You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-10-30 11:15
Google's Global Privacy Counsel, Peter Fleischer, cheered Singapore in his blog for passing a "modern privacy law" as a way of denouncing the EU's "out of date" privacy law and its recent threat to enforce it against Google.
Fully exhibiting a couple of the most common Google PR traits, a lack of self-awareness and an instinct for political polarization, Mr. Fleischer effectively lectured the world that it should emulate the privacy lawmaking of a hybrid-authoritarian regime, Singapore, as he denounced and belittled the privacy lawmaking of European democracies. How Orwellian this is, to praise the politically authoritarian treatment of the Singaporean people as "modern," and to denounce the democratic concern for the individual liberties of EU citizens as "bizarre" and "out of date."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-10-23 11:02
Google remains its own worst enemy in trying to resolve EU antitrust charges.
In early 2012, when Google was trying to convince EU antitrust authorities that enforcement action against Google's search practices -- preferring its own content in search ranking over competitors -- would only harm consumers and was unnecessary because competition was but "a click away" for consumers, Google announced it would consolidate 60 privacy policies without user permission or user choice to opt-out, and then did it a month later, over the EU's strong objections.
This was a flagrant strategic mistake because: first the EU prides itself for strong consumer privacy laws and privacy protections; second the EU fully-understands that consumers' privacy is the de facto currency that Google uses to propel its monopoly; and third Google's primary antitrust defense is that they are the ones that are best looking out for consumers interests and that consumers have plenty of choice.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-10-15 13:56
Google: in its own words:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-09-20 10:52
Unfortunately, the new Internet Association launched yesterday making several false claims.
Claim: "The Internet Association, the nation's first trade association representing the interests of the Internet economy, America's leading Internet companies and their vast community of users…"
Truth: This "first" claim is unsupportable; several different Internet groups have had similar purposes long before this Internet Association: The Internet Society; The Internet Engineering Task Force; Net Coalition; SaveTheInternet.com; The Open Internet Coalition; The Internet Defense League; The Internet Freedom Coalition; The Internet Alliance; The Internet Marketing Association; The Internet Commerce Association and The Internet Infrastructure Coalition.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-09-11 11:41
Google, Amazon, eBay, and Facebook reportedly are launching a new Internet Association in mid-September to be "the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America's leading Internet companies and their global community of users. The Internet Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet."
What is the back story here? Why is it being formed? Why now? What unites these companies? What is the Internet Association's public policy agenda? What does its formation mean?
Why is the Internet Association being formed?
The main public policy catalyst was bipartisan anti-piracy legislation that was moving swiftly through Congress last year that Google, Amazon, eBay and Facebook all strenuously opposed and helped defeat with an unprecedented Internet blackout day in January.
Google's Culture of Unaccountability: In their Own Words -- (Google Unaccountability Series: Part II)Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2012-08-01 10:54
We learn about Google's culture-of-unaccountability from Google itself. Google's leaders have repeatedly indicated their hostility to accountability of most any type.
Listen to Google's own words to learn about their unique and unabashed corporate culture-of-unaccountability.
"New investors will fully share in Google's long-term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights." Google's 2004 IPO letter to prospective shareholders from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-07-23 15:17
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2012-07-20 11:47
Google has no shame. This week Google sponsored a two-day summit in Los Angeles entitled: "Illicit Networks: Forces in Opposition" and trumpeted Google's leadership in combating illicit networks, with no acknowledgement of Google's own uniquely atrocious track record of illicit network activity, and even worse, with no public acceptance of responsibility or remorse for Google's illicit behavior.
There is no question that Google's professed public goals of combating "narco-trafficking, human trafficking, organ harvesting and arms dealing" are noble, needed and welcome. However, the serious problem here is Google's extreme cynicism and deceptive PR that they can burnish their global brand without having to practice what they preach.
Let's have the evidence speak for itself, because it proves that Google is its own worst enemy, in not doing what they say.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-07-12 11:56
If one fact-checks and puts in perspective the FTC's expected $22.5m privacy fine of Google -- for bypassing millions of Apple Safari users' privacy and security settings to add a tracking cookie to track users browsing activity -- it looks like faux FTC accountability of Google. Close scrutiny of the FTC's oversight record of Google's exceptionally bad consumer record and very long privacy rap sheet suggests that Google could have little to fear from the FTC on pending privacy or antitrust enforcement going forward, despite PR and optics to the contrary. Unfortunately, the evidence to date indicates the FTC's enforcement oversight of Google has had minimal accountability or deterrent effect on Google's behavior.
To be fair to the FTC, the FTC does not have all the legal authority it needs to fully address the Google privacy enforcement problem, but that being acknowledged, many poor FTC decisions have further self-limited the FTC's ability to confront the exceptional Google enforcement problem.
I. Google appears to enjoy faux FTC Accountability.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-07-02 21:56
I am in Sao Paulo Brazil for the formal launch of the book I wrote with Ira Brodsky, Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc., which now has been translated into Portuguese for the Brazilian market.
The book launch press conference will be webcast live from a top Sao Paulo bookstore, Livraria de Vila, at 10:00 am EST Tuesday July 3rd, which will be attended by journalists, academics, students, and the public who will hear about the book and Google's adverse impact on privacy, competition, and intellectual property.
My presentation will be webcast live at the Portuguese Search & Destroy site, Busque e Destrua, here.
In May 2012, Search & Destroy was also published in Korean for the South Korean market.
The English version can be found here.