[Randy Rieland, with a] honestly I don’t even know how to preface this, so here you go:
> In August, Google was awarded a patent to allow for the use of something known as “pay-per-gaze” advertising. In its application, the company noted that “a head-mounted tracking device”—in other words, Google Glass—could follow where the person wearing it was gazing, and be able to send images of what they saw to a server. Then, any billboards or other real-world ads the person had seen would be identified and Google could charge the advertiser. As noted in the New York Times’ Bits blog, the fee could be adapted based on how long the ad actually held the person’s gaze.
[Claire Cain Miller on sleezy practices]:
> Google, the biggest online advertising company, is considering a new way to help advertisers track people across the Web and consolidate its power in the industry.
Cookies are *so* 2010. Won’t it be great when using Chrome means that Google will be tracking your every move on the web and reporting that back to the NSA, I mean Kellogs, or Viagra, or `___________`.
The best Google related news was this puff piece from Steven Max Patterson’s, now banned by TBR standards, article in Quartz, where he [presstitutes] for Google:
> Until now, Google hasn’t talked about malware on Android because it did not have the data or analytic platform to back its security claims. But that changed dramatically today when Google’s Android Security chief Adrian Ludwig reported data showing that less than an estimated 0.001% of app installations on Android are able to evade the system’s multi-layered defenses and cause harm to users.
[I’ll leave the Macalope to clean this one up]:
> What about apps that simply ask users to give them permission to harm them? Seems like those are the ones that are more of a problem.
I don’t know what the real malware problem on Android is, but I doubt that Google knows how big that issue is either — and that’s the problem.