I wish he'd give us some details about the X-Prize competition that he's entered and some of the challenges he's facing. Perhaps we can provide feedback and support. We could pitch in financially or via services.

They're talking about whether or not he'll succeed over at PromoteYourOpinion.com Check it out.

http://www.PromoteYourOpinion.com/wfTopic.aspx?TopicID=11

I wonder if Google's plan when it has the 700MHZ area is also to be an internet provider. AT&T's plan to disrupt Google's business model through removing net neutrality might have caused them to be interested in being thier own service provider.

You believe that you can dismiss the theft of a citizen's social security number as a plus for their credit rating.. just whose payroll are you on? How about some transparency with that, please, because identity theft destroy's American citizen's credit rating and their lives. It's caused debt and bankruptcy and enormous expense, because the victim is left having to prove their innocence.

The American people, black, brown and white are fed up with the lies of affluent elites who seek to exploit this and other situations for their own agendas. Shouldn't be surprised this malarkey is coming from PBS, after all, it hasn't been relevant on the issues of American poverty and the true problems of unemployment and underemployment, that has been going on since the '80s.

So, when is NerdTV going to fly?

Bob, why don't you just use a different domain name? For example:

iwantmynerdtv.com

bobsnerdtv.com

nerdtelevision.com

On today's topic: One will still be able to hide. They just have to not use Google. I suppose Google would like to make that highly inconvenient, but for those who want, it can be done.

People who want to hide will just go to the pre-paid mobile phones you can buy in the drugstore, unless they're outlawed.

But using a pre-paid phone then might just draw attention to the user because he's not using the free Google phone.

Lots of permutations.

Universal Identifier

Can't be too long to be usable, and must be unique. An MD5 hash of your digitized DNA.

As for ads on my gPhone (bye Verizon and your crippled handsets), if they were trailers for upcoming movies, followed by Touch Here for Tickets at Your Local Theater, I'd likely watch every one – as long as I wasn't driving at the time.

I'll bet those Privacy asshats would have a field day with SuperGoogle. :-) I say bring it on; I don't care about privacy, I just want decent service and not to be robbed blind for using it.

David B: Sorry, MD5 of your digitized DNA is (1) too intrusive (allowing someone to check it involves letting them scan your entire DNA), and (2) not unique (ever heard of identical twins?).

The credit reporting business should be illegal.

Just give everyone a phone number at birth that will stick with them throughout their lives. Convenience and more verifiable than a social security number. A call back to the number either reaches the right person or it doesn't.

So what is stopping AT&T or Sprint from doing the exact same thing with your current phone number?

A lot of people with no credit go with "pay as you go" phones. They are in may ways a better deal than the current rate plans offered by companies.

The first phone company that provides decent customer service, reasonable terms, cheap handsets fair billing and no games will clean up against all of the others.

I hope it's Google and I hope they drive my current phone company out of business.

I don't even care about Google, I just want the FTC and the FCC to end the current way the cellular business is structured and operated. It's great for the phone companies but not at all for consumers.

This is the fourth article in a row you've written about Google's plan to dominate the world. A few years ago, you write obsessively about Microsoft and it's plan to take over the world. Now everywhere you look, you see the nefarious hands of Google at work. No doubt in a few years, you'll breathlessly write about Facebook's plan to take over the world.

Not being able to hide would bother me a lot less if I thought this really applied to everyone. And I mean everyone.

I'd like to use someone else's SSN, but it's not because I have gray income, but rather because I am afraid of identity theft. As things are, a bad guy who knows someone's SSN can make that person's life pretty miserable, yet we are not really allowed to hide our SSNs very well. We are supposed to stick close to the middle of the herd and hope the wolf grabs some other sheep.

David Brin wrote an interesting book along these lines: The Transparent Society. His basic idea is, given a conservative projection of the advance of the technology of surveillance, our choice is not being being watched or not being watched, but between having an elite class that gets to watch us or letting everyone watch everyone else.

Maybe that's why they bought "One Number" provider Grand Central.

You can get utilities without a SSN. It usually involves putting down a deposit, etc. I have been doing it since the mid to late 1980s.

Many times when an organization insists on getting one's SSN, simply refusing, bouncing it up the chain of command, asking to see the written policy, etc., generally has the result that they discover that it actually is not required.

I was recenly at a fraud conference and the Postal Inspector present said that if it was up to him, he would not allow the SSN to be used outside of the Social Security system. He would insist on unique account numbers for each business. He felt that the ubiquious use of the SSN increases crime to a significant amount.

It might be profitable for Google to sell information collected (which they could do now and don't), but it's probably not their motive and never will be. User backlash and Congress would never allow it as long as there is some monopolistic hew around it. Actually buying a credit agency to pair and data mine? No way.

As for the mobile space, there is going to be some re-inventing but it's not like the Telco's are willingly going to roll over and play dead. I hope Google wins that round, because anything is better than the Telco's at this point.

It might be profitable for Google to sell information collected (which they could do now and don't), but it's probably not their motive and never will be. User backlash and Congress would never allow it as long as there is some monopolistic hew around it. Actually buying a credit agency to pair and data mine? No way.

As for the mobile space, there is going to be some re-inventing but it's not like the Telco's are willingly going to roll over and play dead. I hope Google wins that round, because anything is better than the Telco's at this point.

That is one of your craziest predictions/theories ever...seriously.

I always thought that the answer to the "one unique identifier per person" question is some sort of "web of trust" solution. In fact, I think Cringe has written about that in the past...

If you just hash someone's DNA sequence, or assign them a unique IPv6 address, or whatever, it's just too easy to steal and use that number -- same as with a SS#.

BTW, I'm not happy with my cell phone company. Many people aren't. They charge too much and rope me into long 3-year plans (or else the phone costs a fortune). Maybe if Google worked out some web of trust solution into the gPhone...

In your defense Bobo, I think you an excellent job of being politically neutral. ( as opposed to PBS)... this article layed out RealPolitik of the facts on the ground. Its good I woo'd you over to the dark side Bob. When you wrote the original arty about Google NOT wanting the spectrum I could not see it being true. That spectrum space is valuable to them from many angles. The main one being that when its gone there ain't gonna be anything coming down the pike behind it. Zippo. If you have the slightest of meglomaniac inside you then you simply can't let this spectral space slip irreversibly from your hands. While if you buy it you can either build in it or extort Cell phone providers to build for you under threat of true open network being layed down on top the space. I repeat my prediction of the first article: Google WILL buy this spectrum with prejudice! Like dirty Harry offing the Zodiac with his 44 maggy. This is going to be like buying up the very last acre of ground available in the USA. AKA....the door slams shut behind you as you enter a VERY exclusive club!

Hey Robert, what ever happened to that foil hard drive thing you said was going to revolutionize the computing world?

You fail to mention anyone with $20 can get a Virgin Mobile cell phone and make calls, send email, etc. And Virgin Mobile is already ad-supported. It's the phone I use and it works, no contract, costs me about $7/month.

Doesn't that poke a hole in your argument?

all these Google stories remind me of this classic (2002) short story about Googlebots taking over the world:

Robot Exclusion Protocol By Paul Ford
A story about the Google of the future.
http://www.ftrain.com/robot_exclusion_protocol.html

Let's assume for a minute that the massive recession IS imminent (http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net), and let's say Google IS smart enough to have planned for this....

How would Google survive a massive drop in consumer spending?

Any ideas? Anyone?

Having run a database containing the one million largest customers and their accounts for a very large and well known bank, I can tell you the problem is not just at the low end of the income scale. More than one hundred thousand customers never provided a valid tax ID or Social Security number.

BTW: Is 123-45-6789 someone's real number? How about thousands of someone's?

We've figured out how to get that Metadata and make it part of the HTTP protocol. It's called MobileMe and makes the http protocol contextually aware (as long as the consumer wants to enable the metadata coming from his phone). We can stream real time location, device and personal information from the browser and up to the web server just by adding it into the http request headers. Mod_Mobile waits for it on the server side and then makes it available to any web service the content provider wants to mash together. Diagrams, and use case examples can be found on our web site (www.5o9inc.com)

Another possibility -

If Google is smart, they will use IPv6 addressing for their phones ... all the techgeeks like me would love to have an IPv6 address (? an assigned IP ?!?! - tethering would be cool for wireless broadband access) ....

Two things:

1) If GPhone will eventually be free, I can assure you that they will NOT use traditional phone numbers as identifiers, but your Gmail address. Sure, they will map your current phone number to your Gmail account so you can port your number to the service, but that will just be for the short term. Remember, all phone providers must pay certain fees (FCC, 911, etc.) for every phone number they maintain. Not so with VOIP calling to your Gmail account (yet...)! Look for Google to introduce subscriber fees for maintaining a real phone number while pushing for ability to call Gmail accounts from regular phones so they can switch over. Of course, you'll be able to route calls to a Gmail account to a home number as well, not to mention receive your voicemails in your Gmail inbox or over POP3.

2) If GPhone service is free, people also won't limit themselves to just one, thereby defeating the unique ID for an individual. Why? 'Cuz it's free! People love free and just can't control themselves...

Interesting post. I'm a user of their recently-purchased GrandCentral system, and reading this makes me think that they're "priming the pump" for exactly the scenario you describe. One phone number, forever... get the GPhone, and it'll link directly to your GCentral number.

A friend of mine was asking what the GC business model was if they're giving it away for free. My response was, "Well, you know Google; they make new products and figure out how to monetize them later." The scenario you're talking about is a good fit with that.

There is a salesman for a beer distributor here in San Antonio who has sold his SS number for many years to the _mojados_ hired to hustle cases in the warehouse. 'Tiger' Gonzalez.

When the computer system uncovered duplicate SS numbers in the payroll, the owners simply fired
all the men who had the duplicates. Tiger was
more valuable than all of them together.

Gonzalez had two comments: "The computer it made a mistake; I'll get lots of retirement."

You're saying that Google has to buy an entire credit agency, take over their duties, just to get a list of phone numbers? Wow, that's an expensive phone book. Couldn't they just buy or lease the info without taking over the whole joint? Maybe they could get a bulk discount.

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to not care who uses what phone and just rely on a statistical profile matched to each phone number? I think you might be surprised at how accurate such models can be--how compact, as well--since you disregard the algorithmic elegance of things as they are to suggest that Google requires perfect and complete information about everyone to fully prosper.

Oh, yeah, but the credit agencies know who is susceptible to high-priced credit-repair ads and such. That's why Google might want to buy a credit agency. But you don't want to appear to be alleging such a motive--entirely plausible--so you dandle some muddle about privacy scares in lieu. Good heavy lifting, Bob! Don't and say you did.

Free phone service could fly without such desperate measures, and I think it's bordering on irresponsible to suggest that any system but the status quo requires an abdication of privacy. (Just think NSA.) Phone service and broadband could be as free as the highway system if state and federal governments could be trusted to run them, but they can't. Why, then, are those same agencies trusted when it comes to the privacy of financial and criminal records? (Credit agencies know more, but governments know what credit agencies know. An irony, to be sure.)

Phone service ought to cost a lot less than it does, and everyone knows it. It's not going to happen by wishful thinking, though. The people need a gorilla like Google to overthrow the price-gouging complacent telcos, to end their undeserved sense of entitlement. I'm just glad that Google even contemplates it, weighs what is within its power to do.

Given the current cost of Phone technology today (just try to buy a iPhone! or high end Nokia) and the restrictive two-year service plan mentality, I (for one) would probably bite the Google apple; if for no other reason than to save $79*12 plus taxes per annum.

price versus performance; I am waiting...

-aed

I dunno, Bob....

I still think Google is inherently evil.:)

Having this massive subscriber base of cell phones would probably have them putting competive (that is, same as the others) rates, thereby drowning out the screams of monopoly coming from AT&T, Sprint, etc.

As Google matures, watch it morph into the typical corporation.

@aed:

$79/month for mobile service is an artifact of the dysfunctional US mobile market. If you tell someone from europe that you guys _pay_ for recieving calls, they will typically think you joking.

I was thinking the same thing when Google anounced their mobile stack.

However, I think the US's anti-trust laws will prevent anything like this happening. Ultimately AT&T, Sprint, Nokia etc are all very rich companies that can buy the politicians they need to stop this.

Google hasn't encountered this before but like MicroSoft they'll discover that they'll have to grease the right political poles.

I also think Google is inherently evil, so please stop giving them such good advice :)
Anyway, there is too much hype around Google.
I'm sure there are companies that could have a great impact on IT, other than Google, Apple or Microsoft.

Remember - Google bought GrandCentral - a way for you to consolidate all of your phone numbers into one that can be accessed via a browser. It's all coming together.

You need a Social Security number to sign up for utility services, for example. No Social Security number, no electricity, gas, phone, or satellite TV. So what's a poor alien to do?

Actually - you don't. You just request that they create a unique ID for you, and off you go. They use the SSN for convenience, but are not allowed by law to require it. Only the gov't is allowed to require it, and only then for tax & social security related purposes; they may request it for other purposes as well (per an Executive Order allowing them to do so, not a law from Congress or Judicial ruling), but must do the same thing if you request.



As to the rest of your article - I'm sure you can still hide. For example, there are devices that would allow you to "copy" a cell phone so that two phones respond to the same number - it's not difficult, just put two identical SIM cards in two separate phones - you could turn your cell phones into a party line if you like (not necessarily advised). For that matter, some SIM phones accept multiple SIM cards so that it can access multiple numbers, carriers, or regions - these phones are popular with International travelers. So it wouldn't quite work - you'd get another group of people.

As someone above said, you are NOT required to give your Soc Sec number to most organizations.

Bob, you should research this and ammend your editorial !

Actually - you don't. You just request that they create a unique ID for you, and off you go. They use the SSN for convenience, but are not allowed by law to require it. Only the gov't is allowed to require it, and only then for tax & social security related purposes; they may request it for other purposes as well (per an Executive Order allowing them to do so, not a law from Congress or Judicial ruling), but must do the same thing if you request.



Yeah, theoretically that may be the case...but just try explaining to some entry level bureaucrat at the driver's license division that you should not be required to present your Social Security card to obtain a driver's license. Any guff and they call a State Trooper over here. Out the door you will go!

Admittedly, this is all a pretty scary proposition, until you stop and realize that it's very, very difficult to hide from the Man as it is now. I'm sure there are some that have succeeded, but to the general public, there's no way to escape. Sure, there are rights to privacy, but that's really a misnomer. There is probably much less privacy than people would wish. There's a cost for freedom (which begs the question, is it really freedom?). In the end, nothing really changes. We all adapt, and the future will bring along another Man to replace the previous one.

If the "grey economy" folks are hiding income for tax purposes, I wonder how much the Feds are losing?
The FairTax would get money into the Feds for every new item bought. There is almost no way to cheat the FairTax system. No income tax, so no reason to hide. They want to buy new cars, boats, iPods etc, so with the FairTax, who cares how much they make - or how they make it?

Privacy? What privacy, get over it you only have the illusion and if you think what the government might do is bad, just wait some business will top that

Surprised that you thought the mobile phone number could be a unique identifier. In the UK, whilst people have at least one number that they keep with them, they also use PAYG (pay as you go) SIMs that can be bought for cash, used and thrown away for dating or selling a secondhand car. Not even the IMEI number would work for more than 12 months.

A minor point. Twenty million participants in the gray economy represents 6.7% of U.S. residents, not 10%. Our population is up to 300 million now and has been for a while.

because your mobile phone number is the most practical supplement for the Social Security number as a financial identifier.

I don't know... maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but what if someone needed to change their mobile number for some reason? A move to a new area code, or for personal security reasons (a stalker, for instance, or just an annoying ex)? Will all that personal financial data just be transferred to the new phone number? And when someone else is assigned the old phone number...I just don't have enough faith in our existing systems to believe that such a switch could be managed without error, and an error on that kind of data could cause a lot of problems for the customers involved.

One thing no one among the anti-illegal set seems to understand is that the folks that borrow your ss# in order to work for an employer that withholds taxes are contributing to social security and medicade with no hope of receiving benefits. Thus he/she is supporting the rest of us in our retirement.

This article has some very false information in it. The notion that you are required to provide a social security number in order to receive utilities is complete bubkus. If I recall correctly, in some states it would actually be illegal for a utility to require a social security number if a customer is more comfortable providing something like a drivers license or state ID number instead. Some companies will charge a deposit in these cases, but they still don't require a social security number, that is 100% false.

Secondly, utility companies don't actually establish credit accounts with their customers, so there is no way that paying your utility bill on time will positively affect your credit. Paying late doesn't harm your credit either. Now, if you didn't pay long enough for it to end up in collections then it would cause damage, but that's the only way that a utility bill would end up on your credit report.

It is my opinion that PBS should post a retraction for this article as the author obviously failed to do their research before spreading misinformation.

I remember when Ma Bell tried to get congress to let it use social security numbers as phone numbers. Yes, they tried, but congress actually saw a problem with that and at the last minute voted down the bill.
Now your phone number is going to be a new ss number, I doubt if people will let that happen, even for free phone service.

Off-topic? I don't think so but I'm usually wrong about such things... just ask my wife.

There's no question that businesses are better than goverments at IT, but it is more than a little frightening to think of commercial identities replacing (in practice) government records. Today, a significant "illegal" portion of the U.S. population can participate in the economy without having the right to vote. (This serves some folks in business and government well, and in my opinion explains the lack of immigration enforcement at the employer level.) Should the day come when you can do almost everything with identification only by Gphone number, things will probably get much worse.

Experience with Social Security and driver's license numbers shows that de-facto standards for identification emerge easily and naturally, regardless of their original purpose, or even the specific admonitions of their creators. I hope we will be careful before we create a flip-side to the private "shadow goverment" and an even bigger portion of our populace becomes a "shadow citizenry;" poor working people, participating in the economy and unrepresented by government. That's not quite slavery, but too close for my comfort.

My thoughts are inspired by Bob's excellent column, of course, and also by Paul Krugman's enlightening book, "The Conscience of a Liberal." It's a great history of the interplay between economics and political movements in this country.

Per posting by Temporal Being Nov 12, 2007 12:06 PM

Private parties are allowed to refuse to do business with you if you do not provide a SSN. Of course, one can refuse to do business with them also.

Per posting by Steve Dean Nov 12, 2007 12:52 PM

I did exactly what you said. A State Police Major escorted me into his office, tried to get to answer all sorts of questions, ran a check on me and then let me go, all of it accomapnied with many glares, strong and threatening "body language" and the verbal threats that I must be a criminal if I did not want to submit my SSN, to arrest me, etc, all of which were simply not true.

Apologies to all for the horrid grammar above. I am not sure what happened....

Grammar? Real geeks don't need no stenken' Grammar!

Deny all you want to. You have a huge following, who thinks, and writes, as you do.

(Or, wish they could!)

I support your premise that Google will bid and win 700Mhz Spectrum. However, which spectrum (upper or Lower Bands)will depend on who their Operations partner will be. Let's look at the prospects-mainly Cell Carriers:
Sprint only makes sense if they build the net and operate it for Google-using the same towers backhaul etc they plan for WiMAX. Sprint is stuck with the 2.5Ghz spectrum for WiMAX which ultimately will limit its success. If they gain access to 700Mhz, replacing their 2.5Ghz radios and deploy for WiMAX they will have something.
AT&T-Believe it or not will bid & win a major chuck of the Lower Band of the 700Mhz (A & B Block) and combine with their recent C band (contiguous with A&B) purchase from Aloha to provide a Nationwide Broadband Wireless network as an adjunct to their Narrowband Cell (UMTS and HSDPA). If they team with Google (w/Android and its plans to replace the Internet w/its fiber linked data centers/Content/Hosted Desk Tops etc) they will effectively sideline both Verizon Wireless and all other Cell Carriers with a true 4G network in the late 2009 timeframe. Google needs to partner with AT&T if it is to move quickly into this space. AT&T is getting pretty aggressive/innovative in its new model and needs a Content partner to feed its massive Broadband delivery machine (including its Fiber to the Node networks). Watch what Google will be able to do to provide these IPTV monsters with Programming-replacing the present Aggregators Satellite (high revenue share fees) networks with their Nationwide Fiber based Data Centers-very low ad supported fees.
The Most Interesting CellCo is Verizon Wireless-Keep in mind that they are partly owned by Vodaphone who is presently a WiMAX member.
Verizon W. will focus on bidding the Upper Band C Block which it desperately needs to upgrade its faltering EV-DO Narrowband Data delivery network.
It would also love to eliminate any competitor bidding against it for the C Block, which Google will do if it does not partner with VW. VW needs a new or at least an interum Business model because they have to wait until the new 4G LTE systems are available 2011/2012 if they are to remain competitive in the Cell Data markets.
They along with AT&T need a reliable Content/Aps delivery source if they and their Parent Verizon FIOS network is to remain competitive against the MSO.
Sleeper here is T-Mobile who is flurting with an Open network already and it's network is based on the World wide GSM standard that will dominate the Cell markets. They have the experience to build and operate a 700Mhz Network as a partner with the deep pockets Partners (Google/Apple/Intel). They are also a partner with Googles new "Open Handheld..." group (Android).

IP address vs Cell Phone vs. SSN. HMMMM! I would go with CellPhone number-which I can call and verify with who answers.

Jacomo

What happened to Burst case. Is the Judge related to the Patent examiner that shares the same last name? Husband and wife? Would that be a conflict of some sorts if related?

I keep reading here about Google winning the 700-MHz spectrum but there's a problem - Microsoft. Microsoft is finally wise to what Google is doing even if they don't have a clue as to countering it. MS is the one company with mountains of free cash that can outbid Google. I can see MS placing an outrageous bid just to stop Google then try and figure out what to do with that spectrum later.
"I'd like Microsoft to block please."

Now, what on earth makes you think illegal aliens are good at paying their bills, particularly in the current crunch in illegal alien heavy industries such as construction?
Based on the recent brouhaha about sending out no match letters, there are roughly 17 million mismatches and it's estimated that more than 5 million are due to misuse by illegal aliens. However, the problems won't start until those whose numbers were stolen try to collect SS or are contacted by the IRS for not paying enough taxes on the income earned under that SS number. Remember, SS won't let someone whose number has been stolen know that because it's against their "privacy" rules.

Google is certainly wanting and trying to break into the mobile business. Why? Mobility is where all the growth is comparison to traditional PC based computing. However, Google is far from a network operator. Their small scale tests of muni-WiFi have had lackluster results at best. The price tag of building out a nationwide network on 700 MHz is going to be tens of billions, regardless of technology (WiMax, 3G, LTE, etc). I just don't see Wallstreet supporting this magnitute of expenditure. Second, operating a wireless network is a major departure from their current line of business. Last, Google will also NOT go the MVNO route in the US. Success in this model has been difficult at best. Disney and ESPN attempts both failed. Helio is on life support. It is much more likely that Google will pursue partnerships with both device manufactures and wireless carriers. All Google cares about is users seeing Google on mobile devices. They are afraid that a major carrier will (and can) make it difficult or outright block them. So, they will continue to push for policies and business models that support open access.

Frankly, I think the more interesting story is the Google and Apple connection as it relates to wireless. Despite their common ties, they seem to have near opposite approaches to the market.

as usual, very interesting, forward-looking post. i look forward to these.

but, quick question: how will google see to it that people only get one phone number vs multiple phone numbers? what's the identifier to get the universal identifier? social security numbers?

Looks like SOMEBODY has drawn the attention of Chinese hackers...

I don't see google partnering with any phone company as what google most wants is a free, internet-based phone plus communications network. This is not in any way what the phone companies want.

"The funny thing about this is the impact it has to have on the person who was originally assigned that Social Security number by the U.S. government. Rather than hurt their credit it actually helps because there is so much evidence that they are good at paying their bills."

If someone has a bad credit rating (not due to identity theft) there is likely a good reason for it, so having their credit rating improved by illegals using their SSN is not such a great thing. Someone with a good credit rating doesn't need this boost anyway.

Google is buying double click. This only goes to show the direction they are taking and Bob is probably the closest to guessing the real objective which is to: take over the World... Wide Web.

You make the assumption that a unique number is required for credit agencies and government to conduct their business.
It isn't. Here in NZ we have not used any overarching id number since it was made illegal in 1990 or so. Our credit agencies and governments are fine without it.
Also mobile numbers are nowhere near being unique id numbers as I have heard of schoolkids who have kept two phones to get the cheapest SMS price, NZ has Duopoly issues.

well, delivering ads throughout mobile phones, can really be the technology to shift pseudo democracy to true democracy. Interacting with a system that could actually survey the wills of citizens by asking them through SMS messages and then putting in touch citizens need with service providers, all matched against the taxation incoming from citizens commercial spendings can get rid of all possibilities of human corruption and power of decision of the applicability of public power.

What if Google does not plan to use the spectrum itself? What if instead of using the spectrum they are going to give it away to any cell phone carriers that meet certain conditions. Among these, use the Google/Android/GPhone software, run Google ads and deliver the service free or cheap to consumers.

What would a provider get out of it? They would get a share of the ad revenue and free or cheap spectrum.

Running a cell service is messy. It requires personnel in scale to deal with customer service issues, government regulations and maintenance and support of disparate cell networks. None of this plays to Google's strength, which are about using compute power to scale the business, not expensive people.

I am not sure of how the economics pencil out, but this would be an audacious play that would commoditize the cell providers and change the face of the cell phone industry. Google would control all the revenue (ads) and the means of delivery (spectrum).

The Internet has made the "grey" economy even more pervasive.

It is much easier to open a foreign bank account than it was 10 years ago.

And quasi-bank services like Paypal don't ask for your SS#, state ID, and they don't show up on your credit report, yet you could easily run a business through Paypal alone.

I find it amusing that so many are unable to visualize a life outside of artificial systems. Believe it or not it IS possible to live without a J.O.B. (Just Over Broke), without caring about or having credit, and even without money at all if you so choose. It is not simple but it most definitely is possible.

Real life requires only water and food, although most find shelter, lights, and hot running water rather useful. It is quite possible to acquire all of those outside of the illusion most Americans insist on living in.

The last time I put utilities in my own name, refusing to provide a SSN number was a major challenge. They did finally concede - after I insisted they ask Management - that I could provide the last four digits and use zeros for the other numbers AND required a substantial deposit.

The illusion that I am the most sad about giving up is that of the U.S. being a free country. Apparently it never was; however, I did have that illusion and most still do.

I offer as proof that at least in the state of Texas, simply walking along the side of the road is not allowed (not hitchhiking - not ON the highway - simply on the grassy area next to the road as there are no sidewalks in rural Texas) without being accosted by local law enforcement and threatened with arrest or being hauled off to the local nut house.

Walking is not allowed. Not producing a driver's license (for walking?) is reason enough to be threatened with arrest. Desiring to walk is considered cause to question one's sanity.

It appears that one heavily armed large police officer is so concerned over detaining one pacifist 51yo white woman standing under 5'3" and weighing less than 130 pounds that he required the assistance of not one but TWO other armed officers.

I consider the current conditions in the United States - the place of my birth where I have lived my entire life - beyond sad. Fortunately this particular tale has a "happy" ending in that I was eventually able to negotiate a truce with said officers by suggesting that I be allowed to walk the few hundred feet across the grass to a convenience store and call someone to pick me up.

They indicated I would be arrested if I left the store on foot and even though I assured them I had no desire to interact with them again, they then took turns watching the store until my ride arrived, presumably to ensure I did not leave on foot.

If you find this tale as nearly unbelievable as I do I encourage you to ask your local police. They never did tell me what law I could possibly be breaking. Apparently that is no longer necessary. My consciousness having been raised, I have since been told by numerous individuals that they were arrested or threatened with arrest for public intoxication when they were completely straight and sober.

What I find most ironic about this entire silly story is simply this: white people in the U.S. are now treated the same way minorities have long endured. I had sincerely hoped we would see movement in the opposite direction.

We are fast approaching the time when we must choose: totally submit or opt out.