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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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