back to article Whoever you vote for, Google gets in

Google's lobbying and influence-courting in Washington DC is more intense and extensive than even Google-watchers thought, a must-read Washington Post investigation has revealed. That's because much of it takes place off the books, where formal spending is not declared, according to the article. The search giant already ranks …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So evil after all..

    They act as a government inside the government, but without having to go through the pesky trouble of rigging election machines. I'm surprised the WP managed to print it - I wonder where it will rank in a Google search after this..

    1. ratfox
      Trollface

      Re: So evil after all..

      Don't forget who's the owner of the WP!

      1. dogged

        Re: So evil after all..

        Doesn't Jeff Bezos own the Washington Post, ratfox?

        Hard to see his angle, although that doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

        1. BillG
          Headmaster

          Re: So evil after all..

          Other beneficiaries of Google cash include

          Funny, I read this as:

          "Other beneficiaries of Google Cash™ include.."

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate, its that we are powerful beyond measure"

    ...........................................Signed

    ...........................................Google Inc...

    ......................................................................................

    Its the Big-G for the next 1000 Years folks. Either that or we can 'unplug' now and launch an attack on their bottom line! My thanks to a fellow commentard.... Get blocking your 'hosts' file before we're all enslaved :-

    http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?

    1. Captain Hogwash

      Re: "Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate, its that we are powerful beyond measure"

      Start brushing up your rollerball skills.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

    But can anyone cite an example of an EFF campaign that supported Google's interests in a way that was actually opposed to their stated mission of protecting the public interest in freedom and privacy? Genuine question; I can't, so I have no reason to suppose Google's funding of EFF actually buys them any influence there.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

      Well, the EFF does criticize Google from time to time…

      From the way I see the EFF, it's not the kind of organization that would let this kind of thing influence their opinions, but I might be wrong on that.

    2. Woza
      Meh

      Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

      There's also the flip side of the coin: can anyone remember an EFF campaign that attacked Google? Money doesn't always buy action, sometimes it can buy inaction.

      1. Alexander Hanff 1

        Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

        This is also a very valid point - I have sat in many a closed session where "civil society" representatives have not stood against industry when I felt they should. Inaction or staying quiet can be as harmful as actively supporting - in fact I would argue it can be even more harmful because if those calling the meeting don't even hear opposing views - how can they make balanced and objective decisions.

        I have seen this so many times it makes my blood boil.

    3. Alexander Hanff 1

      Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

      You are asking the wrong question.

      What you should be asking is how many consultations, roundtables, workshops, seminars and conferences have EFF attended as civil society and presented arguments which could be seen as favourable to Google.

      For example, on Do Not Track, Behavioural Advertising etc. there have been a large number of closed session events with governments and regulators in Europe and the US where often these civil society NGOs offer a less than "privacy focused" opinion (I have personally witnessed this) and offer a more "compromising" position (such as supporting pseudonymous tracking etc.)

      I am not saying EFF have been responsible for this type of behaviour but then I can't claim to have been to every closed event they have attended - I have however seen this from MANY civil society groups over the last 6 years and it infuriates me as an advocate.

      Don't assume that an NGO or civil group posts everything they say on their web site - because they don't. There is a huge amount of dialog going on behind the scenes every single day that the public are not privy to. What you see published is usually just the tip of the iceberg - the real news is the backroom deals, compromises and incredibly subtle opinions which whilst coming from a civil society group are actually pro-industry.

    4. auburnman

      Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

      Sometimes it's about having someone in their organisation knowing the names and faces of a few people in your organisation. That way next time the EFF or whoever discover a scandal at Google they just might phone up and call name & face out on it. This tips off big G that they need to kick the PR dept into top gear, and named face just might be able to spin that it is "something we are looking into, and would you mind giving us a few days to complete our investigation before you make a big announcement to the interwebs."

      After a few years of cordial relationships, reps at your company are making speeches at EFF conference/shindigs (bankrolled by you) and there's a low-level indoctrination throughout their organisation that your lot are a decent bunch.

    5. JimC

      Re: So, the EFF gets donations from Google.

      The thing is you can find pressure groups.who support anything, no matter how crazy. But most of thrm have zero money and zero influence.

      But if you give lots of money to groups that broadly support.your aims the money buys them influence, no matter how kooky they are.

      And as pressure groups like having money and influence a percentage of their decision makers are always going to be influenced by a desire to keep the money tap running - not to change beliefs maybe, but in targeting their campaigns.

      So the end result is a corrupted system without actually corrupting any individuals very much.

      Like inflated executive salaries, its not illegal but it is wrong.

  4. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

    I have some sympathy with the politicians here. The internet is new, and there aren't many people who understand it. Because it's new, poeple are still learning who's biased in what direction and why. So it's very hard to get a handle on who's selling you a pup, who's relatively disinterested and who hasn't got a fucking clue as to what they're talking about.

    Even if we hadn't so professionalised politics that it was even shorter of industry expertise than usual, the modern internet industry is still pretty new anyway - so there's not been that much time for people to filter through from industry into politics and semi-retired esablishment grandee status.

    What this means is that a lot of the normal sources of information aren't available. So who do you talk to?

    As sceptical as I am of Google you have to admire them for their forward planning. And their willingness to invest in the future. Some of it is probably luck, but as Gary Player (almost) said, the more I invest, the luckier I get. So sure they created Android to keep them competitive in mobile search. But then they also spent big on mapping, and that combined with all those Android mobile data reporting stations phones out there gives them a massive hoard of wonderful data. So they've got a network giving them real-time traffic information, a constantly update WiFi map of the world linked to GPS, local search data, data on physical movement of people - and all of this feeds back into improving search and advertising.

    If you want to talk to someone who understands the internet, you can't go wrong in talking to Google. Of course you have to assess their biases. But their far-sightedness also translated into paying academia, think-tanks and NGOs - so that they'd have lots of 'grass-roots' support. And it took a while for anyone to notice.

    Of course, there is a downside to all this. And I wonder if Google are far-sighted enough to see it. Becoming 'all powerful' is great. Until people notice. Then they start to get worried. And if you don't show some moderation to go with all that power you've accumulated - people can become hostile. And then you discover that you're not all-powerful after all. Government can be pushed around and manipulated, often quite easily. But when push-comes-to-shove they've got the guns, the law and the right to print money.

  5. Tony Paulazzo

    Google's influence creates some ironies, particularly with libertarian and pro-business groups.

    How better to win the 'game' than to play the 'game?

    I would rather have Google on 'our' side than theirs and let's face it, SOPA probably would have gone thru' without 'some' powerful friends in the background.

    Just maybe their 'do no evil' mantra is taking a look at the long view, maybe, I hope...

    Ah fukit! I'd like to be the first to welcome our Googly overlords, please may we have some broadband fibre?

    Something to do with lying with dogs and fleas, the sky falling or burning, Romans invading a little Gaulish village.

    1. Terry Cloth
      FAIL

      Truth in sloganeering?

      If I lived in the vicinity of the Googleplex, I'd love to take their ``Do No Evil" sign and spray-paint ``Too Late!" all over it.

  6. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    G?

    G-men?

  7. Frederic Bloggs
    Headmaster

    If you found this surprising then ...

    you will want to read this very long article which posits that the US is not a democracy but an oligarchy. I await a similar analysis of the UK with some interest (even though I think we all know what any conclusion might be already).

    1. Hollerith 1

      Re: If you found this surprising then ...

      Oligarchy: this is news?

    2. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: If you found this surprising then ...

      This is rather straightforward too.

      http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/04/12/bernie-sanders-dying-american-dream/

    3. NumptyScrub

      Re: If you found this surprising then ...

      The UK? We're a constitutional monarchy. It would be hard to see how would could be defined as anything else but an oligarchy, really :)

      1. Tom 13

        Re:The UK? We're a...

        Actually I understood you were a constitutional monarchy. Which is slightly different.

  8. Dr Stephen Jones

    Three Comments, Three ACs?

    Evidently these Google-funded privacy groups are doing a great job protecting our privacy!

  9. John Lilburne

    Buffett analogy

    Say you are part of a group that are shipwrecked on a desert island, would you give the biggest rewards to those that nail adverts on to everyone's hut, eavesdrop on everyone's conversations and subsequently shove fliers through your hut's door. Or would you reward the builders of huts, and the growers of food, and the makers of clothes?

    On the internet we seem to have our priorities completely skewed.

  10. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Lobbying is how you get sh*t done in the US

    Voting accomplishes nothing, unless you're specifically voting someone out of office, because the replacement will be basically identical, no matter which "party" he's from. (except sometimes you can get lucky and play one party against another and get a logjam where nothing gets done, which is usually a good outcome)

    I paid the American Motorcycle Association to lobby for ethanol-free gas, and they beat on people and sent letters, and now the Florida law insisting on cow-piss gas is repealed and I can drive down the street and buy ethanol-free gas like a normal person. I no longer have to buy it under-the-table at a gas station the next tiny town over.

    I'm in the NRA because they agitate and obstruct things, not because I own a gun (which I don't)

    So yeah, I'd be seriously surprised if Google wasn't lobbying.

    1. Rick Brasche

      Re: Lobbying is how you get sh*t done in the US

      I wish we'd call a spade, a spade.

      People get all bent about companies like HP "bribing" officials in Mexico or elsewhere, but here we change the name to "lobbying" and pretend it's somehow different.

      A rose by any other name, etcetera. Except our example stinks.

  11. Shannon Jacobs

    All your attentions are is belonging to the google

    The real motto of today's google is "All your attentions are is belonging to the google", but I didn't realize it until dinner and drinks with a former coworker who defected to the google a while back. I already knew that the "Don't be evil" slogan had become a sick joke, but that was just by watching the biggest growth industry on the Internet, the cybercriminals.

    It's hard to point at proof of the google's support of the criminals, but there are just TOO many places where it is obvious that the google could make things better. However, what bothers me most is the victims such as naive children visiting YouTube. I just don't feel as sorry for bank and credit card customers who get phished, but maybe I should be more interested. After all, it is the money that drives it, and the children don't have much of their own to be robbed of.

    As regards the lobbying efforts discussed in this article: Old news. Most businesspeople are fine and upstanding folks and they just want to play by the rules. The problem is the rules of the game are crooked, especially in America. The laws are written by the most easily bribed politicians who are working for the greediest, least ethical, and most short-sighted businessmen. Of course you can maximize your profits by focusing on rigging the game rather than playing it on the square.

  12. Vociferous

    Not surprised.

    In the early days, Google tried to stay out of the lobbying & politician-buying biz, but changed its mind when republican talking heads started referring to Google as a "liberal" company and republican lawmakers started grumbling about Google being a dangerous liberal monopoly. In US politics, I guess it's impossible for a large company to be neutral, it's "funds us or against us" all the way.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like