Google Bans Disconnect.me App From Play Store Based On Vague Guidelines

from the not-this-again dept

Having had our own run-ins with Google's opaque (and often hypocritical) decision-making process at times, it's not surprising (though unfortunate) to hear of yet another case. The folks over at Disconnect.me have been working on tools to give people more control over their own data and how it's shared. They're not looking to stop all data sharing, but rather put it back under the control of the individual users, rather than companies in the middle. While this may make some companies nervous, it shouldn't. A company that is actually providing value and is properly transparent shouldn't have to worry about such things.

So it's quite disappointing that Google has chosen to pull Disconnect.me's new app from the Android store based only on a very vague and broad "prohibition" in its terms of service, saying that you can't offer an app that "interferes with" other services. The email Google sent doesn't provide many details, other than saying that the Disconnect.me app "interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner."

Now, you can understand the basic rationale for why this term is in Google's rules -- the intent there is to block malicious activities. But what's "malicious" in this context? Disconnect believes Google mistook its app as an adblocker:

But our mobile product (like our Desktop product) is not an adblocker. Instead Disconnect focuses on protecting people from invisible tracking and sources of malware, and all too often these threats come in the form of advertising. In fact, some of the most privacy invasive data collection online happens through ads, which see you even if you don’t see or interact with them. And worse, ad networks (including Google) are increasingly being used by “advertisers” to spread malware. This increasingly popular tactic, called malvertising, is currently being investigated by the US Senate, and Disconnect Mobile is the first app to directly address it.

The fact is, we are not opposed to advertising and think advertising plays a critical role in the Internet economy. But we are 100% opposed to advertising that invisibly tracks people and compromises their security.

In short, Disconnect.me is working to block evil activities. You'd think that the company with the whole "don't be evil" slogan would appreciate an app that tries to protect users from evil. But, as was the case when we got threatened with being cut off from ad revenue, it appears this is yet another case where you have a very large company that has put in place "by the book processes" that lead to a lack of common sense being employed. Instead you get checkmarks and bad end results. This all goes back to one of my biggest complaints about Google, going back years, that it continues to be the big white monolith when dealing with all sorts of users, customers and partners. Programs like AdSense and the Android Play Store are massive, and there are, certainly, those who look to abuse those systems. And so it's no surprise that the company has put in place policies to help try to weed out those abuses -- even leading to some false positives. The problem is that the company all too frequently doesn't have any real second level of review where common sense comes back into play.

Disconnect.me is appealing the decision and seeing if it can get Google to reverse its position -- and hopefully that happens. It still seems to me that this is one of Google's most glaring problems as it has grown, and it's shown little sign of improving on this front to date. I know that Google is especially sensitive to antitrust concerns being leveled against it, and I'm honestly confused why the company doesn't view this as a potential concern on that front. When it has the ability to cut people off from areas where it has massive control (including the Android market and the advertising market), it's only asking for trouble from those where it makes the wrong call.

Filed Under: apps, disconnect, play store, privacy, protection
Companies: disconnect.me, google

WordPress.com Makes SSL Enabled By Default

from the good-move dept

While we've already announced our move to go 100% SSL, it's great to see Automattic announce that it is now making all Wordpress.com accounts default as SSL. That's for the sites that Automattic itself hosts, not necessarily sites that have self-installed copies of Wordpress. Either way, it's still great to see more sites moving to enable SSL by default.

Filed Under: default, privacy, protection, reset the net, ssl, wordpress
Companies: automattic

NY Attorney General Admits He's Targeting AirBnB To Protect The Big NY Hotels That Are Being Disrupted

from the protectionism-against-disruption dept

Over and over again in talking about innovative disruption, we talk about how incumbents turn to regulators and politicians to kill off that disruption. Usually, they don't admit it directly -- preferring to couch their language in talk about "safety" and protecting consumers -- even though many of these disruptive systems actually appear to be better for consumers. However, sometimes politicians are willing to just flat out admit that they're trying to protect incumbents from innovative upstarts. And that's what's now happened with NY's Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman.

Last fall, we wrote about how Schneiderman was demanding information on 15,000 AirBnB users in NY, claiming that he was hunting down "long-term illegal rentals." In a NY Times article highlighting how AirBnB users (from both sides of the market) are pushing back against Schneiderman's crusade against AirBnB, Schneiderman finally admits what everyone has known all along. He's doing this to protect the big NY hotels from getting disrupted. And yes, he sandwiches the claim between claims of "just enforcing the law" and "protecting" people, but the message is pretty clear. This is about protecting the incumbent hotels:

First he said that “we have a well-regulated and extraordinarily successful hotel sector” that is “one of our finest industries and contributes a lot to the economy.” Then, a bit later, he added, “We’re just looking in New York to enforce New York law, and also, frankly, to protect our hospitality industry that goes through a lot of trouble to have great hotels, to protect tourists, to provide services, and to protect the people in our residential housing.”

It is true that NY law prevents short-term apartment rentals (basically anything less than 30 days). But to pretend this is about protecting the public is just ridiculous. I've stayed at many hotels in NY and a few AirBnB places -- including some that likely fit Schneiderman's definition of an "illegal hotel." And, without question, the AirBnB experience every single time has been vastly superior to the hotel experience. It's not even close. Assuming Schneiderman allows it to exist, I'll continue to make use of AirBnB, and it's not just because it's usually cheaper (though it often is), but the overall experience is phenomenal. I get to stay in unique and interesting places in unique and interesting neighborhoods -- usually much more convenient for my travel needs. One AirBnB host I met owns three apartments, living in one (renting out the spare bedroom), but mostly focusing on full time renting out the other two. The service was great -- and much more personalized than any hotel I've ever stayed in.

The last thing I want is for NY's Attorney General to "protect me" from that.

Filed Under: disruption, eric schneiderman, hospitality, innovation, new york, nyc, protection
Companies: airbnb

Another Reason The NSA Can't Prevent Terrorist Attacks: Protecting Its Methods Is More Important Than Protecting The Public

from the I-sincerely-hope-I'm-overstating-this-possibility dept

The NSA insists everything that's been exposed so far by Snowden's leaks is direly necessary to protect us from terrorists. It still has trouble pinpointing any instances where bulk records collections and widespread internet data harvesting have prevented attacks, but it continues to assure us of its need to continue building its haystacks unimpeded.

The NSA's fight against terror is being hampered by its own greed. Too much data has proven to be just as useless as too little. And that's only part of the problem. It's preventative efforts only go so far. Bruce Schneier's post on the delayed reaction to Syria's chemical weapons attack highlights the limitations inherent to intelligence agencies.

We recently learned that US intelligence agencies had at least three days' warning that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was preparing to launch a chemical attack on his own people, but wasn't able to stop it…

More interestingly, the US government did not choose to act on that knowledge (for example, launch a preemptive strike), which left some wondering why.

The first aspect is the sheer amount of data. As Schneier points out, connecting the dots is easy… in hindsight. In "realtime," it's impossible.

Rather than thinking of intelligence as a connect-the-dots picture, think of it as a million unnumbered pictures superimposed on top of each other. Which picture is the relevant one? We have no idea. Turning that data into actual information is an extraordinarily difficult problem, and one that the vast scope of our data-gathering programs makes even more difficult.

Our intelligence agencies must realize this. But it seems the thirst for data is unquenchable. Gen. Alexander made it clear he wants to "collect it all." The usefulness of these collections rely on the agency's unshakable faith that a better algorithm is just around the corner -- the final bit of filtering that will make millions of overlayed pictures suddenly snap into focus. Take it all, sort it out later and never mind the fact that the picture just gets more confusing with each additional collection.

The second aspect Schneier points out is a lack of confirmation -- not enough proof to act preemptively. A lack of solid proof can often paralyze government entities, from the White House all the way down to public schools. Rather than make a mistake and suffer the fallout, they refuse to move at all, hoping that some final bit of info will arrive, pristine and transparent, and make that tough decision for them. But nothing's that crystal clear, not when tough decisions need to be made. Anyone can make the easy call. Leaders make the tough calls and not enough people qualify for that title.

But the third aspect is the most chilling. It performs a very dark and very troubling calculation that weighs human lives against continued secrecy.

The third is that while we were sure of our information, we couldn't act because that would reveal "sources and methods." This is probably the most frustrating explanation. Imagine we are able to eavesdrop on al-Assad's most private conversations with his generals and aides, and are absolutely sure of his plans. If we act on them, we reveal that we are eavesdropping. As a result, he's likely to change how he communicates, costing us our ability to eavesdrop. It might sound perverse, but often the fact that we are able to successfully spy on someone is a bigger secret than the information we learn from that spying.

Schneier is discussing this in the context of the Syrian gas attack, but it also contains unsettling implications for the never ending War on Terror. What if the NSA (or CIA or FBI) manage to uncover a terrorist plot via methods it considers too valuable to expose? Does it allow the attack to proceed rather than jeopardize a useful surveillance program? Would it do that, justifying its decision with the rationale that the protected program will save that many more lives in the future?

The decision isn't likely to be completely binary. There are still options to pursue, as Schneier notes, citing an occasion when intelligence agencies did exactly that -- hamstrung their own efforts in order to protect ongoing surveillance.

During the war, the British were able to break the German Enigma encryption machine and eavesdrop on German military communications. But while the Allies knew a lot, they would only act on information they learned when there was another plausible way they could have learned it. They even occasionally manufactured plausible explanations. It was just too risky to tip the Germans off that their encryption machines' code had been broken.

The NSA, with the cooperation of other agencies, could (possibly quite easily) manufacture plausible explanations as to how it got ahold of this intelligence without sacrificing the surveillance method. The other agencies certainly have had no trouble manufacturing cover stories, like the false paper trails, etc. they've used to hide illegal access to data.

But what if there wasn't time or the cover story too full of holes? What then? What if the attack wouldn't affect Americans? Would the NSA let that one go?

More importantly, has the NSA earned the trust that's needed to believe it would sacrifice a valuable intel method rather than prevent an attack? At this point, the answer is no.

On the bright-ish side, several methods have already been at least partially exposed. Inference and extrapolation help round out the picture. If the NSA can do X, then it stands to reason it can do Y. There's less to protect, surveillance-wise and so cover stories will be easier to generate. The fact that the NSA couldn't prevent Snowden from doing what he did and still doesn't seem to have any idea what he took also works in the public's favor. This makes mercenary decisions like the one above less likely simply because there's a very good chance that it will be swiftly exposed, and I don't believe the NSA is actually looking to coat its hands with more blood.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, protection, sources and methods, surveillance, terrorism

Snowden's 'Dead Man's Switch' May Just Make Him A Bigger Target

from the forcing-the-government-to-protect-its-'enemy' dept

Word has it that Ed Snowden has gone all George Smiley and implemented his version of a "dead man's switch," one that will lead directly to a full data dump if anything unpleasant happens to him. What's in these yet-unleaked documents is still a mystery, although Snowden has claimed they provide a "blueprint" of the NSA's surveillance architecture, one that could be probed for weaknesses or replicated.

[S]nowden... reportedly passed encrypted copies of his cache to a number of third parties who have a non-journalistic mission: If Snowden should suffer a mysterious, fatal accident, these parties will find themselves in possession of the decryption key, and they can publish the documents to the world.

Obviously, Snowden has set this up to prevent the US from deciding to simply take him out, rather than risk any more leaks. This conceivably shifts priorities for the US, which now must take care to ensure Snowden remains unharmed. (It's not explicitly stated whether an arrest or successful extradition to the US will trigger the "switch.") Notably, Snowden doesn't actually have to die to set things in motion.

"It's not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it's more nuanced than that," he said. "It's really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it's just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that."

Bruce Schneier, however, sees how this "insurance plan" could actually make things more dangerous for Snowden.

I'm not sure he's thought this through, though. I would be more worried that someone would kill me in order to get the documents released than I would be that someone would kill me to prevent the documents from being released. Any real-world situation involves multiple adversaries, and it's important to keep all of them in mind when designing a security system.

This could make Snowden a target for people whose motivations run from the anti-American (exposed documents will hurt the US) to those who view chaos as its own end (exposed documents will wreak further mayhem in governments worldwide). This sort of action is probably more limited to individual actors rather than agents of unhappy/rival states.

If someone did manage to take him out, all eyes would turn to the US government. Whether the government did or didn't do it doesn't matter. It will be assumed it was ordered by the US. And whether or not the US government was behind it, it will issue a denial. This denial, of course, won't be believed because at this point, the government has the credibility of a heroin addict.

If the government has taken any of the above into consideration, it's back to having to ensure Snowden remains unharmed and safe, something made even more difficult by Snowden inadvertently painting a target on his own back.

Filed Under: dead man's switch, documents, ed snowden, encryption, leaks, protection

Author Claims That If Apple And Microsoft Started Today They'd Fail Without Stronger Patent Protection

from the wtf dept

The NY Times has a slightly odd op-ed piece, written by Eamonn Fingleton, author of a book about how China is going to dominate the US economically. That may absolutely be true, but this oped tries to bend over backwards to prove that China will be more innovative than the US... and uses patents as a proxy:

Meanwhile the evidence of international patent filings is looking increasingly ominous. According to data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization, the world’s single most prolific filer of international patents as of 2011 was ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications corporation. Its filings were up an astounding fivefold from 2009. Another Chinese corporation, Huawei, moved up to third in the 2011 league table. The only United States corporation to make the Top 10 was Qualcomm.

First of all, the number of patents filed is meaningless. You can file a ton of patents and it means absolutely nothing concerning innovation. First off, applications are different from granted patents. Second, and more importantly, patents show no relation to innovation. Third, when it comes to Chinese patents, the Chinese realized long ago that patents are merely a tool for protectionist tariff-like policies that can be enacted with less scrutiny or trade war issues and have acted accordingly. Basically, nothing in the paragraph above actually supports Fingleton's argument.

But, then it gets much, much worse. He claims that the US somehow has a weaker patent system today than in the past (it doesn't) and then quotes another author claiming that Apple and Microsoft relied on strong patents to survive when they started out:

All this is the more troubling because United States patent law has now been drastically weakened. Congress has made it much harder for small American inventors to protect their intellectual property from infringement and theft.

Pat Choate, the author of “Hot Property,” a book on the theft of intellectual property, maintains that if the new patent regimen had existed when corporations like Apple and Microsoft first got going, they might never have made it out of the little leagues. Their patents would have been quickly infringed by predatory larger corporations, and rather than engage in unequal litigation battles against deep-pocketed and ruthless opponents, they could have felt forced to share their technology on concessionary terms.

Almost nothing in what's said above has any resemblance in the truth. The patent system hasn't been "drastically weakened" at all. Congress made some slight modifications to the patent system, which do nothing to make it harder for "small inventors to protect their intellectual property from infringement and theft."

As for the claims made by Pat Choate, I'm just left shaking my head. First of all, both of Apple and Microsoft's key success stories came from copying the works of other, larger companies when those companies failed to recognize what they had on their hands, and more or less let the upstarts take those ideas and run with them. Also, in both cases, other, larger companies did come in and try to copy them, and weren't that successful. Also, more importantly, neither company aggressively relied on patents to protect its works. Bill Gates famousely said the following about patents:

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.

Not exactly an example of Microsoft using patents to protect itself, but rather quite the opposite. Apple, in the meantime, relied heavily on ideas from Xerox and SRI in making its early computers -- some of which it licensed, and some of which it did not. However, much of the work was not heavily patented and while Apple received some early patents, it did little to enforce those patents to stop copycats (its most famous lawsuit, against Microsoft for copying the Windows interface, focused on copyright... and it failed, anyway).

You could easily argue that if Microsoft and Apple were started today they would absolutely be harmed by today's patent system, but not in the way that Choate or Fingleton suggest. Rather, they would be sued by trolls over and over and over again, meaning they'd be wasting money fighting lawsuits, and possibly wouldn't be able to survive that. What they needed to survive was an era in which patent enforcement was not common and especially one where patents were considered inapplicable to software.

Microsoft and Apple became massive success stories in part because of the weakness of the patent system in their era, because patents don't help innovation, they put a tollbooth on it. This article certainly puts a huge question mark over the quality of both Choate and Fingleton's work, as it shows little actual knowledge of the subject they're discussing.

Filed Under: competition, computer industry, eamonn fingleton, innovation, macintosh, pat choate, patents, protection, startups, windows
Companies: apple, microsoft

ICANN's New Trademark 'Clearinghouse' Resembles Mobsters' 'Insurance' Program

from the nice-trademark-you've-got-here,-wouldn't-want-anything-to-happen-to-it dept

We've pointed out for years that ICANN's new "top level domains" programs often feel much more like a way to shake down trademark holders who feel the need to buy each and every new domain with their trademarked names, just to prevent anyone else from getting them. Now, ICANN has taken this a step further, streamlining the process by launching a "trademark clearinghouse" in which companies can register a trademark and get early access to "buy" all of the new top level domains with their mark before they reach the open market. Of course, "supporters" are pushing companies to join... and the pitch really does sound like your typical mob shakedown:

The clearinghouse "doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur," he added. "We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it."

I mean, paying the local mob boss "doesn't necessarily prevent anyone from breaking your windows, but it does help in mitigating the likelihood that damage might occur." And "it's not that expensive to protect yourself, so you ought to do it."

Filed Under: domain names, protection, tlds, trademark
Companies: icann

Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps

from the would-be-useful dept

We've argued for years that broadband data caps are not -- as the industry would have you believe -- about stopping "data hogs" or making sure that people "pay their fair share," but rather about protecting provider revenue (or, really, secretly increasing fees without "increasing" fees). A recent study from the New America Foundation has now made it clear that broadband data caps are not at all about dealing with data hogs, but almost entirely about increasing revenue for the providers.

As this paper documents, data caps, especially on wireline networks, are hardly a necessity. Rather, they are motivated by a desire to further increase revenues from existing subscribers and protect legacy services such as cable television from competing Internet services. Although traffic on U.S. broadband networks is increasing at a steady rate, the costs to provide broadband service are also declining, including the cost of Internet connectivity or IP transit as well as equipment and other operational costs. The result is that broadband is an incredibly profitable business, particularly for cable ISPs. Tiered pricing and data caps have also become a cash cow for the two largest mobile providers, Verizon and AT&T, who already were making impressive margins on their mobile data service before abandoning unlimited plans.

The paper goes on to debunk the usual arguments in favor of broadband caps. Beyond noting that the cost to providing broadband by the big guys has gone down significantly (while cost to consumers has stayed steady or gone up), they also point out that the "congestion" argument doesn't make sense. They note that even if there was congestion, a data cap would not be the best way to deal with it.

An analogy to rush hour traffic is useful here. Rush hour delays are generally caused by a spike in simultaneous demand for road access. Local governments often respond to this traffic congestion by instituting carpool lanes during certain hours, or introducing variable peak pricing for tolls, where prices are higher during the traditional workday commute than at other times. Both of these examples are methods to reduce demand during the time it is highest. It would make little sense to try and limit the total miles residents drive in a month as a means to solve rush hour congestion. Such monthly mile limits would needlessly impact residents who drive when the road is empty late at night and do not contribute to traffic congestion. Yet this is logic being employed when instituting monthly data caps.Monthly data caps are a tool that decreases consumption at all hours of the day.

In fact, the report even points out that Comcast has quietly admitted to the FCC that it's caps have nothing to do with network congestion... even as it has argued in favor of them publicly by using the "congestion" argument. As we've pointed out over and over again, if you talk to the tech people at broadband companies, they admit that the best way to deal with congestion is to simply upgrade capacity, not try to choke off usage. And this report shows that, rather than do that, telcos have been going in the other direction:

The best way to resolve chronic network congestion in the long term is to invest and expand capacity. Yet, a review of the publicly available financial document for some of the largest ISPs in the country shows a decline in capital expenditures—the costs associated with building, upgrading and maintaining a network, such as construction, repairs, and equipment purchases—for their wireline networks.Many ISPs are spending less money on capital expenditures now, both as a ratio to revenue but also even in raw dollars,than they have in years past.

Given all that, it's great to see that Senator Ron Wyden is introducing a new bill to protect consumers against data cap abuse. One of the many issues we've raised with data caps is that users have no idea how much broadband traffic they use, and related to that, broadband providers are notorious for either not providing meters for usage, or providing ones that just don't work very well (or give you some sort of arbitrary number when you check). The new bill, the Data Cap Integrity Act, would do two key things:

1. Require tools be available for users to really measure and manage their broadband usage
2. Have the FCC establish standards for ISPs to make sure that they only use data caps to manage network congestion, rather than as a way to "monetize data in ways that undermine innovation."

The bill literally has a section entitled: "SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES" which reads:

SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB ONES.—The Commission shall evaluate a data cap proposed by an Internet service provider to determine whether the data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion in a manner that does not unnecessarily discourage use of the Internet.

If we had a real competitive market for broadband, of course, this wouldn't matter. I'm still hesitant to support legislation telling companies how they can implement a business model. But, as we've been arguing for many, many years, there isn't real competition in the broadband space for most users, which is what allows broadband providers to get away with crap like using data caps to limit internet usage and increase revenue. Furthermore, given how much the industry has relied on government subsidies and rights of way, it seems only reasonable to think that some level of requirement to actually, you know, not screw over users, might be appropriate.

That said, the bill also has the following tidbit, which almost certainly dooms it from the start:

DISCRIMINATION OF CONTENT.—A covered Internet service provider may not, for purposes of measuring data usage or otherwise, provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data.

That's going to be interpreted as a backdoor attempt to put in place a net neutrality rule, which is more or less guaranteed to freak out the wing of Congress who insists that net neutrality is an attempt to take over the internet.

Filed Under: broadband, data caps, meters, net neutrality, protection, ron wyden

Olympics Crack Down On Anyone Mentioning Them Without Paying... As White House Tells Everyone To Set Up Olympics Parties

from the ip-violations-galore! dept

We've covered for years how overly aggressive the Olympics are in protecting their "IP" -- to the point that they often get special laws passed that grant them extra IP rights, which they use to block pretty much anyone who hasn't paid from using the word "Olympics" at all, or even having a non-sponsoring brand shown anywhere (yes, even if that means taping over the brand on toilet fixtures in bathrooms around the Olympic grounds). Hell, we just reported on the Olympics going after a 30-year-old restaurant named Olympic Gyros.

So it struck me as somewhat surprising to get an email from the White House, saying that I should create my own (or join in an existing) "Olympic Fun Day Meetup." Of course, as a participating country, I'm sure that the Olympics grants the US government wider leverage in using its name, but if anyone else in the country suggested something as crazy as creating a special "meet up" around the Olympics, how quickly do you think the Olympics would send in the lawyers to demand a takedown?

Filed Under: ip, meetups, olympics, protection, white house

US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name

from the its-all-Greek-to-me dept

Ah, the Olympics. The spirit of cooperation. Of athletic competition. Of the essence of global feel-good-ness, where all the Olympic committees of the world come together to put on a spectacle made of the most brilliant athletes in the world.

Oh, and they also like to stifle links to critical pieces (do we have your attention, boys?), by banning their fans from sharing their experiences via social media, and threatening ICANN for refusing to block Olympic-related terms. And, now, Steve M shares a story from the Philadelphia Daily News about how the United States Olympic Committee has won a 30 year battle they didn't know they were fighting with a gyro shop.

"Three decades after it burst from the starting block, the Greek eatery Olympic Gyro has received a cease-and-desist email from the USOC, the nonprofit corporation responsible for training and funding U.S. teams. The June 7 notice demanded deletion of the word "Olympic" from the food shop's title, claiming copyright of the word under a 1978 law."

This legislative insanity, which I assume is entitled "The USOC Can Do Whatever It Wants Because Olympics Act Of 1978", basically grants the USOC sole usership of the word "Olympic" in the United States, amongst other travesties. They issued a heartfelt email in response to this issue:

"The USOC communications department declined to discuss the matter with the Daily News. But in its email, the organization emphasized the need to "protect the rights of companies who financially support the U.S. Olympic Team," such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola."

Yup, the USOC asserted that it needs to protect the rights of their sponsors (which means they're protecting themselves, by the way) from these no-good gyro shop owners who have apparently been harming McDonald's and Coca-Cola for the past thirty damned years, but with some kind of stealth cloaking device that keeps any such harm from being realized.

Oh, and just for fun, let's look at a few names of the governors of the organizations involved in this story. The USOC is headed up by Larry Probst (not Greek). Coca-Cola is run by Muhtar Kent (not Greek). McDonalds' CEO is James Skinner (not Greek). And the gyro stand formely known as Olympic Gyro's owner is Athens Voulgaridis (more than slightly Greek). The irony of this was apparently not lost on Voulgaridis:

"It's been a part of my life as long as I can remember," Voulgaridis said Tuesday. "We're very Greek Orthodox, we go back [to Greece] often. For them to take something that is Greek and make it theirs for money is frustrating."

But he also states that he isn't going to fight the government. In total, the name change will cost his business $6000 or so, since he has to change both signage and employee uniforms. He contacted the USOC to see if they would help out with those costs, but they declined, explaining that money is valuable and they didn't want to spend any.

The same Daily News article also mentions that the USOC went after a knitting group named Ravelry that was organizing something of a knitting olympics competition to coincide with The Games:

"We believe using the name ‘Ravelympics' for a competition that involves an afghan marathon, scarf hockey and sweater triathlon, among others, tends to denigrate the true nature of the Olympic Games," the letter from USOC said. "In a sense, it is disrespectful to our country's finest athletes and fails to recognize or appreciate their hard work."

Yes, you read that correctly. Knitting competitions denigrate the true nature of the Olympic Games. Which I happen to agree with, assuming that this "true nature" they're talking about revolves around screwing with people for no good reason.

Filed Under: greek food, olympics, protection, restaurant
Companies: olympic gyro, usoc