As EC law enforcement confronts Google’s uniquely extensive wrongdoing in competition, privacy/security, property, and tax matters, it is critical to examine if Google’s longstanding public promises to consumers to gain their trust are in fact true and trustworthy.

Central to law enforcement’s role in determining the extent of its Google charges, penalties and remedies is determining whether or not the infractions were willful or unintentional.

“The Need for: Modernizing Communications Law for American Consumers"

Date: January 14, 2015 -- 12:00PM - 1:30PM

Location: House Rayburn Building, Room 2322

Presenter and Moderator: Scott Cleland, NetCompetition

Panelists:

Please do not miss my timely Daily Caller op-ed: “Will FCC Grant Congress Legislative Deference?”

• It puts in perspective how the FCC’s Open Internet plans fit into the bigger picture.  

This is Part 79 of my FCC Open Internet Series. 

***

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Part 2: Why FCC proposed net neutrality regs unconstitutional, NPR Online Op-ed [9-24-09]

Google will bully most any entity or anyone, if it thinks it can get away with it.

Google just filed a highly-unusual, and exceptionally-aggressive, lawsuit that asks a Federal Court to issue a restraining order to preemptively shut down a broad and ongoing State Attorney Generals law enforcement investigation into Google’s alleged willful blindness to advertising and profiting from well-known, recurring, illegal activities on Google’s platform.

Below are my fun and satirical lyrics to: “We Will Track You,” which is a political parody/satire of Google’s essence -- sung to the classic tune:  “We Will Rock You,” by the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame band, Queen, which was written by Frank Holdgren.

• Here is the Amazon link to Queen’s “We Will Rock You,” CD for purchase for those few that are unfamiliar with this classic tune and musical.   

We Will Track You

Nothin’s private you can’t survive it

So long to privacy cause we love our piracy

We put Glass on your face

In directing the Wireless bureau to make two substantial, Commission-level decisions today, without the full Commission vote that was requested by Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly, (concerning the release of the annual wireless competition report and regulating cellular data roaming rates), the FCC Chairman unnecessarily undermined the legitimacy of the FCC at a critical time the FCC needs all the actual and perceived legitimacy it can get.

The FCC’s legitimacy comes from the authority of law written by a duly-elected Congress under the U.S. Constitution, and from the official votes from duly-appointed FCC commissioners, who in turn abide by: the powers vested in the Commission by the Communications Act; due process; and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Process matters.

Making rate regulation without an official vote of the Commission can create the public perception that a majority of the Commission may not support some, or all of the new rate regulation.

At this particular time in the FCC’s history, when the FCC is potentially poised to reclassify the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service to impose rate regulation for downstream Internet traffic, (which also could involve some forbearance from other rate regulations via the official forbearance process), the perception of the reliability of the FCC in respecting its own processes and procedures is especially important.

With due credit toRipley's Believe it or Not!, so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of “Title II utility regulation of the Internet ” that the topic calls for its own collection of: Believe it or Not!^®oddities.

In seeking comment for what is the best FCC legal authority to enforce net neutrality, Section 706, Title II, etc., the FCC has completely ignored the most obvious solution – asking Congress -- the source of all its existing authority -- for the new authority the FCC believes it needs!

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller Op-ed:  “The Military-Industrial-Googleplex is Creating Artificial Intelligence.”

• Learn how far ahead Google is from everyone in machine learning and creating artificial intelligence.

This is Part 15 in the Google Artificial Intelligence Irresponsibility research series.   

***

Google Artificial Intelligence Irresponsibility Series

Google is arguing in the UK’s High Court that it is not subject to UK data protection law, in a privacy lawsuit that alleges Google bypassed users’ Safari privacy settings to secretly track their activity. The UK’s Information Commissioner has petitioned the court to ensure that Google is subject to UK data protection law.

In a nutshell, Google is defending its secret collection of British citizens’ private information without their knowledge or permission, by claiming British citizens have no sovereign right to sue Google for Google’s invasion of their privacy in the UK.

The Goobris here would be remarkable if it was an isolated incident.

Sadly however, this heads-or-tails, Google-wins approach is really How Google Works.

Will this FCC legal team learn from the legal mistakes of their predecessors and ensure the FCC has a thorough and a sufficient legal record to justify their legal theories, given that the FCC already has failed twice in crafting legal net neutrality regulations in Comcast v. FCC in 2010 and again in Verizon v. FCC in 2014?

Kindly, the U.S. Court of Appeals has provided the FCC a roadmap to follow to legally justify their net neutrality rules under Section 706.

It is telling that the court provided no similar legal “roadmap” for Title II reclassification. That’s because Title II reclassification would require successfully backtracking decades of opposing FCC and court precedents and remixing FCC authorities in new and imaginative ways to traverse uncharted legal territory.