In his new book What Would Google Do?, Jeff reverse-engineers Google to discern its core practices, strategies and attitudes. Among his recommendations: make mistakes well, manage abundance, trust the people, and be transparent.
Ultimately, the book isn't really about Google, though. It's a candid assessment of where today’s companies are failing as well as a survival guide for succeeding – in fields as diverse as automobiles, power plants, media companies, and health care.
Google's Bob Boorstin will be talking with Jeff about the book -- and Jeff will be taking questions from you too. We hope you can make it.
Google D.C. Talks presents
A Conversation with Jeff Jarvis, What Would Google Do?
The study's authors talk about the economic and social benefits of the cloud computing model, as well as policy guidelines for regulators and lawmakers in Washington who want to help foster the development of cloud computing. They recommend that policymakers look closely at these issues:
Full connectivity - Users have to be connected to the Internet for cloud-based services to flourish -- all users, all the time. Government can encourage availability and adoption of cloud computing through tax incentives to technology providers, subsidies to low-income users, and regulation of the wireless spectrum.
Open access - Access to the basic infrastructure of cloud computing should not be based on discriminatory pricing or provide an unfair advantage to certain users. Congress can take the lead in clarifying openness rules for the marketplace and the FCC should actively enforce existing laws designed to ensure open access.
Security - Cloud computing providers must make a compelling case to users that their data is safe. While competitive market forces will drive service providers to differentiate themselves on security, the government can play a role by aggressively enforcing cyber-crime laws.
Privacy - Cloud computing providers must address three specific concerns about privacy: protecting data from unauthorized access by government; restricting its exploitation for commercial purposes; and safeguarding it from the prying eyes of competitors. One goal of privacy legislation should be to shield consumer data from inappropriate government scrutiny and to define what rights companies have to use data about their users for commercial purposes.
It's always tempting to suggest that the next new technology will be disruptive, game-changing, or revolutionary. The Internet certainly was. It remains to be seen whether cloud computing will deliver the same magnitude of changes and benefits (or more), but it unquestionably holds a lot of promise.
Cloud computing can be a great equalizer, putting powerful computing tools that were once available only to large institutions in the hands of individuals and small businesses. It can promote competition, accelerate innovation, enhance productivity, deliver cost savings, strengthen data security and maybe even help our environment.
That is a lot to live up to, but we hope that by continuing this conversation we can separate hype from reality and offer some practical suggestions aimed at getting the most out of what cloud computing has to offer.
NSGIC recently held a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, where we had the opportunity to present to the association's state government members. The purpose of our presentation was to address the recurring questions we get from GIS agencies about the types of geosptial data we welcome and the steps involved in partnering with us. One result is that we've published answers to an initial group of questions and we'll be adding others soon.
We applaud the work of GIS agency managers and policymakers who are working, at all levels of government, to ensure that the public's investment in geosptial data is shared and thereby used across agencies and governments, but also is made readily available to the public through free services like Google Maps. We look forward to collaborating with NSGIC and other organizations to advance such efforts in data sharing.
I wrote a bit last Congress about the reform provisions that Google cares the most about. The most pressing of those is ensuring fair damage awards. The current system too easily allows damages to be assessed based on the value of the whole product often containing many features — not just the value of the innovation of the allegedly infringed patent — which means the threat of potentially massive awards forces defendants to settle. Balance should be restored by requiring damages to be based on the value of the innovation's contribution to the product.
As members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, we're optimistic that patent reform faces better odds in 2009 than it has before — not least because President Obama has pledged his support. Passage of patent reform is long overdue.
As part of that effort, the staff who control whitehouse.gov --the official site of the White House--embedded a YouTube player on that site. In the weeks since, some privacy advocates have criticized that decision, saying that visitors to federal websites should not receive a cookie from YouTube (a cookie is a piece of data about users or their computers that help us, for example, insure that video statistics such as view counts are accurate). We want to assure all visitors to federal websites that we're aware of this issue and have taken steps that meet the government's privacy requirements.
To ensure that we openly communicate about privacy issues on all federal websites that use our technology, we created an embeddable video player that does not send a cookie until the visitor plays the video, and we added a link to our privacy policy so that visitors know who is sending the cookie if they choose to play the video. The White House also informs whitehouse.gov visitors about these cookies in its privacy policy.
This past weekend, in presenting the President's most recent weekly Saturday address, the White House decided to use its own embedded player instead of the YouTube player on whitehouse.gov. One report stated that the White House had "ditched" YouTube.
That report is wrong. The White House decision does not mean that the White House has stopped using YouTube. The White House continues to post videos to its YouTube channel, as do other agencies like the U.S. Department of Education and the State Department. These channels are part of a broader effort within the General Services Administration (GSA) to help federal agencies communicate directly with citizens on YouTube.
Here at YouTube, we support every effort by governments around the world to reach out to the public using any tool or platform possible. It's been exciting for us to see how effectively President Obama and others have used online tools such as YouTube to make government more transparent and participatory--and we look forward to seeing more of the same in the U.S and throughout the globe in the future.
