Worse still, by putting this forward with Google's name on it, the dastardly duo (a marriage that could only have been made in one of the darker corners of Hell) managed to muddy the debate rather than bringing any new clarity to the discussion.

While we're on the subject of Google, the company's CEO, Eric , deserves a special award for his declaration at around the same time as the joint net neutrality proposal, for opining that, "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you."

at the time and I think what most struck me was that Schmidt has given us a very clear and very worrisome vision of how Google will evolve. What Schmidt is arguing for is the end of any kind of anonymity online as a prerequisite for some kind of national security, whereas the real benefit will fall to Google and the other entities that see the hoi poli as fodder for the advertising canons. Its a disingenuous and self-serving ploy.

Some might say these positions were always in the cards for Google given that the company is a commercial entity in such a powerful position, but to have this so clearly underlined deserves all of the recognition and fame that goes with getting a GGTA.

My pick for an award for the most ill-conceived, dangerous tech-related political issue has got to be the "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA), which gives the government the ability to shut down or, more accurately, censor, any Web site in the world if it is found to be "dedicated to infringing activities" – a wonderfully vague way of saying, "suspected of piracy in some way, shape, or form without due process."