Comments on: Googlement http://madisonian.net/2008/11/30/googlement/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:22:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jason Schoolmeester http://madisonian.net/2008/11/30/googlement/comment-page-1/#comment-266931 Jason Schoolmeester Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:29:39 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=1609#comment-266931 "willing to trust the near-sovereign discretion." Nobody would have used this phrase in relation to Microsoft. I think we all need to be careful that we are not just trading one giant for another. “willing to trust the near-sovereign discretion.” Nobody would have used this phrase in relation to Microsoft. I think we all need to be careful that we are not just trading one giant for another.

]]> By: Frank Pasquale http://madisonian.net/2008/11/30/googlement/comment-page-1/#comment-266896 Frank Pasquale Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:45:34 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=1609#comment-266896 I see these points, Mike, and I think Paul Ohm did all the Google-skeptics a big favor by pointing out how much greater a threat to privacy ISPs are than Google. Yes, there are lots of "kings" around. But at this point, I think I'm making some pretty minimal demands--someone to be able to "look under the hood" and understand what's happening as the search algorithm evolves or is manipulated. This regime of qualified transparency (akin to the FISA court, which few believe hobbled US national security) is a sine qua non for accountability in general. I think that Weitzner is proposing the "something new" that you're arguing for the "modern networked administrative state." I'll take a look at Rubin's book. . . I have been trying to get into a book titled "The New Environmental Regulation" to get a sense of how to avoid the old curses of ossification and capture so common in the administrative realm. I see these points, Mike, and I think Paul Ohm did all the Google-skeptics a big favor by pointing out how much greater a threat to privacy ISPs are than Google. Yes, there are lots of “kings” around. But at this point, I think I’m making some pretty minimal demands–someone to be able to “look under the hood” and understand what’s happening as the search algorithm evolves or is manipulated. This regime of qualified transparency (akin to the FISA court, which few believe hobbled US national security) is a sine qua non for accountability in general.

I think that Weitzner is proposing the “something new” that you’re arguing for the “modern networked administrative state.” I’ll take a look at Rubin’s book. . . I have been trying to get into a book titled “The New Environmental Regulation” to get a sense of how to avoid the old curses of ossification and capture so common in the administrative realm.

]]> By: Greg Lastowka http://madisonian.net/2008/11/30/googlement/comment-page-1/#comment-266864 Greg Lastowka Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:40:26 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=1609#comment-266864 Good thoughts, Mike. One thing about monarchs is that those with armies and guns are usually accorded more respect. A better metaphor might be to the evolution of the Fourth Estate -- in which Google (and search) might be characterized as a growing principality. Good thoughts, Mike. One thing about monarchs is that those with armies and guns are usually accorded more respect. A better metaphor might be to the evolution of the Fourth Estate — in which Google (and search) might be characterized as a growing principality.

]]>