Just How Evil is Google?

[nsane.forums]

Google knew it was breaking U.S. laws by running ads for foreign pharmaceuticals--and did it anyway. What else have the Googlers been lying about?

In today's episode of Notes From the Field we jump right over the question of "Has Google violated its famous 'Don't be evil' mantra?" and go straight to "By how much?"

Ben Edelman says they're plenty evil, and it's time to reconsider in a new light all of the mistakes Google has "accidentally" made –- from its ad policies to Wi-Fi spying -- following its recent settlement with the Department of Justice over pharma ads.

Edelman is a Harvard Law professor and a serious geek who made his bones by exposing spyware and adware companies. He's since moved on to research Google's collusion with typosquatters and how its search toolbars track consumers even after they opt out, to name but a few topics.

The background: For a period of several years, Google allowed Canadian pharmacies to advertise their wares in the United States, despite laws prohibiting advertisements from non-U.S. pill-pushers. Google claimed it had no idea this was happening, and once it discovered the illegal ads, it put an end to the practice. However, in papers filed with the DOJ, the ad giant admits that it knew it was breaking the law all along, but pocketed the money just the same. Google is now paying a $500 million fine for its transgressions, which leads me to conclude that it made significantly more than that from foreign pharma ads.

(As an aside: For the record, I'm no fan of Big Pharma. As cartels go, they make OPEC look like a high school glee club. I see no reason why pills that cost 5 cents in Windsor, Canada, should cost $5 when they cross the river into Detroit. But I don't make the laws -- Congress and handsomely paid lobbyists do. OK, I'm done now.)

Edelman's point: Google knew it was breaking U.S. law and lied about it.

"These admissions and the associated documents confirm what I had long suspected: Not only does Google often ignore its stated 'policies,' but in fact Google staff affirmatively assist supposed 'rule-breakers' when Google finds it profitable to do so….

"…Google has an obvious incentive to allow deceptive and unlawful ads: each extra advertising means extra revenue… Furthermore, unlawful and deceptive ads have been widespread; I found

dozens

in just a few hours of work. Meanwhile, it's hard to reconcile Google's engineering strength -- capably indexing billions of pages and tabulating billions of links -- with the company's supposed inability to identify new advertisements mentioning or targeting a few dozen terms known to deceive consumers…. Unlawful ads persist at Google not just because advertisers seek to be listed, but also because Google intentionally lets them stay and even offers them special assistance."

Which begs the question: What else has Google lied about? Edelman suggests that Google's inability to filter copyrighted materials from YouTube, its profiting from unlawful typosquatting, the "glitch" in its search toolbar that continued to track users across the Web after they thought they had disabled it, and the Wi-Fi spying debacle all might fall under the category of "We knew it was wrong but we did it anyway."

Remember, Google is not a monolith. And though it is engineering-driven, it's also money-driven. I suspect there's a huge gulf between the geeky product-creating side of Google and the moneymaking side, and those high-minded "Don't be evil" ethics don't have enough gas to cross the chasm. Salespeople are not rewarded for how closely they hue to the rules; they're rewarded for how much money they bring in. Ethics? Sure, but only if they don't cut into profits. (See Big Pharma, above.)

Edelman does consult for companies that compete with Google, like Microsoft. And he does seem to have a particular obsession with the Googlers over the past few years, to the exclusion of nearly anything else. But I doubt he'd risk his considerable reputation by doing dirty work for his clients.

My take: I still can't believe Google would have intentionally sucked down data via Wi-Fi spying -– that sounds too paranoid to me, and with very little upside for the company. As for the rest? It all makes sense and -- more important in Mountain View -– a ton of money for Google.

View: Original Article

[Ambrocious]

Group Calls for Hearings Into Google’s Ties to CIA and NSA

More information has emerged about Google’s relationship with the government and spook agencies (see PR Newswire below). The revelations should come as no surprise.

In 2006, Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the CIA, told the Alex Jones Show that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its inception. “I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn’t fund what I call the open source world,” said Steele, citing “trusted individuals” as his sources.

Google is a key intelligence asset. It has supplied the core search technology for Intellipedia, a highly-secured online CIA system and has shared a close relationship with both the CIA, NSA, and government national security officials.

In February, it was reported that Google and the NSA have forged a partnership after Google purportedly suffered a cyberattack in December. “This is not the first time the NSA has been tapped to help a U.S. corporation with cyber security, but the purported partnership would certainly be unique since Google’s servers house such a vast collection of user data including search histories, email, and personal documents,” reports PC World.

“Google’s connection with the CIA and its venture capital firm extends to sharing at least one key member of personnel. In 2004, the Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from his old job directly serving the CIA to become ‘Senior Federal Manager’ at Google.,” writes Eric Sommer.

In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the CIA, also had a hand in creating the wildly popular social network Facebook. “The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel,” writes Matt Greenop.

Thus it should not be shocking that Google executives are holding meetings with U.S. national security officials for undisclosed reasons, according to the Washington Post, itself a prized CIA asset under the venerable Operation Mockingbird media asset program.

Google insists its vacuuming up of WiFi network data as it gathered images for its Streetview program was a mistake, even though information “published Jan. 28 shows that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks,” according to the press release below.

—

SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citing new information about Google’s classified government contracts and the Internet giant’s admitted Wi-Spying activity, Consumer Watchdog today said it is more imperative than ever for the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct hearings into possible privacy violations by Google.

In a letter to Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Joe Barton, the nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group’s John M. Simpson wrote:

Read Entire Article

[majithia23]