Google

An unusual and notable pattern appears to be developing with Google and DOJ antitrust enforcers. 

The new industry-proposed "Self-Regulatory Principles for Behavioral Advertising" which Google publicly patted themselves on the back for today, conveniently do not apply to most all of Google's current advertising business. 

"One click away from competition" is Google's ever-present, antitrust defense slogan that Google does not have any market power to anti-competitively exercise. 

In today's New York Times, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt ratcheted up the centrality of that slogan to Google's antitrust defense by claiming it applied to Google's user "customers." CEO Schmidt said:

• “We are one click away from losing you as a customer, so it is very difficult for us to lock you in as a customer in a way that traditional companies have.”

The problem with Google's "one click away" slogan is that it is untrue and deceptive; it simply does not withstand close scrutiny of the facts or logic.

I. It is untrue -- a false claim.

A. The claim fails the dictionary test.

Google's public policy blog said a new Wired article by Steven Levy is "a must-read for policymakers who want to understand online advertising." 

First, I agree; there is a lot to learn from the article.

Two Google leaders separately proposed two new publicacy arguments against Internet privacy that I had never heard publicly before. 

• These new publicacy assertions, underscore the core premise of this series, that there is growing tension on the privacy-publicacy faultline meaning online privacy earthquakes are coming. It's less a matter of if, but when.
  • FYI: Publicacy is the antonym of privacy and it is the belief and/or business model that online information is public, not private.  

First, Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist was quoted by InternetNews saying: 

Google has begun to admit and make concessions that the Book Settlement it originally negotiated with authors and publishers is anti-competitive.

To try and win the support of the biggest libraries, Google has now cut a potentially exclusive side deal giving the largest libraries the benefit of a price oversight/arbitration mechanism per the New York Times.

"Google's algorithm helps the company "get inside people's heads even before they know they might leave," said Laszlo Bock, who runs human resources for the company." See the Wall Street Journal article: "Google Searches for Staffing Answers."  

• The Journal article explains that in an attempt to retain employees, Google crunches employee data in a mathmatical formula to determine which employees are at most risk of leaving. As is Google's standard practice, "Google officials are reluctant to share details of the formula..."

What intrigued me was the bold claim above by Google's head of personnel is that the company has endeavored to, and succeeded in, systematically getting in "peoples heads" to learn their intimate concerns before someone even figures out what they are feeling.

Reports that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt sees no reason to step down from Apple's Board in the face of a public FTC antitrust investigation over it, is emblematic of Google's long pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in competition, privacy, and copyright/trademark matters.

Google's consistent pattern of behavior is to push the envelope of legality farther than any other entity is willing to, and then arbitrage that unique edge, for (anti-)competitive advantage as long as possible.

"All our information is being sucked into the cloud. Privacy is over." That was the bold declaration of Attorney Steve Masur at DCIA's P2P Media Summit per Washington Internet Daily.

• Wow. As stark an assessment that that is, what really disturbs me is the thought process and tech ethic that underlies this view.
• Mr. Masur is not alone, he is part of a growing publicacy mentality/movement that looks at privacy as:
  • A neandrethal expectation in the Internet Age,
  • Buzz-kill for Internet innovators, and
  • Road-kill for the cloud-computing bus speeding down the information super-highway.

My pushback here is the blind worship of technology or tech-determinism.

The DOJ investigation of the Google Book Settlement suggests that a broader antitrust spotlight may be returning to Google.