Slashdot Mirror
Critics Call For Probe Into Google Government Ties
bonch writes "The National Legal and Policy Center has written to the House Oversight Committee to investigate alleged ties between Google and the Obama administration, specifically with regards to the closure of an FTC probe into Google's Wi-Fi privacy breach, when the company admitted to having collected users' unencrypted information over the course of three years. The NLPC compares Google's relationship with the administration to that of Halliburton and cites the timing of a $30,000-a-head Democratic fundraiser at Google CEO Marissa Meyer's home less than a week before the FTC ended its inquiry, where Obama made a personal appearance, as well as the fact that US deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin is a former Google employee. The NLPC further alleges that the FTC is tougher on other companies, issuing fines to Twitter and Sears for their privacy violations while letting Google off the hook after the company promised to improve its privacy practices."
Doing a Google lookup on the "National Legal and Policy Center" makes it pretty evident why this organization isn't fond of Google! After the first couple of references to the organization's own Web site, one finds a host of references, beginning with Wikipedia, describing them as a well-funded right-wing "think tank" that puts a great deal of its resources into harassing Democrats. I have to admit I didn't have the patience to see how far down the list I'd have to go to find an entry in "Conservapedia" or some other non-derogatory reference.
From Wikipedia:
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a right-leaning 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Marissa Meyer isn't the 'Google CEO', that's Eric Schmidt. Marissa is the 'Vice President, Search Products & User Experience'
FAIL!
Quoting Wiki on anything even remotely political earns you 30 days in the corner wearing your Dunce hat.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
They are a front: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Legal_and_Policy_Center
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
George Soros, who is not a politician, is one of their favorite targets.
Maybe because he is a puppet master, trying to pull the political strings from the background through massive amounts of money? He is a master manipulator and narcissist.
Democratic fundraiser at Google CEO Marissa Meyer's home
Eric Schmidt might be surprised to find that Google has a new CEO ;)
I know this is Slashdot, but could we get basic facts right in the summary? Marissa Mayer is a Google VP, not the CEO
I know, I must be new here...
It's not legal to trespass into someone's home just because the door was unlocked.
Which is not at all what Google did. Your wireless router transmits data into public space (the street). Anyone is free to collect that data. Don't like it? Paint your house in RF-blocking paint or don't use wireless!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
No, you lie.
Media Matters received its first ever donation from Soros last month, after years of you Republicans lying, say he was financing it all along. Meanwhile, you Republicans have your fraud network financed by billionaires like the Koch brothers who also finance Republican campaigns, lately secretly through the Citizens United rules that dominated the election that just passed.
Of course it sounds "fair and balanced" to you, because it's an endless pile of Republican lies, just like the Fox "News" that uses that fraudulent slogan.
--
make install -not war
The CEO flat-out tells you that only criminals care about privacy
It's amazing how many times you get away with posting this crap. People have shown this to be false, in response to you, smth like 20 times in the last 3 months now.
No, their CEO did not say that.
During an interview, aired on December 3, 2009 on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google", Eric Schmidt was asked "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" His reply was: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
In other words, "you have nothing to fear from Government information requests if you have nothing hidden".
I understand your deep-rooted desire to demonize Google, but stop propagating falsehoods.
im not an american, i dont need to read the fucking constitution. however, ironically, i seem to know more than you that appointments need to be approved, and all the important places in bureaucracy therefore pass from approval by either house, even if appointment is done by administration. and, how each coming administration tries to stuff the bureaucracy with their own men, and how they staff the lower ranks with more of their men. and then how easy it is when you have congress and senate at your hand. you either get the candidate you like, or, they have to bring you a candidate you can minimally accept. under the guise of requiring 'bipartisanship'. and how, after a certain period of time, through that, the bureaucracy shapes policies according to the appointed lot, and even when administration changes, they shape it to their own policy. even to extreme extents like cia or military ignoring obama's orders to stop firing missiles at the first 2 months of his administration. it is a goner that any staffed bureaucrat does their best to cater to the bidding of their leash holders.
this is the way english and american bureaucracies have worked since centuries. in britain it is so solid that for centuries most of their policies remained same.
get a fucking clue.
Read radical news here
Evidently you don't even know what you speaking of yourself. First, it's the administration's right to stack the appointments under him. It's true that they need approval from congress but that's it. The president selects them, submits them, and directs their actions. IF at any time, they didn't want to use Halliburton, they could have stopped. If at any time, they wanted to make it legally required to have a separation between government employees and businesses like Halliburton, they could have by executive policy order as well as asked congress to pass a law. They didn't.
thats it ?
if you bring someone that the other party is totally against, you cannot have it passed. hence, everyone has to pick a candidate that is acceptable by the other party under the guise of 'bipartisanship'. otherwise your candidate gets rejected, and you get into a standoff. that was the way the candidates were selected even by obama, supposedly a very leftist president. candidates are vetted even before they are selected as a lot, through unofficial channels in between the sides. this is the way things work in every country. not only such a situation is detrimental for the administration, but also bad for the image of the country internationally. it never happens, because the ones who appoint never chooses someone who wouldnt get accepted. so its either the approver's candidate, or closest to what they can get.
huh ? democrats won senate at 9 Nov 2006, and biggest halliburton contract was canceled in 31 jul 2006 http://www.alternet.org/story/39567/
in addition stopping a military contract is not a trifle. because of the immense lock-in that occurs due to the military equipment, armies use the same vendor for decades until they can slowly replace their vendor with newly acquired equipment. however as you can see, democrats at least canceled the biggest contract they can cancel.
also, by saying 'you showed nothing', you wont end up invalidating the opposing argument. its self-reinforcement at best.
Read radical news here