More evidence on "Can you trust Google to obey the rules?"

The New York Times' Hansel followed up on his Google privacy policy post that prompted my broader analysis "Can you trust Google to obey the rules?"

• Mr. Hansel's "Is Google violating a California Privacy law?"  is worth a read to drive home the point.

After I finished my "Can you trust Google to obey the rules" analysis, I realized there were past posts and examples that I could have included but didn't. 

• For those who are new to this topic or those who want to further explore if "Google is accountable to anyone" I have included a smattering of additional evidence for my thesis that Google systematically chooses to not obey the rules that others are expected to follow -- that you might find eye-opening...

 From my earlier post of 1-18-08: 

"Google.org Tax Treatment?

• Nothing is simple or conventional with Google.
• The most interesting issue with Google's decision to fulfill its philanthropic pledge through a for-profit division of Google itself, and not through a legally-separate not-for-profit foundation like most everyone else does, is the tax treatment.
  • It appears as if Google founders penchant for "innovation without permission" may also extend to tax treatment.
  • The whole reason why non-profits are set up the way they are is a bright-line in the tax code and IRS regulations.
    • For-profits are taxed, not-for-profits are not taxed.
  • At a minimum, Google's novel approach or corporate/financial engineering innovation will have to be fully vetted by the IRS to be determined if it is legal or not." 

Here are some other link-rich Precursorblog posts on the same Google unaccountability theme...

http://www.precursorblog.com/node/630

http://www.precursorblog.com/node/653 

http://www.precursorblog.com/node/292