You are here
Google’s Anti-Competitive Rap Sheet Warrants Prosecution Not Leniency – An Open Letter to European CommissionersSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-04-30 21:51
Dear European Commission Official,
Would Interpol, or any EU prosecutor, ever recommend pursuing a lenient settlement with their overall #1 worst offender -- without extracting any punishment, restitution, admission of wrongdoing, or deterrent effect -- rather than prosecuting the worst offender to the full extent of the law?
Would any other prosecutor publicly threaten swift prosecution against a high-profile defendant repeatedly and then give the defendant three chances to settle over a period of several months when the defendant’s first two proposed remedies proved to be demonstrablydeceptive in market tests?
Of course not! That would be antithetical to the fair, honest, and effective administration of justice.
Then why, after its own investigation found Google to be dominant, and to have abused its dominance in four distinct ways, is DGComp strongly advocating that Google be protected from prosecution for clear violations of EU competition law?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-04-14 17:08
Please read my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Google’s Glass House.”
It is Part 40 of my Google Disrespect for Privacy series.
Google's Disrespect for Privacy Series
Part 1: Why Google is the Biggest Threat to Americans' Privacy; House Testimony [7-18-08]
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-03-31 08:58
Dear European Commission Official,
The more the European Commission learns about the proposed EC-Google competition settlement, the less sense it makes, and the more scandalous it appears.
Never has the European Commission been presented with such a controversial, perverse, and unreasonable competition settlement to approve. This is not how the EC’s law enforcement process is supposed to work.
Everyone knows that a worthy settlement is a true compromise, where most parties gain something they need, and on balance support it as a reasonable net gain from the status quo. It is telling that virtually no one but Google is supporting this settlement outcome publicly or coming to Google’s defense. That fact should scream that this proposed settlement is not what it is represented to be.
Sadly, this particular process and settlement has devolved into an indefensible and perverse spectacle that has brought unwelcome attention and ridicule to a critical EC law enforcement process that must be beyond reproach.
The reason the European Commission has yet to disapprove a DGComp proposed settlement, is that the European Commission has never been presented with a toxic settlement that is so perversely: anti-consumer; un-European; worse than the status quo; pro-dominance; tolerant of dominance abuses; and ineffective in achieving its main priority – “quick resolution.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-03-20 09:21
A shocking new legal fact set recently came together in public as a result of a Gmail wiretapping case, Fread v. Google. Revelations of Google’s secret widespread wiretapping of hundreds of millions of people over the last three years, using a NSA-PRISM-like device called “Content One Box” could have Snowden-esque repercussions.
The New Legal Fact Set:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2014-03-05 14:33
As the dust has settled from the D.C. Circuit’s January 14thdecision to vacate and remand the FCC Open Internet Order for another try, and from FCC Chairman Wheeler’s February 19thstatement accepting the court’s invitation to propose open Internet rules that could pass court muster, what does it all this mean going forward?
First, we need to glean the key separate baseline takeaways from what the court ruled and also what Chairman Wheeler initially decided. Then we need to put them together to glean what the big going-forward takeaways are.
Court Decision Takeaways
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-02-27 16:51
To: All State Legislators, State Attorneys General, and State/Local Police Chiefs
In Reuter’s article, “Google Sets Roadblocks to Stop Distracted Driver Legislation,” we learn “Google is lobbying officials in at least three U.S. States to stop proposed restrictions on driving with headsets such as Google Glass.”
As your States carefully consider the potential safety repercussions of a rapidly increasing number of drivers using Google Glass on your State’s roads in the years ahead, it is in the public interest to be keenly aware of two important facts.
Why Google Glass is the Epitome of Distracted Driving
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2014-01-30 15:19
The new term “Google Ethics Board” is an oxymoron, given Google’s unethics record. It is also a warning not to be ignored.
There’s a deep need for true ethics at Google now that Google has acquired DeepMind and its broadly-applicable, ethics-pushing, deep-learning technology. That DeepMind pushed for an ethics board, should trigger alarm bells. Pay attention. If past is prologue; Google will end up badly abusing this very powerful technology.
I. Important Perspective
Google CEO Larry Page’s acquisitive growth strategy has a central theme of automating much of the economy: self-driving cars, home automation, energy monitoring, health care, online surveillance, military contracting, travel, shopping, payments, mobile, TV, etc.
Google’s Empty Privacy Promises for Nest, Contacts, etc. – Part 38 Google Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2014-01-20 21:59
As Google’s pervasively-invasive, track-to-target, advertising-ambitions continue to metastasize throughout people’s lives and physical space -- via contact lens monitoring, Google Glass recording, Nest home sensors, self-driving car tracking, Internet of things listening devices, etc. -- Google’s privacy promises simply don’t have credibility.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-16 14:37
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2013-12-09 10:17
Google Glass’ easy eavesdropping on people may be illegal wiretapping.
Two courts already have ruled in different class actions that Google can be sued for illegal wiretapping for “interceptions” of personal information without meaningful consent -- in circumstances analogous to how Google Glass operates.
First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that wiretap law prohibits the type of transmission “interception” that Google StreetView cars’ did in secretly collecting personal information from unencrypted home WiFi networks.