So-called “public-interest” groups really just “Google-interest” groups
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s efforts to hold Google accountable for its suspect business practices has come under fire recently by so-called web “watchdog” groups who’ve come to the defense of the internet behemoth. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology and Public Knowledge and others filed an amicus brief in support of Google’s efforts to ignore a subpoena from Hood requesting information related to its operations linked to illegal drugs, pornography and online piracy. Hood claims the company is in violation of the state’s consumer laws.
EFF, Center for Democracy & Technology and Public Knowledge fail to mention they receive money from Google
The pro-Google brief begins by providing summaries of its various signatories. It’s no surprise that each and every description fails to mention organizational ties to Google. Leading off the parade of disingenuous descriptors is the EFF:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) is a non-profit, member-supported civil liberties organization that works to protect free speech, innovation, and privacy in the online world.
via: https://www.eff.org/about/annual-reports-and-financials
If the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the nation’s preeminent digital rights nonprofit, had disclosed last year that it received a cool $1 million gift from Google — about 17% of its total revenue — some eyebrows might have been raised. The group typically describes itself as “member-supported” and, like most nonprofits, it treasures its above-the-commercial-fray, public-interest-group aura and reputation for independence.
Our U.S. Public Policy and Government Affairs team provides support to a number of independent third-party organizations whose work intersects in some way with technology and Internet policy.
No one, except for undersigned counsel, has authored this brief in whole or in part or contributed money toward the preparation of this brief.
Simply put,requiring online service providers [like Google] either to respond to subpoenas directed primarily at third-party conduct—or to engage in protracted and expensive litigation to challenge their propriety—could result in extraordinary costs for those providers.
The federal investigation, which was first revealed in May, found that Google was aware that some Canadian pharmacies that advertised on its site failed to require a prescription for substances like the painkiller Oxycontin and the stimulant Ritalin. Google continued to accept their money and assisted the pharmacies in placing ads and improving their Web sites, according to the Justice Department. –NY Times
Though it makes nice talking points, the crux of the amicus brief argument seems to be that Google shouldn’t bear any responsibility for bad (illegal) behavior within its online operations, even when it knowingly encourages and benefits from such behavior. Not only are the messengers suspect, but their mendacious argument is irretrievably tainted, bought and paid for by Google itself–no matter that a footnote disclaimer may claim.
Moving now back to the Google v. Hood amicus briefs, Google came up with two that we are aware of–one was filed in support of Google by the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Engine Advocacy (where Julie P. Samuels–remember her from the Google Shill List–is Executive Director). Each organization is funded by Google. The CEA and CCIA alone lobby for companies whose combined market cap surely has to be somewhere around $2 TRILLION….
In other words, the two amicus briefs filed in support of Google’s attempt to stop a criminal investigation were filed solely by organizations that receives funding from Google both directly and indirectly and in some cases has received that funding for many years. Even in the world of Google influence buying where organizations seem to be created by binary fission straight out of the Benjamins, this is an odd result.
…the amount of information and influence that Google has amassed is now threatening to gain such a stranglehold on experts, regulators and lawmakers that it could leave the public powerless to act if it should decide that the company has become too pervasive, too omniscient and too powerful.