Despite the fact that a cloud of suspicion looms over corporate SEM initiatives, Microsoft appears both poised and intent about entering into a space during a turbulent and uncertain period of time. An amenable time in so far as Microsoft standing to benefit greatly from Google's blunders. More specifically, Microsoft's AdCentre can incorporate into its vision a degree of lattitude that will allow them to determine which hill they want to die on.

=> Read more!

A heated debate surrounds search engine innovators such as Google to hand over its data to the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The debate pits Google against the DOJ as an innovator that ought to be more cooperative and socially responsible with regard to handing over trade secrets to authorities in hopes of assisting them in the areas of monitoring the activities of child pornography offenders, as well as monitoring any/all activities related to homeland security and terrorism.

I think what this recent so-called "defiance" of social responsibility is bringing into the search technology discourse is this fundamental division of interests, and this notion of intrusion which appears to be looming like a dark cloud over innovators of search technology.

What's interesting about the debate surrounding search technology in current times is the duality of interests, as the technology is looked at both with enthusiasm and condemnation.

Enthusiasm on the level of possibilities it can provide in areas such as homeland security and monitoring/tracking the activities of sexual predators, just to name a few. Until now, enforcement authorities have had to use hit-and-miss methods such as cyberbaiting to track these forms of criminal activity. The problem is that cyberbaiting on the web is a lot like trolling the vast open sea with a 10-foot fishing boat.

It is no coincidence that when the US Department of Justice asked Google to hand over "trade secrets" on its search engine technology, that behind its "good-will" nature of seeking "cooperation" was this imperative seeking their aid on security matters. This idea of using search technology to combat such things as child pornography as well as the possibility of intercepting communications between terrorist groups were initiatives that could assist governments in areas it was ill-equipped in handling using their current methods.

But its the same courts, lawmakers and enforcers of law that are also pointing their fingers at companies like Google, condemning such search engine innovators of digging-up information that is infringing on copyright, peoples privacy and a wide number of other levels of personal, corporate and government intrusion. A number of these cases are in the courts, and will be for some time, and it is doing nothing more than creating an obstacle for innovators to take search technology to the next level.

Here's how I see it. The days of innovators such as Tessla are long gone. His was a form of pure innovation, driven by passion, and less to do with the commercial viability of their contributions. And in a way, its a good thing that innovators are taking what they can get nowadays. The legacy of squatting on innovations for the almighty dollar are happening less and less because innovators are not so quick to give away their work.

Cases such as Tessla's inform us of the shrewd and sometimes dehumanizing approaches of governments and corporations to snatch away innovation for their own greed and self-interested purposes, with little or no acknowledgement at all to the people who first put things down on paper and made them reality.

So while the military were the first to bring the web to life, I'm certain that they are biting their tongues over the fact that they weren't able to be the principle innovators of search technology. I also think that because search technology is primarily in private ownership, its created a sense of insecurity and and an air of mistrust that I believe might not have existed at all if search technology ownership was in government hands.

And as governments and their officials push search engine innovators to a point where they are demanding search engine companies to "cooperate", their demands are being made at the expense of intruding on the intellectual property of the search engine technology owners. A demand that stands to do nothing more than disturb the waters of future innovation in combating such things as child pornography and homeland security.

The main problem with the bullying approach being used by governments is that there isn't a large supply of developers in the area of search engine technology. You upset the few that are in the know, and you throw away the opportunity of ever getting them to assist in combating criminal activity that occurs online.

I think the real question to be posed: who is actually doing the intruding, the innovator or the followers of the innovation?

One thing the brand and reputation monitoring business allows you to recognize is how essential it is to deal with inflamatory online discussions or postings in a timely manner.

But have corporations realized the importance of dealing with cybersmearing in a timely manner yet?

There's been a lot of coverage on the "Legal Notice Regarding Google AdWords" story, and I can't say I've read it all, or agreed with everything that's been said "for" or "against" Google on the matter.

But from what I've been able to observe from the way AdWords/AdSense works, and the kind of traffic AdWords has been bringing to our sites, here is my take on the matter.

I think what is fundamentally wrong about what Google's done here is that on the one hand, they wanted to give their AdWords the greatest reach on the web by allowing site owners to pop-in their AdSense code.

But by doing this, Google also stands to lose control over what each site owner is doing on their sites with that code.

The way their AdSense program works is that the site owner gets a cut of the action on the pay-per-click fees that go to Google, so what's to stop that site owner from clicking that ad themselves, or worse, setting-up advanced scripts to randomly click ads so as to not appear like fraud is being committed?

Looking at the kind of traffic I've been getting on sites where I'm running Google's AdWords program has made me wonder too about the useless traffic and hits.

Interestingly enough, it's a collectibles company that is bringing forward this class-action suit.

If you use Google AdWords, I'd like to hear your comments or opinions on the matter.