Google Set For US Senate Committee Anti-Trust Investigation

[snakeair]

Before you post a response from just reading the thread title alone, have a look at the blog post first.

Google’s perhaps inevitable encounter with a formal anti-trust inquiry in the US took a step closer yesterday. Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, a vocal Google critic and the head of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, indicated that Google would be the subject of scrutiny by his committee in the 112th Congress.

Formally announcing the committee’s “anti-trust agenda,” here’s what Senator Kohl’s office said about Google and search:

Continued at: http://searchengineland.com/senator-...his-year-67804

Anyone care to post there views on this matter? If you have any resources to share to backup your response, please post them in here.

[2sl.im]

While the CEO is being eyed for the commerce secretary spot? This will be a joke of an inquiry. The Germans are looking into pursuing a similar anti-trust inquiry. Personally I think it is totally justified given Google's blatant restrictive efforts in changing their algorithm to penalize "content farms" AKA alternative news sources that google doesn't like. The CIA/NSA connections with google will insure nothing really happens to them here in the USA. Their overseas outfits might have to change their algorithms a bit to be more fair, though.

[robjones]

Googles algorithm is how they provide results on their own site, and nobody is required to use Google. It is not the business of the US Government to interfere in their choices aimed at making search results more relevant. Given the US Gov can't run the mail service efficiently I'll be darned if I want them in the Search Engine biz too.

If someone thinks they just arent getting enough content farms in their search results there are stacks of alternative SEs they can use. Google is free to use, it is not mandatory, and was designed to assist the guy searching for data... not to feed and clothe duplicate content providers who think there's an inalienable right to spam tucked into the law somewhere.

[2sl.im]

Originally Posted by robjones

Googles algorithm is how they provide results on their own site, and nobody is required to use Google. It is not the business of the US Government to interfere in their choices aimed at making search results more relevant. Given the US Gov can't run the mail service efficiently I'll be darned if I want them in the Search Engine biz too.

If someone thinks they just arent getting enough content farms in their search results there are stacks of alternative SEs they can use. Google is free to use, it is not mandatory, and was designed to assist the guy searching for data... not to feed and clothe duplicate content providers who think there's an inalienable right to spam tucked into the law somewhere.

So the drudge report and the huffington post are spam sites? LOL! Also, do you know what anti-trust litigation involves? Your post makes me think no. Do you not see any problem with them collecting unprecedented amounts of personal information that is fed to domestic and foreign agencies for illegal monitoring and profiling? The Germans are concerned not only about the blatant anti-trust violations but also because of the absurd amount of information they collect, most of which they don't even tell you about until years later and which is impossible to opt-out of. Do you not see a problem with them recording every single search made since inception while telling users about it several years later? Do you see no problem with them removing alternative news sources from Google news that do not fit their views and those of their allied corporations? Do you see no problem with them being inextricably tied in with several aspects of the government including domestic spying programs? Do you see no problem with them being able to monitor ALL of your web activity through AdWords and click through activity tracking? Do you see no problem with them engaging in political activities abroad and manipulating results however they please? Do you see no problem with the blatant conflict of interests that would arise from the CEO being in the white house? Do you see no problem with their leadership being members of groups like the CFR, tri-lateral commission, etc? If you answer no to all of those then that's fine but you should really check out exactly what anti-trust legislation is before defending infractions of said legislation.

[robjones]

do you know what anti-trust litigation involves? Your post makes me think no.

Yeah, wasnt easy to skip all the classes on anti-trust and get a Finance degree, but obviously I'm woefully uneducated on the topic.
On the bright side I have you here to correct this glaring character flaw.

Take a deep breath and relax. I stated my opinion on the topic. We just disagree.

[2sl.im]

Originally Posted by robjones

Yeah, wasnt easy to skip all the classes on anti-trust and get a Finance degree, but obviously I'm woefully uneducated on the topic.
On the bright side I have you here to correct this glaring character flaw.

Take a deep breath and relax. I stated my opinion on the topic. We just disagree.

Well the nice thing about law is it really isn't open to that much opinion. Unfortunately the federal government has totally abandoned sticking to any laws including the constitution. Sure there is a little wiggle room that can be explained by interpretation and the "spirit of the law" but I think in the case of anti-trust legislation both of those things point towards a violation on Google's part. I'm not the only one that sees this obviously. The fact is that the people who would ultimately settle such a thing in the US either don't care about it OE are on google's side. Similarly AT&T looks like it is going to eventually get themselves in the same situation they were previously with buying up all the competition. Right now google is on the edge of totally breaking every anti-trust law however it's still opaque enough for legislators to not see through it and there's always the sad fact that most people in office don't even really understand what they are voting for, or they just don't get to read it! (see: TARP bailout and the Patriot Act which has possibly the most ironic name ever)

Sorry if I came off as rude, it is just pretty clear to me that google is wading in anti-trust territory and their total disregard for privacy worries me as well. Luckily I don't have anything to hide but it is still worrisome to me that the (undoubtedly) best search engine, free email service, etc. is so closely tied with some of the elements controlling policy that I find to be both unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. I guess I am outspoken on this issue, most of my friends don't see any problem with our president sitting as the head of the UN security council even though it is treason...

[robjones]

Well the nice thing about law is it really isn't open to that much opinion.

Having spent years in courtrooms as an officer of the court, my experience doesn't match that statement. It'd be nice if things were as clearcut as you suggest, but it'd put a lot of lawyers outta work. Last time I checked there were still a lot of them gainfully employed.

I understand you're convinced of what you say, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is just ill-informed is not a safe assumption, and just comes across as arrogant. In real life there are two times when informed people are known to disagree with each other... daytime and night-time.

[2sl.im]

Originally Posted by robjones

Having spent years in courtrooms as an officer of the court, my experience doesn't match that statement. It'd be nice if things were as clearcut as you suggest, but it'd put a lot of lawyers outta work. Last time I checked there were still a lot of them gainfully employed.

I understand you're convinced of what you say, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is just ill-informed is not a safe assumption, and just comes across as arrogant. In real life there are two times when informed people are known to disagree with each other... daytime and night-time.

That is why I stipulated the two ways in which it strays from the letter of the law. But you must admit it's not like someone who commits murder could get off by having their lawyer exploit the actual law against murder, said lawyer would try to find chain of custody violations or some such thing. What I'm getting at is that the central point of a criminal charge usually does not have enough wiggle room to have a lawyer argue against said law but against various other statutes and whatnot. That's why a great lawyer can almost always find some loophole or screw up either by the law enforcement or the prosecutor. Then again throwing a jury in the mix confounds it even more since a jury (technically) could issue a not-guilty verdict even if they were obviously completely guilty could they not?

My main point is this: if google is totally in the right why are multiple governments looking at some kind of litigation or inquiry?

Also, no! There are six times! Morning, noon, afternoon, dusk, night and dawn I love to argue if you couldn't tell

[robjones]

My main point is this: if google is totally in the right why are multiple governments looking at some kind of litigation or inquiry?

The term "deep pockets" comes to mind.

No institution on the planet is more inept than government. If they were private companies they'd have folded years ago. Assuming that government scrutiny is a sure sign of anything more than a lot of money in one place isn't a bet I'd care to take.

You already did your rant about the stupidity of the average voter... why should it surprise you that the people they put in office are often dumber than toast?

[2sl.im]

Originally Posted by robjones

The term "deep pockets" comes to mind.

No institution on the planet is more inept than government. If they were private companies they'd have folded years ago. Assuming that government scrutiny is a sure sign of anything more than a lot of money in one place isn't a bet I'd care to take.

You already did your rant about the stupidity of the average voter... why should it surprise you that the people they put in office are often dumber than toast?

I definitely agree with you on the second part, and I'm not surprised, like I said before most legislators don't even read laws they vote on. I've met a few senators and congressmen in my time and I can safely say that most first year law students know more about it than they do However, I don't think that these anti-trust inquiries are aimed at getting google to pay out, especially seeing that google and (a lot of) the government's goals and whatnot are in line with each other. Maybe in Germany but I don't think there's any way in hell that google is going to have to pay money to the American government especially when the CEO is being eyed for a White House position. I like how we've gone so far off topic.

About Libya: do you guys believe the American propaganda saying that Qaddafi was strafing crowds of protesters or do you believe the Russians who said they saw absolutely no evidence of such actions?

[robjones]

The one thing politicians seem to do well is get elected, which of course is a circular argument but it's true. To do so they tend to pick their press ops in situations where they rail against some giant that has lots of money. "YOU don't have lots of money... they DO! They have what you don't! They must be BAAAAAD!"

Giving the appearance of siding with the common working man is how politicians avoid becoming one.

They'll huff and puff, but unless Google murdered somebody's grandmother there's not gonna be anything come of it. That's probably the best outcome, cause let government stick their big camel nose into the tent and become the guardians of the internet and it aint gonna make it better. I'd rather let a dog guard my lunch than a politician my well being. The less they do, the better.

[2sl.im]

Originally Posted by robjones

The one thing politicians seem to do well is get elected, which of course is a circular argument but it's true. To do so they tend to pick their press ops in situations where they rail against some giant that has lots of money. "YOU don't have lots of money... they DO! They have what you don't! They must be BAAAAAD!"

Giving the appearance of siding with the common working man is how politicians avoid becoming one.

They'll huff and puff, but unless Google murdered somebody's grandmother there's not gonna be anything come of it. That's probably the best outcome, cause let government stick their big camel nose into the tent and become the guardians of the internet and it aint gonna make it better. I'd rather let a dog guard my lunch than a politician my well being. The less they do, the better.

Argh! Stop speaking truth and making so much sense! I want to argue! No but in all seriousness I have to agree, although I can't speak to the German situation as I have absolutely no clue how the politics and law work over there. I totally agree with you on the hilariously false assertions like, "hey guys on fixed income or at poverty level, I'm with you! I'm fighting for your rights!" while they get in their luxury car, get driven to a fundraiser and raise enough money to feed entire families for years and maybe even buy them a TV too. Unfortunately the government is trying to be the guardian of the internet with the Cybersecurity Act but I hope that will get enough backlash to not be passed. It would be pretty worrisome to me that the government could disable large portions of the internet for basically any reason. There's no doubt that the government is inept at just about everything they try to do, I think it is because of the employment standards for government jobs. I mean look at postal workers (no offense if anyone is one) or most cops (and the standards just got lowered because they were supposedly "racist").

My main complaint is how much private data Google collects and their inconsistent policy with Google News and some search results. By that I mean that they exclude some high quality sites from the News sections while allowing atrocious blogs to show up.

[robjones]

I have a retired postal worker on my team... and he's a Vietnam vet as well (a gunner on Spectre gunship). I try not to piss him off.