Evidence mounts that Google's model is aligned with illegal activities: WSJ Page 1

The evidence continues to mount from highly respected sources that Google's business model is aligned with and tolerant of promoting illegal activities.

• This blog post catalogues includes many articles highlighting this theme from:
•  the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Investors Business Daily among others.
• Where there is smoke there is usually fire.  

Today, if you want another high profile reminder that Google's business model is aligned with, and tolerant of, promoting illegal activities, go no further than Page One of TheWall Street Journal: "Media firms say Google benefited from film piracy." 

• Despite Google's infamous double-negative motto: "Don't be evil," apparently Google's salesforce and sales management actively sold ads to two sites that were actively involved in piracy of copyrighted material: EasyDownloadCenter.com and the DownloadPlace.com. 
• According to those familiar with the afadavits, Google went so far as to supply these sites with clearly problematic keywords like: "pirated" and "bootleg movie download."
• Can you say "complicit?"

This is just additional evidence that Google's entire business is aligned with doing whatever it takes to encourage clicks on their ads or their "keywords" because every such click is money to Google.

• Apparently "don't be evil" means doing anything to promote clicks of Google ads -- and how's that a bad thing -- Google asks?
• The WSJ article suggests that Google's internal controls, training, hiring and ethics need a lot of work, but that would cost money and reduce profits... 

This story may be just the tip of the iceberg of evidence suggesting Google's business model irresponsibly favors/condones promoting illegal activity.

• "Nothing Neutral about search fraud" was one of my recent blogposts:
• "According to Investors Business Daily, a new study by Click Forensics said that 14.2% of all clicks to paid search ads, or one of every seven ad clicks, are fraudulent."
• Obviously if 14% of Google's revenue may be fraudulent, they don't have a big business interest in investigating or ending illegal activity.  

Another of my blogs: "MyDD unabashedly using non-neutral "Googlebombs" to skew search/election" highlights how Google routinely has turned a blind eye to obvious and widespread efforts to manipulate and misrepresent Google searches on information about politicians in public elections!

• Can you say potential "election fraud complicity?"

Another of my blogposts highlighted Google's lack of internal controls and complete lack of regard for the property rights of others: "Google's self-serving "innovation without permission."

• The post asks why, publishers, newspapers and trademark owners are all united in suing Google for violating their intellectual property rights as part of their business model.  

Viacom and NBC recently asked Google-YouTube to pull down all the thousands upon thousands of illegally posted content of theirs from YouTube.

• Google hides behind the lame excuse, that since noone asked them to take down this pirated content, its not their fault.
• Google has a very interesting construction of what is right and wrong when it deals with other people's property.
• Apparently, in Google's logic of ethics, something is only wrong if someone tells you specifically in writing that its wrong -- and threatens to go to the authorities...
• Apparently, Google thinks its OK to create and support an ecosystem that naturally fosters illegal activity and then not self police a known problem.  

The New York Times had a must-read article: We're Google, so sue us" that I blogged about last fall.

• It was such a great article because it catalogued how many of Google's business practices and projects that other property owners consider theft.

I also blogged on a very insightful Washington Post article on "Building a Googley workforce." My blog post was entitled "Googlentitlements" which helps people understand Google's pampered culture and why they may have such little regard for others.

I also blogged about Google's public "Search Peeping" and their blatant disregard for search privacy.   

In sum, serious evidence continues to mount from a lot of respected sources that Google has little regard for the law or for other's property or privacy.

• It seems Google needs a new motto: "Don't break laws."