Slashdot Mirror
Google Goes to Washington
DIY News writes "Google has hired a lobbyist in Washington D.C. to influence the nation's laws governing the Internet, telecommunications and copyrights. Google sees a presence in Washington as a necessity as government becomes more involved in the Net's development. Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."
Google.gov coming to a website near you!
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
Maybe they can get some of the outdated and impractical copyright laws changed. I imagine they've probably got enough dirt on every member of Congress to get things done.
Google googles google. Google is not just a search engine. Google features many excellent services such as Google Mail, Google Froogol, Google Maps, Google Woogle, Google Choogle and Google McNoogle. Google is implementing a new alternative to Paypal. Google is building their own internet to replace the existing one. Google is releasing a new office suite. Google is releasing their own brand of Linux. Googley woogley woo!
A progressive company with fairly reasonable takes on copyright and employment that isn't going to be lobbying from a position of entitlement-because-we've-always-made-money-the-sa me-way? They'll be so lonely... Nobody will want to get drunk on the steps of the Capitol with them except the Kennedy's.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised a company with that kind of revenue stream DIDN'T have a lobbyist in washington.
I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
So this week is google good or evil.... I can never keep up.....
Granted they haven't done anything yet. But simply by buying governments, they make it so that in order not to be evil, their politics have to agree with mine, which means they won't agree with someone else. And why would they agree with me? Hiring lobyists is clearly the kind of thing they had to do to placate shareholders, who only care about money and would see nothing wrong if Google elected a president to do nothing but take money from poor people and give it to Google. It seems like because of this effect, it's really hard for a publicly traded company to stay "Non-Evil" (tm) for long.
Micr$oft hired platoons of lobbyists years ago.
The article title is misleading. Google has had lobbyists on tap in Washington for quite awhile. Google is is also a member of trade groups (e.g. - NetCoalition) which do a substantial amount of lobbying on behalf of the search/tech/ad/etc industries. They're opening an actual government relations office now - a big step up from hiring a few lobbyists who split their time with other clients.
Senate lobbying disclosures here.
House lobbying disclosures here.
Google goes to Washington
10/06/2005 07:09:00 AM
Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Senior Policy Counsel
It seems that policymaking and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C. affect Google and our users more every day. It's important to be involved - to participate in the policy process and contribute to the debates that inform it. So we've opened up a shop there. The first member of our Washington team is Alan Davidson, a veteran thinker and advocate for issues we care about.
Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication and innovation. OK, that sounds a little high and mighty, so let me break it down into something a bit wonkier with a sampling of the U.S. policy issues we're working on:
Net neutrality. As voice, video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S. telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity, which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online service or application be forced to get permission from each broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if that's not blunt enough for you, what's better: [a] Centralized control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end Internet? (Hint: It's not [a].)
Copyrights and fair use. Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong, viable fair use rights in this new digital age. We support efforts by the U.S. Copyright Office to facilitate the use of orphan works (works whose rights-holders can't be found), while fully respecting the interests of creators. We applauded the Supreme Court's carefully calibrated decision in the Grokster case, but worked to defeat legislation that would have created new forms of liability for neutral technologies and services like Google.
Intermediary liability. As a search engine, Google crawls the Internet, gathering information everywhere we can find it. We're a neutral tool that allows users to find information posted by others - like a continuously updated table of contents for the Internet. Not surprisingly, we don't believe the Internet works well if intermediaries and ISPs are held liable for things created by others but made searchable through us. That's why Google will continue to oppose efforts to force us to block or limit lawful speech; instead, we focus on providing users the information, tools, and features (such as SafeSearch) they need to protect themselves online.
This is just a taste. We're also engaged in policy debates over privacy and spyware, trademark dilution, patent law reform, voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) regulation, and more. The Internet policy world is fluid, so our priorities will surely morph over time. And, of course, Google is a global company. In a future post, we'll introduce you to some of the policy issues we're confronting outside the U.S.
I can't find it in TFA so was it included by the DIY News or CowboyNeal?
Anyway, does the author mean to say Google would rather not be protected by the Washington government of the day?
Personally I find commercial interests should be banned to get involved in politics at any level, in a democracy they don't have voting rights so it's none of their business.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"Google sees a presence in Washington as a necessity as government becomes more involved in the Net's development." So.... google goes and lobbies to further involve the government in the Net's development - thereby lending even more weight and leverage to the very phenomena that caused them to hire some weasel out of washington in the first place - brilliant. Don't feed the Government. It only encourages them.
As a side note for non-US citizens: in America corruption has been legalized in the form of campaign contributions. To get elected, politicians must spend vast sums of money on TV advertising. The airwaves that get TV to the masses nominally belong to "the people" but are sold off to major corporations such as GE for a pittance. The corportations then create programming that desperately pursues a mass audience (i.e. quality is not enough, as in the case of Firefly, cancelled before even finishing it's 1st season). The corporations then sell that mass audience back to the politicians in the form of short adverts. The adverts are extremely expensive but the experience of the past half century has consistently shown that the frequency of adverts has a vital role in winning office.
This is great for the corporations because, far more importantly than the revenue that they earn from this exploding advertising spend, it means that no politician has a realistic chance of getting into power unless he is getting lots of corporate campaign contributions (corporate contributions dwarf personal) and, therefore, no representative of the people will ever be able to truly work in the people's interests. Both of the main American parties are equally dependent on this system and, therefore, the only real differences that can exist between them are presentational.
The problem with Microsoft was that they got big so quickly that they didn't have time to take the hint and assume their role in this particular circle of corruption. One of the first things they did when the Clinton administration turned on them was to hire the most expensive lobbyists they could find and start spraying contributions in all directions., guaranteeing that next adminstration, Republican or Democrat, would step down the legal attack.
Google is making sure that they don't make the same mistake.
I'm in the Army currently, and my office computer has access to a bunch of Department of Defense internal networks that suposedly has all the data I could ever want. The problem is it's poorly indexed. So, if I need a particular obscure form or technical manual, it can be near impossible to find. What scares me is that I can often go to Google and find the data I want (or at least a link to a secure server with the data).
google.gov may seem silly to those in the private sector... but if Google did index private government and military sites, and allowed access only to authorized individuals, I wouldn't complain. Heck, I'd be happy at my new efficiency.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Buy your congressman today !
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
So have I, and I clearly remember the Amiga Workbench (and, from what I hear, Apple) being rather "Human Friendly" etc too. And wasn't lynx free as well? :)
Anyway, not trying to start a war, just providing some input.
"Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."
Says who, and why?
It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Not a huge deal people... Yes, lobbyists can be bad... I don't know who is looked up to more... pimps, used car salesmen, crack dealers, or lobbyists... ... but... eff also has lobbyists, there has to be some linux centered lobbyists around d.c... it is a sad fact that money buys power and our congress is cheap.. I am surprised though it took this long to get google to have a three person office inside the beltway...
I just hope they can stop some of the insane things that other lobbyist try to put through.. like flags on digital tv content... bad congresscritter bad... sit in a corner in timeout for two minutes.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
"Net neutrality. As voice, video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S. telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity, which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online service or application be forced to get permission from each broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if that's not blunt enough for you, what's better: [a] Centralized control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end Internet? (Hint: It's not [a].)"
In the US, corporations have all the legal rights of individuals. They could SO run for president. However, Google is under 35 years old.
This is a very good constructive initiative. The price of book in paper includes cost to bind a book, cost of paper, printing, and then loyalty of copyright. In the age of the Internet almost limitless proliferation of copyrighted materials can be done, the price of book should exclude other than loyalty of copyright. I hope the price of knowledge's going to be much cheaper than the price of book in paper. Welcome.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Does he get to lobby for whatever he wants one day a week?
The ______ Agenda
... remember the Evil Empire brought you Home PC's Free Internet browsers, Human Friendly Operating systems etc ...
... yeah they don't stick to Standards, but again they mostly do the standard and more as most of the little tricks that MS put in are then adopted by Open Source Developers ...
... don't get me wrong, I don't support MS i have just been the the business long enough to remember what it was like before Windows.
... it's the simple fact that innovation to them, means using creative marketing and legal tactics to conquer a market. The engineering of the product (what the customer most cares about) is inconsequential and not pursued. This ensures they get to maintain their 80% margins in their monopoly businesses. Create buggy OS, shove it down user's throats, repeat for next version.
Well, actually
a) IBM created the home PC market
b) NCSA Mosaic and Netscape first provided free browsers
c) Apple created the first Human Friendly OS
The only part MS played in these were
a) Good marketing and creative legal contract negotiating
b) Copying the competition and using their OS monopoly to push their own product
c) Copying the competition and using their App - OS relationship to aggressively kill off the competition
You need to expand your mind more and read things other than what Microsoft's propaganda machine puts out. This is just not true.
For someone who "remembers", you seem to have little knowledge of the facts.
Microsoft is not considered the Evil Empire for making money
I just don't get why some people allow themselves to be repeatedly victimized by a crappy vendor and instead of calling them on it, actually choose to defend them.
Yeah OK Microsoft is the Evil empire, but remember the Evil Empire brought you Home PC's Free Internet browsers, Human Friendly Operating systems etc..
Microsoft would certainly like you to think so.
However anyone who was actually around when these things first appeared remember things more like this:
People other than Microsoft brought us home PCs, free internet browsers, human friendly operating systems etc; and then Microsoft hijacked these things, and made it impossible for anyone else to become powerful in those markets.
I am quite confident that if Microsoft ever does defeat google, ten years later people will be ardently insisting Microsoft invented the search engine.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Better yet, Google for overlords.
I for one... ah, nevermind...
The Ballmer approach to lobbying: hurl chairs at legislators until he gets his way.
Ahh, great to see our great nation's "democratic" process at work. If only I was rich enough to afford my own lobbyist, then I could get that bit extra say in government also.
Hang on that doesn't sound like the democracy they talked about in school!
Since Google had not been involved in the earlier stages of the debate on that European software patent directive, they didn't want to publicly state their position on that controversial issue. However, Patricia was in close contact with the FFII, a non-governmental organization that opposes software patents, as well as some companies that were at least somewhat critical of software patents.
It seems that Google mostly lobbied for a far-reaching interoperability privilege. That's important to them so they can, for instance, perform certain operations on PDF files as part of their search services. Some people said that Google was also critical of the idea to legalize software patents in Europe, and that may have been the case, but none of the MEPs who I asked was able to confirm that Google took a critical position on software patents (I didn't ask that question to many politicians, so the fact that no one confirmed it may not mean much).
Google has easily replaced Microsoft as the most powerful computer company in the world and we are now seeing them flex that power. There are two ways in a vacuum to look at this:
1. Google is looking after the people by using their force for good and making sure the bad government and other corporations are kept in check.
2. Google has moved to the dark side and are in bed with big government and big business.
Of course we do not live in a vacuum and the reality is probably that Google really has to protect it's position now. As we have all seen over the last 30 years in this industry just becuase you are number one now does not mean you will be tomorrow and the big owners of Google of course recognize that and are going to make sure they are being spoken for when anti-trust, monopoly and copyrights are being talked about in the back rooms of Washington
Google plans to hire Mr. GW Bush to influence the laws governing the entire US and its allies. Bourses reacted sharply with a steep increase in Google's share price. The other rumor is that google might also hire Mr.@#$&%&*, who currently is President of all Martian creatures.
End of bulletin
Interesting, because it seems to me that the only thing the U.S. government is "shielding" from the international community is its own power. It also seems to me that if instead of demanding government control over the root servers and touching off this spat with the EU/UN, the Administration had just handed control of the DNS servers over to ICANN like it originally promised, U.S. companies would be the primary beneficiaries. ICANN is certainly an entity with problems, but right now it is nothing if not an industry body.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Yes, and they make good wine. The parent's point is still well-taken. I hear all the words that the EU is spouting over this issue, and I don't accept them. Europe and it's allies in this matter may not trust us to manage the root servers, but honestly ... given all the posturing and threatening attitudes they have been exhibiting lately I don't trust them either. Not their decidedly anti-American motivations nor their future intentions.
... we kept them wide open, for the benefit of all. Consequently, we have to be removed so that those other governments can impose controls more to their liking. To all you Europe Union folks lurking here on Slashdot, ask yourselves this question: would you rather have {insert your government here} in charge of your DNS (effectively determining what sites your browser can see) or the United States, which has kept the Web free and open? I have a pretty good idea what a lot of Chinese citizens would say.
They claim they are worried that the U.S. might attempt to control or influence DNS in a manner detrimental to their interests. We have not done so, have expressed zero intentions of ever doing so, and are simply not interested in doing so. Why would we want to do that? The economic and cultural benefits of the World Wide Web to the United States have been spectacular and there really would be no good reason for us to screw things up. Complain about ICANN if you wish, and there is a lot to complain about, but it was a good-faith effort on the part of the United States to involve other nations in Internet governance. That's a HELL of a lot more than than anyone else would have done.
Look past the words. This multinational power grab has more to do with the fact that the United States has not attempted to "control" the Web (and I say "Web", not "Internet" since the two are not synonymous and we are only discussing the root servers here.) In fact the U.S. has let anyone and everyone (including the Chinese, French, Iranians and North Koreans the GP mentioned) use the Domain Name System for any purpose they choose. That seriously bothers a lot of governmental types (including your precious French) who would ever so much rather that governments get to decide what their people can and cannot do with this new communications medium, not the people themselves. The substantial efforts that China is making in that regard (the Great Firewall, crackdowns, prison sentences, etc.) should tell anyone with half a brain that the openness and fundamentally egalitarian nature of the Web are not welcomed by everyone.
Face it, the Internet took most of the governments of this world by complete surprise. If the U.S. had simply given China or any other government the authority to remove DNS records at will none of them would care who "runs" the root servers. But we didn't
A larger problem is going to be when these dipstick politicians allow the system to be fragmented and substantially less effective. Believe me, they'll do it, because political will and a desire for power frequently don't acknowledge reality. I don't think they realize yet just how powerful a tool the Internet is, and not just in terms of freedom-of-speech issues and international commerce. Scientific and technological (and hence economic) development has become heavily dependent upon sophisticated communications and will suffer if the global Internet becomes sufficiently fractured. That means real jobs and real lives are going to be affected. If there was ever a case of "for God's sake just leave well enough alone" this is it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Umm, did I miss the part where Bush did, or threatened to, or mentioned "shutting down the internet?"
How would he gain control over foreign servers? Would he nationalize the backbone companies?
Who's more likely to tamper with the nameservers (or the backbone), the US, China, Cuba, Iran?
It's a "brutal power grab" for those in charge of the nameservers to NOT give them up? How can a NON-CHANGE be a power grab?
Nameservers and ICANN are a "stranglehold?"
Does all that really make sense to you?
The US has a pretty good (not perfect) record on letting internet traffic and sites do what they want, here or abroad. And a generally pretty good record on free speech. Neither can be said for one of the biggest pushers for "WICANN," China, or a lot of their followers-on. Matter of fact, Europe ain't too hot on free speech eaither, though nothing like China or Cuba.
Has ./ set a robot to post each blog entry of Google's official blog on Slashdot, albeit with a delay of 48 hrs?
./ headline - "Google launches Feed Reader"! No kiddin', visit reader.google.com
Here I give tomorrow's
While capitalism is predisposed to breaking down into monopoly states, sometimes it works. If Google works to break Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, lobbies for fair use rights to index and playback arbitrary content, fights the kinds of software patents that have been weilded against it, Google could both do a lot of good while looking out for its own self-interest.
One of the nice things about the 'net is that nobody has figured out a way to get a solid monopoly lock. People aren't tied to your hardware, or software, or anything. The only thing Google could hold over you to stay would be Gmail and other data that you submit to them, but that wouldn't preclude you from shopping at Amazon.com. The fact that Google is doing so well despite the default search engine on all windows installs being MSN should show you how much power the consumer has in this area.
I'm willing to risk it. Google has shown remarkable desire to do no evil, and is one of the only major forces in tech, or for that matter corporate America, who believes that. We need the help.
The ______ Agenda