You are here
The Evidence that Google Bamboozled the EU Competition Authorities – Part 21 Google Unaccountability Research SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-19 12:28
Look at the evidence to judge for yourself if Google bamboozled the EU Competition authorities.
Simply, compare the long list of major EU concessions to Google to the short-list of minor Google concessions to the EU – made in the EU-Google settlement negotiations to resolve the investigated problem of Google’s anti-competitive search bias.
The evidence shows Google dominated these negotiations. Given that most everyone would agree that the sovereign European Union is vastly more powerful than corporate Google, and given that the EU’s competition law and enforcement process is well-known to be very tough, a logical conclusion from the upside-down outcome of these negotiations is that Google successfully bamboozled the EU competition authorities.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-12 15:17
In advance of the Senate Antitrust oversight hearing for the DOJ and FTC Tuesday, please see my Daily Caller op-ed "DOJ & FTC Antitrust Report Cards" -- here -- to learn two of the big oversight questions for the hearing.
This is Part 20 in the Google Unaccountability Research Series.
Google Unaccountability Research Series:
Part 0: Google's Poor and Defiant Settlement Record
Part 1: Why Google Thinks It Is Above the Law
Part 2: Top Ten Untrue Google Stories
Part 3: Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-04-10 22:00
See the abbreviation list below for the translations of the SMS text abbreviations used by EU Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt in negotiating the EU-Google antitrust agreement via texting -- per reporting by the New York Times.
BFFN = Best friend for now
BFLOW = But FTC looked the other way
CIINST = Call it innovation not special treatment
CITY = Can I trust you
EPPAA = EU privacy people are angry
EPPFLYAIT = EU privacy people feel like you are ignoring them
EPPDGTJ = EU privacy people don’t get the joke
EAG = EU admits guilt
GANG = Google admits no guilt
GDFTCST = Google demands FTC special treatment
IHNLMN = I have not lost my nerve
IMFEG = Investigation must fully exonerate Google
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2013-04-09 11:48
Six EU Nations Revolt against Google’s Virtual Colonialization of their Private Data – Part 32 Google’s Disrespect of Privacy Research SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-04-05 13:53
Ironically six of the original European colonial powers of yesteryear, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, have aligned to resist the new virtual-colonial-power -- Google’s hegemony over online private data.
These six leading EU members, which comprise 75% of the EU economy, have jointly launched national investigations of Google’s privacy actions. That’s because Google has paternalistically rebuffed and ignored the EU belief that Google’s 2012 unification of its sixty privacy policies is a serious violation of European data protection law, because it does not allow any meaningful use transparency or user choice to opt-out of Google’s private data collection.
My video explanation of Google Glass' upcoming privacy problems given that 8,000 people soon will be testing them in publicSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-03-27 14:36
Google is notifying 8,000 people that they can now buy and use a prototype of Google Glass as part of a real-world Google marketing experiment of this controversial new product.
Expect this first wave of Google Glass-arazzi and storm-snoopers to run into significant privacy problems to the extent they film/record people's private conversations/activities without their knowledge or permission.
What we don't know yet is if Google will:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-03-14 19:19
The big problem with Google Glass is that it disrespects others’ privacy in the real world.
In creating an innovative form-factor for Google users to use most all of Google’s services in the real-world on-the-go and hands-free, Google Glass would fundamentally change how Google users socially interact and affect others in society.
In the virtual world, Google is a champion of users having the freedom to do most whatever they want online. In the real physical world, people’s freedoms begin to end when they begin to seriously infringe upon the freedoms of others – like the freedom of reasonable privacy.
The greatest Google privacy outcries have been when Google products disregarded and disrespected non-Google users’ or others’ privacy. Gmail users may have assented to Google scanning their emails to target personal ads to get free email, but the billion or so non-Gmail users that happen to trade emails with Gmail never agreed to Google’s privacy-invading deal.
Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet Updated: Fact-Checking Google’s Claim it Works Hard to Get Privacy Right – Part 30 Google’s Disrespect for Privacy SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2013-03-13 10:51
(The updated Google Privacy Rap Sheet is here.)
In response to Google getting sanctioned $7m for privacy violations by 38 State Attorneys General for its unauthorized collection” of private WiFi data nationwide between 2008 and 2010, Google’s public relations mantra is: “we work hard to get privacy right at Google, but in this case we didn’t, which is why we quickly tightened up our systems to address the issue.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-03-08 12:04
To understand why Google owns the single worst privacy record over the last decade of any Global 2000 corporation, listen to what Google’s leadership says about privacy-related matters in their own words. Then compare what Google Says about privacy below, with Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet – current up to June 4, 2012.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-02-15 13:36
Please see the full pictorial analysis in “Googleopoly X: Google’s Dominance is Spreading at an Accelerating Rate" – here.”
The conclusions and recommendations for antitrust authorities are reprinted below.