Friday, August 29, 2008

Free Online Dating Service, the free dating site in US and Canada, has released a new dating forum. The forum uses a familiar service, which many of us have already seen, phpBB, but modified to work with the dating site's database. What this translates into is: ease and convenience for the existing members. This means that users will not have to create a new user-name and password, but will rather use the user-name and password, they already have on

Court Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Data

A federal court has ordered the giant of all Internet companies - Google, to hand over documents concerning YouTube's viewing data to another media monster - Viacom. Viacom and Google are currently entangled in a no-holds barred lawsuit, concerning allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights. Viacom wanted the viewing data to help it determine the extent to which YouTube's success was built on the popularity of copyrighted clips that were illegally posted to the site. Google contended that YouTube's viewing data should be kept from Viacom to protect the privacy of its users.

Unfortunately for the millions of people who view YouTube videos, the judge granted Viacom's request. The court's ruling has caused many advocates of privacy rights to cry foul. For the following reasons, I believe the federal judge was correct in ruling against Google.

The Court's Powers To Access Records Cannot Be Denied

Like millions of Americans and other people around the world I love Google. I can say without a doubt that Google has been very good to me and my family law practice. And if Google wants to be viewed by it's customers as the champion of privacy rights, so be it. But, let's get real... , the court's access to private records under appropriate circumstances cannot be denied. We cannot let people hide behind their computers to commit crimes or torts. It would be absurd, for example, to give a child molester safe haven to either post or view child pornography. It would be equally absurd to give a person safe haven to infringe upon the property rights of another, to commit defamation of character, or to violate someone's privacy rights.

No Right Is Absolute!

The fact that the federal court did not buy into Google's privacy right argument comes as no surprise to those of us who go to court for a living and who know that the right of privacy is not absolute. Our courts are vested with the power to issue search warrants and subpoenas to allow lawyers access to private records. On every work day throughout America, judges are granting motions similar to the one filed by Viacom.

Within my family law practice, for example, I serve subpoenas for personal and employment records almost on a daily basis. Personal records frequently lead to hard evidence concerning the opposing party's true income for the purpose of paying child and spousal support. Likewise, data collected from the opposing party's computer usage can also lead to damaging evidence concerning the issues of child custody, community property, or domestic violence. Thank goodness for those incriminating little e-mails. There is nothing like cross examining a perpetrator of domestic violence as to why he thought it was necessary to send 40 messages to my client concerning her new boyfriend!

In case this information is beginning to scare you, keep in mind that our legal system allows parties the right to object to invasions of their privacy. In California, for example, before a subpoena for personal or employment records can be served, the attorney serving the subpoena must give notice to the opposing party and wait numerous days before sending the subpoena out for service. In addition, there are special rules when it comes to any attempt to obtain medical records, in which case the court is usually going to scrutinize the request for said documents. So if your ex is trying to get your phone records to obtain your friend's phone numbers, there are certain hurdles that need to be cleared before the court will release such records.

Can you say . . . , "protective order?"

There is nothing new about the possibilities of an attorney or party releasing confidential information. In the cruel world we live in, people misbehave and private information is often dispensed to people who have no right to the records. I'm sorry if I've just burst your bubble, but this happens all the time, especially in divorce cases.

Fortunately, the court has a pretty strong remedy to this problem. Courts issue "protective orders" that forbid the release of private documents to third parties and impose huge sanctions on people for violating such orders. And let us not forget the fact that an attorney's license could be in serious jeopardy for intentionally releasing such information, which is a pretty strong incentive for not violating the court's order.

Again, borrowing from my experience in litigating family law cases, I often find it necessary to obtain protective orders on behalf of my clients. In one case, where my client was an attorney who owned his own law practice, his wife demanded copies of all the records pertaining to his clients' files. She purportedly wanted the records to assist her forensic accountant in determining the value and cash flow of his law practice. Obviously my client was concerned about the confidentiality of his client's files, especially since his wife was on the war path to destroy him. We could not get into court quick enough to obtain a protective order, which was granted without hesitation!

What About Viacom's Underlying Motives?

For the purpose of this discussion, Viacom's motives are irrelevant. Viacom has the right to our system of justice as any other company or person. It is, after all, the court's responsibility to ensure that Viacom does not release the information to third parties. If Viacom violates the court's protective orders, well, look out for an astronomical monetary sanction.

Be Careful!

The bottom line is that the information obtained by Viacom will be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside lawyers or others. The lawyers representing Viacom will probably make sure the protective order is obeyed. Nevertheless, it behooves all of us to think twice about the sites we choose to view within the privacy of our homes. After all, the right to privacy is not absolute, and you never know who may get their hands on your records.

About The Author
Written by Donald P. Schweitzer.
Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer
201 South Lake Avenue, Suite 700, Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 683-8113

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Free Online Dating Service is picking up speed. Their fan base keeps growing by the minute. Are you on the train? If you aren't, get your ticket now. It is absolutely free. They aren't asking for your credit card, they are asking for your browsing support. Make sure you find your hookup today. From what I understand, they are implementing a new option, called Random-Date, where you communicate via web cam with people from around the world who are randomly chosen for you. This should be interesting. is one of the best free online dating sites, period!

Friday, August 22, 2008

Bubble woes overtake the widget industry

Getting venture capital for a new widget idea isn't as easy as it was a year ago, according to a recent CNET article. The problem? Growing widget fatigue among investors that has come about because of an intensely overcrowded marketplace.

Bill Tai, a venture capitalist at Charles River Ventures, told CNET that reality is now setting in for the widget market, which is going to have to come to grips with the fact that many ideas simply aren't viable.

While tough times and a packed marketplace won't mean an end for widgets, both make attracting advertisers -- the business model for nearly all widget makers -- that much harder.
But interactive marketers aren't ready to give up on widgets by any stretch. In a recent article, Michael Raisanen made the point that the marketing business is still buzzing about widgets, but the demand for quality has now overtaken the initial interest.

That may not be a bad thing for the bigger companies like Slide, Free Online Dating and RockYou, but it could mean an uncertain future for smaller widget shops like mini blogs or other ones that either lack good products or the ability to educate advertisers on why their portable applications are strong carriers for branded messages.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

What is playing hard to get? Should I play hard to get in a relationship?

How to play hard to get? Should a woman play hard to get in a relationship? What is playing hard to get? What should a woman do to play hard to get?

All of these questions have been leaving women wonder for years. Does it mean that if you play hard to get, you will wind up living happily ever after with your man, husband or boyfriend or will you turn him off by playing hard to get?

Do I need to wait for a certain period of time to kiss, or have sex with a man I am dating? Will he think that I am too easy if I sleep with him too soon? Will he dump me if I have sex with him too soon? How soon should I have sex with a man I am seeing? Should I tell a man I am dating about my feelings?

Women date. Women ponder. Every situation is different, but unlike many women think, there are certain answers that men give to these questions that women don’t normally think of.
First off, what is playing hard to get? Does it really means that you should not kiss a man you like until you go out on a date number three? Does it mean you should not sleep with someone you are dating until date number twenty?

To answer these questions, let’s look at a few examples.

You meet a man. You like him. You think there is mutual attraction. He doesn't call after the first date. You sit and wait and then decide he may have lost your number. Or something happened that he can’t call you. So, you decide to call. And when you call, he does not answer your phone call. Does it sound familiar?

Then you think he may not have gotten your voice mail message and you call him again. Hey, one call may have gone unnoticed. But a second call that goes without an answer signals lack of interest. In fact, the first call that went unanswered signals the same, but isn’t it hard to admit that a man you found interesting and attractive, and whom you would like to date is not interested in return?

Here is what a man does when he goes out on a first date with a woman. He evaluates the woman’s potential and decides if he is interested in seeing her again.

Do you really think a man will tell you straight up during the first date that he is not romantically interested in dating you? Of course, not. Do you ever tell a man you are not interested in dating him? Some women do, but not all. And why you think a man who is having a nice time on a date just talking to a woman and enjoying a nice conversation would tell her he is not romantically interested in her? A man is having a nice time with you on a date. That doesn’t mean he wants you date you. But being polite he does not want to hurt your feelings by rejecting you. He is just hoping you would get the message when he does not call.

So, should you play hard to get with a man you have gone out with? I personally do not support the idea of playing hard to get. If playing hard to get means withholding sex, then I would say no to that. If you really like a man and feel like you are ready to have sex with him, and provided he feels the same way about you, why not? If you are both ready.

What about kissing? I think the same goes for kissing. However, I do not suggest kissing on or right after the first date. Not because you are playing hard to get, but because you may already have another date set for tomorrow. Maybe two dates for tomorrow, and two for Wednesday. And three dates for Thursday, etc. Are you going to kiss everybody? Of course not.

I generally advise that you should only kiss those guys who date you exclusively. Say, for instance, you are dating five guys consistently and still meeting more guys for the first time, provided you are meeting them via a dating site. If you like some of the guys you are dating better than others, you may want to kiss those guys you like better if they are not seeing anyone else.

Most guys who have jobs do not like, however seeing more than one woman at a time. Dating is really time consuming and most guys who work like to settle with one person. So, say you are dating five guys and you like two of them the best. Should you kiss both? Some women do that. I personally don’t think it is a good idea to go around kissing a bunch of people, but this is really not about playing hard to get. It is probably better to decide first which guy you like the best and kiss only him. It is good to keep the other guys on the back burner just in case the main guy doesn’t work out, but I would not be kissing all of them even if you are the only one each one of them is dating.
The only reason that I see why women play hard to get is because they are insecure. Then think if they kiss a guy too soon or sleep with him too soon, the guy will lose interest. Wrong! Like I said before in one of my previous posts, if a guy likes a woman, he will not like her less because she had sex with him on date number one, two or three. However, on a date number one you don’t know if he likes you or not, because he just won’t tell you straight in your face he is not interested. So, you should go home and forget about him. Then when he calls you, hopefully you’ll remember who it is. When he asks you out on a second date and plans something special for you, you’ll know he is interested. Or if he proposes a hook-up, than you know what he is after.

But what if you think the man you’ve just met is the one? Well, you really don’t know and should not make assumptions. Chemistry is illusive. I have met men whom I thought had potential on the first date, but then after the second date I said Ewwwwwww. So, you never really know. What if you sleep with him on the first date? What is going to happen, he will think you feel the same way about him and will not understand why you don’t want to see him after all. What if he becomes too dependent? What if sex is so great that he’ll come begging for more? Well, you’ve just got yourself a stalker! Hopefully he lives far enough that the distance will prevent him from stalking you.

Another thing, whatever you do, if you decide to sleep with a guy you are dating too soon, do not invite him to your place. Do it someplace else, or at his house, so that you can have an easy escape route if you don’t want to see him again.

That’s why you should play hard to get! Get to know a guy before you sleep with him and make sure he is not going to stalk you once you are done with him. You really don’t need multiple suitors at your door.

For more on free online dating tips and suggestions, please visit our web site

Monday, August 11, 2008 - a new face on the micro blogging arena

Micro blogging isn’t for everyone, and you may have dismissed the service a long time ago. But regardless of your own use, it’s hard to dismiss the phenomenon itself and the passion of so many that has built up around it.

No matter how long the outage du jour, there is a new player in town. It is called and it is a similar service to Twitter where users continue to stay attached to the service despite an ever-changing backdrop of alternatives. Blogging isn’t for everyone either. But unlike blogging, enjoys a far a greater variety of users — they include people, many people, who would never think of starting a blog and people who would never touch an RSS reader. These people are located all over the world and to top it all, are connected via a free online dating site, operate by the same owner. The 160 character limit in this case is a plus for, but it isn’t all. What explains the phenomenon then? What produces the positive feeling and the strong attachment among those who micro blog? And moreover: How can other systems learn from this? The answer lies in understanding Audience. has a simple premise: You micro blog & the message is pushed to your friends. You can also subscribe to channels related to things you are interested. You can create channels and micro blog about the things you like. The actual mechanics are slightly different (messages go to everyone who follows you, whether they’re your “friends” or not, assuming your stream is public) — but from a user’s perspective, the circle of receivers consists only of the people they know. Everyone else is part of a faceless crowd that’s hidden behind the follower count. This simple premise holds the key to’s success: messages go to a well-defined audience. In the moment you release a micro blog, you know who’s on the line and you have an idea of who can catch a glimpse of your message.
Even though is not a point-to-point message delivery system (let alone a reliable one), @replies are sent with the understanding that they will be read by the intended people because they are known to be in the audience. (Imagine a newspaper article that suddenly greeted a specific reader.) Blogging on the other hand has no such clearly defined audience. An aspiring blogger who hasn’t crossed the chasm speaks into the void. Direct feedback can only come in the form of written comments (a relatively high barrier of effort) and it’s diminished by spam and vocal trolls these days.

So it’s not surprising that the majority of blogs are abandoned — the most-cited reason being “No one was reading it.” No one might be following your stream either, but is designed for network effects to take hold and given the natural reciprocity among groups of friends, it’s likely that most people have at least a handful of followers they know. Back to Why Audience works? is relatively new, but I have the feeling that it will pick up speed fast. They have a lot more to offer than Twitter and the design and ease of use are far better. will work and will enjoy such strong attachment because it provides real-time access to a well-defined audience. The backlog of all previous micro blogs is a guarantee of permanence (you can search posts, people, channels, or everything else that is searchable) and you can catch up on it anytime. As a result, people use because they have an idea of who will see their lightweight messages and this sense of audience is reinforced by @replies, re-posts and references in future conversations (online and offline).
Designing for the sense of Audience is a powerful tool to create cohesion and a sense of utility among users of a service. This lesson from can apply to many other services too. But before leaving the current discussion, it’s helpful to look at a service that has missed the full power of Audience so far.

Facebook: Designed for Audience? Not so much. Facebook isn’t about Audience? That’s ridiculous, you’ll say — so let me clarify. I fully agree that social network profiles are all about self-expression and being seen, but a platform for self-expression isn’t necessarily designed for the audience that does “the seeing.” Profile Pages on Facebook can have audiences of course, but this requires that users continually roam Facebook to look for news in their network. Facebook realized this limitation and introduced the News Feed. Its intent was to move a user’s “acts and performances” from the stage of the profile page to a single and central stage, a single place for Audience. Sharing with the News Feed: Did it ever reach my friends? Facebook was the first major social network to introduce the News Feed concept, which has since become a standard sauce for stickiness in many places (although not StudiVZ surprisingly). But Facebook’s implementation of the News Feed doesn’t capture the full power of designing for Audience: While distributes every message consistently, Facebook decides algorithmically which update is shown to whom. Algorithmic filtering is nice in theory, but such black-box behavior is simply unpredictable for the user. “When I post new things, will my friends actually see them?”, one might wonder. And conversely: “Have my friends posted something that I’m not seeing? The news feed is cluttered right now with people I don’t care about.” Anything that’s unpredictable produces a feeling of uncertainty — and that’s never a comfortable feeling.
Even with Facebook’s recent attempts to introduce smarter filters, users only have relative means to customize their feed (more of this, less of that). Furthermore, there is mostly just one kind of feedback that users can give on the News Feed: comments. Imagine a concert, in which you could only leave written notes as you left — no clapping, no booing.

Because users don’t really know who’s listening on Facebook and who isn’t, the platform hasn’t been embraced as a place to publish proactively. Publishing events or photos is mostly push-driven (and generates an email — “you are invited to an event” or “tagged in a photo”). But for everything else you share, do you know if it ever reached your friends?

Who capitalized on this gap? FriendFeed. It’s the same setup as, but with more content: You know who’s listening and you choose the people you listen to. A useful premise but it also has a catch: the word “more”. Too much content, too many people — which is exactly the problem that Facebook is trying to address with its algorithmic feed. But what’s a solution then? It’s not the “middle ground” and it has nothing to do with smarter filters.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Google Sued For Patent Infringement Over AdSense

Google Sued For Patent Infringement Over AdSense from InformationWeek reports Google has been sued for the fourth time this year over patent infringement, this time by Daniel D. Wexler, who has a patent named Third-party on-line accounting system and method therefor.

The patent was filed on October 11, 1996 and ultimately issued on September 28, 1999. The patent is basically on the topic of a third-party ad tracking system. Thus, Wexler feels the right to sue Google over the AdSense program, which not only distributes ads but also tracks the ads' effectiveness.

The suit was issued on July 31st by Wexler and his company, Web Tracking Solutions.
Will he win? I am not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Is mingle2 a legit service?

Just the other day, I decided to do a search on a keyword phrase and see where free online dating site shows up. To my surprise, I found that mingle2 has knocked out okcupid out of the first place on 'free online dating'.

I am still puzzled as to how does Google search works and what makes mingle2 better than okcupid?! They both require from you to register before you can browse. They both still ask a lot of questions, before you can be a fully functional member, and they both don't have much of a description on their home page. So what makes people register, without first sampling? Is it possible that mingle2 has a bunch of fake profiles? Guess what! ...chances are that they do. I am attaching a print screen from their home page, where they are showing random females and random males. To my surprise, one of their members appears 3 times. Not 2, but 3...

With that said, I will let you draw your own conclusions as to their legitimacy. I still think that my site free dating personals is a lot better than any other site out there.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Google: Complete Privacy no Longer Exists

It’s been discussed before: in this information-filled age with all our personal data in databases that are vulnerable to leaks, as well as much of our behavioral data being gathered by corporations, is there really any privacy? On Wednesday, in response to a lawsuit, Google said no.
In April, Pittsburgh couple Aaron and Christine Boring (yes, that’s really their name) filed suit against Google in Allegheny County court. Why? They felt that Google’s “reckless conduct” in publishing Street View photos (above) of their property (which was “protected” by a private road sign) caused “mental suffering” and hurt the value of their home.

There’s a fairly easy way to get pictures removed from Street View (more on that later), and Google brought that up, implying that someone decided it was a good way to get some cash out of a large corporation. On the other hand, if that was the case, they strangely only asked for $25,000.

As Google said in their motion to dismiss the complaint:
“When plaintiffs discovered these images, rather than using the simple removal option Google affords, they sued Google for invasion of privacy, trespass, negligence, and conversion. Plaintiffs seek damages form ‘mental suffering’ and diminished property value supposedly caused by the public accessibility of the photos. They claim these injuries even though similar photos of their home were already publicly available on the Internet, and even though they drew exponentially greater attention to the images in question by filing and publicizing the lawsuit while choosing not to remove the images of their property from the Street View service.”

The photos already available on the Internet that Google mentions above are on a county website.

While that’s true, here’s the scary, big-brotherish (though unnervingly true) part:
“Today’s satellite-image technology means that even in today’s desert, complete privacy does not exist. In any event, plaintiffs live far from the desert and are far from hermits.
As far as Google’s contention that the Borings could remove the offending image: it’s true. All they (or anyone) has to do was bring up Street View Help, click a link, and select “This image infringes on my privacy.”

But their lawyer, Dennis Moskal, had this response:
“If you take Google’s response to the furthest conclusion, you could never have any reasonable expectation of privacy unless you fortified your house and barricaded yourself in.”
“Is something ever really removed from the Internet once it’s sent out to a billion people? It’s a face-off between big business saying that they can set forth what the law is - that they’re above the law.”

He has a point about things never disappearing from the Web. After all, things like old MySpace photos have brought down politicians … and more. And where did I get the picture of their property above? Right.

By Michael Santo Editor-in-Chief, RealTechNews