You are here
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 Tue, 2012-07-17 11:00
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.
Googleopoly IX: Google-Motorola's Patents of Mass Destruction -- Reneging on Competitively-Essential Contract Arrangements is Patently Anti-CompetitiveSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-07-10 11:42
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2012-06-29 08:59
In preparation for the EU antitrust authorities likely Statement of Objections against Google, Precursor has assembled a primer that answers the top-ten most likely and important questions many will have about the EU's action. Please see the primer here.
Top 10 EU-Google Antitrust Questions & Answers
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-06-26 11:28
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Confidential Memorandum For: Larry Page, Google CEO
From: Google's Mensa Legal & PR Brain Trust
Subject: Recommendation to settle EU/FTC antitrust complaints with a labeling remedy
You tasked us to be more innovative in solving our antitrust problem. We have succeeded. We are now one trick away from absolving Google from all of its antitrust liability.
Our plan is to deploy Google responsibility-evasion algorithm #784923, code-named "Lipstick on a rhino," which our calculations indicate has an 91.265918735% chance of success, given expected temperatures in Brussels, the wing speed of a butterfly in Sumatra, news that Google plans to rank highest, and most importantly the data we have collected and analyzed on the antitrust decision-makers' proclivities and intentions via Google's knowledge of their: search history, website-visits, scanned-emails, wiretapped-routers, hard drive files, DNA sequences, and Google X's artificial intelligence intention-discernment-algorithms.
Many of Google's brightest engineers have read and wholeheartedly support our antitrust-liability-evasion design document, but per company practice none will ever admit to having read it. In addition, a scientific poll of Google's 16,337 PR spokespeople resulted in 102% of them voting yes that they could sell our proposed responsibility-evasion plan to the public.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2012-06-25 09:11
Please don't miss my latest Daily Caller Op-ed: "Why U.S. Communications Law is Obsolete" here.
You won't look at current communications law the same way again.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-06-21 17:09
The Texas Attorney General's civil suit against Google seeking a court order to compel Google to comply with its antitrust investigation subpoenas is sadly just the latest example of Google's growing record of obstruction of justice. The combination of Google's exceptionally long rap sheet and its growing record of obstructing justice documented below, sends the public the message that Google has much to hide.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2012-06-19 17:23
Thanks to Mike Wendy of Media Freedom for capturing my 3 minute explanation of why Netflix' net neutrality complaint to the DOJ against cable broadband usage pricing is specious.
You can view it here.