FCC standards
• Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
• Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
• Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
• Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
• Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors

Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.

In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.

We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:

• First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.

• Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.

• Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

Posted by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications

The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.

It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”

In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet. Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework. We have been guided by the two main goals:

     1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

     2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.

Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.

Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that.

Posted by Mistique Cano, Manager, Public Policy Communications

Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg have an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that further explains our joint policy proposal for an open Internet. They describe our policy proposal in detail and explain how our conversations were “guided by two principles: our commitment to an open Internet, and the need for continued investment in broadband infrastructure.”

Posted by Will DeVries, Policy Counsel

Updated video added below

How do you come up with solutions for online privacy when technology is constantly evolving? It’s a challenge that engineers face every day when figuring out how to make it intuitive, simple, and useful for Internet users to take control of their privacy and security. It’s also the topic that Dr. Alma Whitten, Google’s lead privacy engineer, will be addressing alongside representatives from Apple, AT&T, and Facebook later today at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.

Alma’s testimony will focus on how we put our privacy principles into practice. She’ll talk about products like the Google Dashboard (which provides users with a one-stop, easy-to-use control panel for the information they store with their Google accounts and products) and our Ads Preferences Manager (which allows users to edit the categories used to serve them interest-based ads, or opt out altogether). These are examples of how we’ve developed privacy tools by focusing on transparency, user control, and security.

You can read Alma’s full written testimony here, or watch the video below.

Posted by Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist

Bending, walking, breathing, hearing, seeing and sleeping are simple things that are often taken for granted, as are thinking, learning, and communicating.

Twenty years ago today, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law. This milestone legislation bans persons or companies from discriminating against anyone with limited abilities. It’s hard to imagine a world in which the right to participate in activities commonly enjoyed by the bulk of the population are denied or inadequately accommodated, but that was the case before ADA.

The efforts of the advocates who came to Washington two decades ago to rally for their civil rights has transformed so much of the modern world around us. As someone who’s worn hearing aids since I was 13, for example, I very much appreciate that most television programs and DVDs or Blu-Ray disks are captioned. On my way home, I might pass through a door that I know is wide enough for a wheelchair -- because the ADA set the building codes that require it. I see service animals on the DC Metro, accessible checkout aisles at my grocery store, ramps on sidewalks, and designated parking in movie theater lots: all there because of the important provisions included in the ADA.

Whereas the ADA set legal standards for ensuring equal rights for Americans with disabilities, Google is keenly aware that technology can help all users better enjoy the world around them. From opening millions of titles of printed content to persons with visual impairments through Google Book Search, to providing ready and easy-to-use captions on YouTube, to including a built in screenreader and a text-to-speech engine in Android, to introducing new extensions on Chrome to make online text easier to read, we’re serious about honoring our mission to make the world’s information universally accessible and useful. You can keep up with our progress at www.google.com/accessibility.

Congratulations to all those who work to make the ADA a living, breathing reality; for all the years I’ve been working on policy in Washington, it’s still rare to see a law that has had as positive and fundamental an influence on our lives as this Act. There still is work to be done to meet the goals of ADA, and we are committed to doing our part.

Posted by Kripa Krishnan, Technical Program Manager, Google Apps for Government
(Cross-posted from the Official Google Blog)

Today we’re excited to announce a new edition of Google Apps. Designed with guidance from customers like the federal government, the City of Los Angeles and the City of Orlando, Google Apps for Government includes the same great Google applications that people know and love, with specific measures to address the policy and security needs of the public sector.

We’re also pleased to announce that Google Apps is the first suite of cloud computing applications to receive Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) certification and accreditation from the U.S. government. The FISMA law applies to all information systems in use by U.S. federal government agencies to help ensure they’re secure. The federal government’s General Services Administration has reviewed the documentation of our security controls and issued an authorization to operate, the official confirmation of our FISMA certification and accreditation. This review makes it easier for federal agencies to compare our security features to those of their existing systems; most agencies we have worked with have found that Google Apps provides at least equivalent, if not better, security than they have today. This means government customers can move to the cloud with confidence.

Take Berkeley Lab, a member of the national laboratory system supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. It’s managed by the University of California and conducts unclassified research across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Berkeley researchers collaborate with scientists around the world, so emailing version upon version of documents among collaborators and trying to juggle disparate files is difficult. Berkeley Lab researchers have been using Google Apps to share documents that live in the cloud, and can view and edit documents and spreadsheets simultaneously knowing they are always working from the latest information. (Read more from Berkeley Lab’s Chief Information Officer on the Enterprise blog.)

And we’re not stopping with FISMA certification. Google Apps for Government will continue to evolve to meet unique government requirements. Google Apps for Government stores Gmail and Calendar data in a segregated system located in the continental United States, exclusively for our government customers. Other applications will follow in the near future. The suite is a “community cloud”—as defined by the National Institute for Science and Technology—to support the needs of our government customers. Google Apps for Government is available now to any federal, state or local government in the United States.

With reviews of our security controls in place, government agencies can more easily take advantage of all the benefits of one of the world’s best cloud computing systems. Google’s cloud offers higher reliability, best-in-class disaster recovery and access to a steady stream of innovation—all of which can provide substantial improvements over existing systems in addition to significant cost savings. And with no hardware or software to install and maintain, Google Apps for Government allows agencies to redeploy resources to technology projects core to their mission of serving the public. This new edition should give governments an even stronger case for making the move to the cloud.

Posted by Pablo Chavez, Director of Public Policy

Today we submitted comments with the Federal Trade Commission in reaction to the Staff Discussion Draft about the future of journalism in the age of the Internet.

We agree that the Internet has posed challenges as well as opportunities for publishers. Google works closely with publishers to find business solutions so journalism can thrive online, and we’re optimistic about the news industry’s future. But we strongly disagree with a number of policy recommendations set forth in the Staff Discussion Draft, such as the suggestion that Congress enact a federal hot news doctrine -- something that would not only hurt free expression, but also the very profession of journalism that the proponents of hot news say they support.

We appreciate the FTC's involvement in this matter and its effort to shed light on how news publishers can move forward in the digital era, and we're hopeful that our comments will help encourage policy makers to promote innovation and creativity rather than protectionist barriers.

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Today we submitted comments supporting the FCC’s proposed Third Way. In a letter to the agency two months ago, Google along with other technology companies expressed the view that the Third Way framework “will create a legally sound, light-touch regulatory framework that benefits consumers, technology companies and broadband Internet access providers.” We still believe this is a true statement.

The recent Comcast decision re-opened some fundamental questions about the FCC’s jurisdiction over broadband Internet services. On balance the Third Way framework -- which would apply only in a limited manner to only the transmission component of broadband Internet service -- presents a predictable, effective, and tailored approach.

Posted by Mistique Cano, public policy communications


Liquid nitrogen. Deconstruction. Physics. Three terms not typically associated with cooking. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Chef José Andrés, of Jaleo, Oyamel, Zaytinya, Café Atlantico and Minibar fame.

Our next D.C. Talk is this coming Wednesday, July 14th, and we promise it will be memorable. Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf will join Chef Andrés to ask you to re-imagine innovation and how it can transform the way we eat.

Driven by science and the desire to embody elements like air or light, food critic Ruth Reichl describes Chef Andrés’ culinary approach - known as molecular gastronomy - as “a kind of magic, it’s like a circus of the mouth.”


If you have burning questions for Chef Andrés, submit them and vote for other good questions via Google Moderator.

Google D.C. Talks presentsChef José Andrés:What does light taste like?Wednesday, July 14th 5:30 PM - 7 PM ETGoogle Washington Office1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second FloorWashington, D.C. 20005Please RSVP

Posted by Adam Kovacevich, Senior Manager, Public Policy Communications

Google’s Marissa Mayer wrote in the Financial Times today about the impact for consumers of governments potentially regulating search results. Because the article is behind the FT’s paywall, we thought we’d share the complete text here (also, check out search analyst Danny Sullivan’s take on this issue).

Do not neutralise the web’s endless search
By Marissa Mayer
Published: July 14 2010

Think about the word “jaguar” – what comes to mind? The animal? The car? A sports team? Now ask yourself: what is the best piece of literature ever written about jaguars? What about the best piece of literature ever written containing the word jaguar?

How do you define what is best? What characteristics and attributes should be taken into account? Which should not? There is a debate brewing, reported in the Financial Times this week, about whether standards are needed to ensure fairness – or what is “best” – in internet search results.

Search engines use algorithms and equations to produce order and organisation online where manual effort cannot. These algorithms embody rules that decide which information is “best”, and how to measure it. Clearly defining which of any product or service is best is subjective. Yet in our view, the notion of “search neutrality” threatens innovation, competition and, fundamentally,your ability as a user to improve how you find information.

When Google was launched in 1998, its fundamental innovation was the PageRank algorithm. It was a new and helpful tool in helping users decide which was the best information available – and one of many hundreds that have since been deployed by search engines to improve the ranking and relevance of their results.

Yet searching the web has never been more complex. Type “World Cup” into Google today and you will see millions of returns, ranging from recent news articles to images of players. Often the answer is not a web page: sports scores, news, pictures and tweets about matches are included. Such results stem from an upgrade in Google’s technology launched in 2007, which made it possible to include media such as maps, books, or videos on a results page. Our goal is to provide our users with the best and most effective answer. Consider the search “how to tie a bowtie”. Answers to these types of searches benefit from the inclusion of different media (diagrams, videos), sometimes from a Google service (books, maps).

To make matters more difficult, a quarter of all daily searches on Google have never been seen before. Each presents a new challenge, so our engineers need constantly to improve and update our algorithms. On average, we make one or two changes every day. But even then they sometimes require a more hands-on approach. For example, we occasionally have to flag malicious programmes manually, removing links to child pornography or spam sites.

The world of search has developed a system in which each search engine uses different algorithms, and with many search engines to choose from users elect to use the engine whose algorithm approximates to their personal notion of what is best for the task at hand. The proponents of “search neutrality” want to put an end to this system, introducing a new set of rules in which governments would regulate search results to ensure they are fair or neutral.

Here the practical challenges would be formidable. What is fair in terms of ordering? An alphabetical listing? Equally, new results will need to be incorporated – new web pages, but also new media types such as tweets or audio streams. Without competition and experimentation between companies, how could the rules keep up? There is no doubt that this will stifle the advance of the science around search engines.

Abuse would be a further problem. If search engines were forced to disclose their algorithms and not just the signals they use, or, worse, if they had to use a standardised algorithm, spammers would certainly use that knowledge to game the system, making the results suspect.

But the strongest arguments against rules for “neutral search” is that they would make the ranking of results on each search engine similar, creating a strong disincentive for each company to find new, innovative ways to seek out the best answers on an increasingly complex web. What if a better answer for your search, say, on the World Cup or “jaguar” were to appear on the web tomorrow? Also, what if a new technology were to be developed as powerful as PageRank that transforms the way search engines work? Neutrality forcing standardised results removes the potential for innovation and turns search into a commodity.

We know that Google plays an important role in accessing information. We also welcome scrutiny and want to ensure everyone understands how we work. Yet we believe the best answer for a particular search changes constantly. It changes because the web changes, because users’ expectations and tastes evolve and because the media never stay still. Yet proponents of search neutrality are effectively saying that they know what is “best” for you. We think consumers should be able to decide for themselves – with an array of internet search engines to choose from, each providing their very best.

The writer is vice-president of search product and user experience at Google.

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Convergence is an overused and misused term, but fortunately it’s back in vogue for all the right reasons at the Federal Communications Commission. Back in December, Google and others suggested that the FCC pave the way for the convergence of the Internet and the television screen in their National Broadband Plan. Such a convergence would increase innovation, enhance consumer experiences, and drive broadband adoption and usage. While the technical ability to access Internet and video content through a television platform has been possible for years, an open and vibrant retail video device marketplace has yet to materialize.

In comments we filed today with the FCC, we expressed our support for the so-called “AllVid” solution. This approach would allow consumers to purchase inexpensive universal adapters, featuring common interfaces and standards, that would connect with smart video devices, including TVs. In essence, for the first time consumers would be able seamlessly to bring the full power of the Internet to their in-home TV screen. That’s the kind of convergence we think everyone should be able to support.

Posted by Harry Wingo, Policy Counsel

The cloud improves security. The cloud saves taxpayer dollars. The cloud makes government more efficient.

That’s the message Mike Bradshaw, Director of Google Federal, will take to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during today’s hearing on federal IT and cloud computing.

Mike’s testimony will highlight three main points:

• First, cloud computing can provide improved security. Under legacy computing models, data is stored on local computers – this is the equivalent of keeping cash under your mattress. Storing data securely in the cloud is like keeping cash in a bank. (To learn more, check out our Google Apps security whitepaper.)

• Second, the cloud can save taxpayer dollars. The Brookings Institution found that government agencies that switched to some form of cloud computing saw up to 50 percent savings. To put that in context, the federal government is currently spending $76 billion per year on IT, with $20 billion of that devoted to hardware, software and file servers.

• Third, in addition to securing data and lowering costs, cloud computing can improve efficiency and collaboration in ways that are simply not possible under the legacy IT model. Millions of individuals, businesses, and governments are already enjoying these benefits. We’re beginning to see federal cloud initiatives and more robust pilot programs, and we support efforts like FedRAMP to accelerate the process.

You can read Mike’s full written testimony here, and we’ll be posting video of the hearing here soon.

Update: Check out video of Mike's opening statement, below.

Posted by Yariv Adan, Product Manager
A few months back we launched a feature in Gmail that notifies you when our servers automatically detect suspicious log in activity on your account. Since this has been effective in helping people identify improper access, we decided to extend it to all our Google Account users, not just Gmail. Starting this week, If we detect any suspicious log in on any of your Google Account products, we’ll display a notification on your Google Dashboard.

How does this work? Using the IP address you provide to us, our automated system can determine your broad geographic location. If you log in using a remote IP address, our system will flag it for you. So if you normally log into your account from your home in California and then a few hours later your account is logged in from France, you’ll get a notice like the one above at the top of your Dashboard page - alerting you to the change and providing links for more details.

When you get this notice and if you think your account has been compromised, you can then change your password directly from the ‘more details’ pop-up window.


Or, if you know it was legitimate access (e.g. you were traveling or your spouse who uses the same account was traveling), you can easily click "Dismiss" and remove the message. These notifications will hopefully help you identify suspicious activity but should not be considered a replacement for following best practices to keep your data secure.

In other Dashboard news, we recently added a link at the bottom of the page for you to ‘report an issue’ making it easier for you to tell us about a problem or to just share your thoughts. We want to work with you to keep making the Dashboard better, so let us know how we’re doing or ways we can improve your experience. Just note we may not be able to reply to every single report; but rest assured, we will read the feedback so we can keep making the Dashboard better.

So send us your thoughts. Take care to protect your information. And always keep an eye out for future improvements and upgrades to your Dashboard.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
(Cross-posted from the Official Google Blog)

Ever since we launched Google.cn, our search engine for mainland Chinese users, we have done our best to increase access to information while abiding by Chinese law. This has not always been an easy balance to strike, especially since our January announcement that we were no longer willing to censor results on Google.cn.

We currently automatically redirect everyone using Google.cn to Google.com.hk, our Hong Kong search engine. This redirect, which offers unfiltered search in simplified Chinese, has been working well for our users and for Google. However, it’s clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government officials that they find the redirect unacceptable—and that if we continue redirecting users our Internet Content Provider license will not be renewed (it’s up for renewal on June 30). Without an ICP license, we can’t operate a commercial website like Google.cn—so Google would effectively go dark in China.

That’s a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive. We have therefore been looking at possible alternatives, and instead of automatically redirecting all our users, we have started taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk—where users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, which we can provide locally without filtering. This approach ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page.

Over the next few days we’ll end the redirect entirely, taking all our Chinese users to our new landing page—and today we re-submitted our ICP license renewal application based on this approach.

As a company we aspire to make information available to users everywhere, including China. It’s why we have worked so hard to keep Google.cn alive, as well as to continue our research and development work in China. This new approach is consistent with our commitment not to self censor and, we believe, with local law. We are therefore hopeful that our license will be renewed on this basis so we can continue to offer our Chinese users services via Google.cn.

Posted by Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel, Google
(Cross-posted from The Official YouTube Blog)

Today, the court granted our motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s lawsuit with YouTube. This means that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.

This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.

UPDATE: This decision also applies to other parties to the lawsuit, including the Premier League.

Posted by Bob Boorstin, Director, Public Policy

A year ago today, Neda Soltan was shot on the streets of Tehran amid protests over the disputed results of the Iranian elections. Officials locked foreign journalists out of the country and stalled all modes of communication, but an individual caught the final moments before her death on video. That video was posted to YouTube, and captured the hearts and minds of millions around the world.

Little is known about Neda’s life, but as I read more about her, I noticed one thing in particular: Neda was a singer in a country where women are not allowed to sing in public.

Music, Neda’s passion in life, is a universal language that has the ability to inspire feelings of patriotism or dissent, fuel political and social movements, educate and influence entire populations, and serve as a connecting force for people around the world. The open Internet, which memorialized Neda’s life, has the same inherent capabilities. It’s no coincidence that repressive regimes that silence minority voices do so by restricting the platforms that can elevate them most; the top eight countries that violate the freedom of musical expression also censor heavily online.

As with all mediums, languages, and innovations that transcend borders, the Internet and music will and can be used for both good and bad purposes. And neither will ever be a silver bullet for the world’s problems. But both are able to carry and amplify messages that would otherwise be lost, empowering individuals to speak, and serving as incomparable platforms for engagement, expression.

Posted by Vikki Chou, Software Engineer
(Cross-posted from the Official Google Blog)

Today, I rarely work on documents in isolation. I share docs with teammates for feedback, help them with their design docs and presentations and regularly make my files available to all of Google.

When using applications to collaborate with others, it's important to have control over your data and how it's shared. With Google Docs, you've always been able to share documents with individuals and groups. Today, we're making it even easier with a new simplified interface that make it even easier to share and see who has access to your files. For an overview of what's new, take a look at this video:



Documents, spreadsheets and presentations can now be identified as “Private,” “Anyone with a link” or “Public on the web.” As before, all docs start out as private by default.


These new visibility options appear as a link next to the title of every doc. Clicking this link or the “Share” button takes you straight to the new interface where you can see who has access, manage sharing access and invite others to share the doc.

These improvements have started to roll out and should be available to everyone in the next week. If you’re interested in learning more about these changes and other new sharing features, check out our post on the Google Docs blog. If you’re using Google Apps for your school or business, our post on the Enterprise Blog covers how you can share docs more easily within your organization.

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This morning the FCC asked for public comment on its proposed “third way," a light-touch approach that would restore legal clarity after the recent Comcast decision. As we have said before, broadband infrastructure is too important to be left outside of any oversight. Google, along with a dozen other tech companies, have written in support of Chairman Genachowski’s proposed “third way” as a straightforward way to protect consumers and the open Internet.