Google Joining Fight Against Drug Cartels

Several readers sent word that Google has announced its intention to start fighting drug cartels and other 'illicit networks.' According to a post on the official blog, the company thinks modern technology plays a key role in helping to 'expose and dismantle global criminal networks, which depend on secrecy and discretion in order to function.' They're holding a summit in Los Angeles this week, which aims to 'bring together a full-range of stakeholders, from survivors of organ trafficking, sex trafficking and forced labor to government officials, dozens of engineers, tech leaders and product managers from Google and beyond. Through the summit, which lasts until Wednesday, we hope to discover ways that technology can be used to expose and disrupt these networks as a whole—and to put some of these ideas into practice.'

Comments

Next?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

War on dissent and alternative information sources.

Re:Next?

[slick7]

War on dissent and alternative information sources.

The war on drugs, as well as all other wars, only profit the profiteers. The wars are a lost cause. The first casualties in any conflict are truth and innocence.

Re:Next?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

'expose and dismantle global criminal networks, which depend on secrecy and discretion in order to function.'

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1227431--hsbc-laundered-billions-of-dollars-for-mexican-drug-cartels-senate-investigation-finds

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/21434-dea-laundered-money-for-colombian-narco.html

At 300 Billion in annual illegal narcotics business? You can bet the real profiters own banks. And won't be targeted by Google's little step into untrustworthyness.

Re:Next?

[hutsell]

War on dissent and alternative information sources.

The war on drugs, as well as all other wars, only profit the profiteers. The wars are a lost cause. The first casualties in any conflict are truth and innocence.

“The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.”
Google will be no an exception.

Re:Next?

[puto]

As a Colombian, do not post anything Colombia Reports posts, while some topics might hold a grain of truth, they are just regurgitated articles translated by the owner without giving credit to whomever wrote the article originally. And as a US citizen, we have done much wrong, but as a personal friend of the DEA boss in Colombia, we are doing much right. Colombians are quick to sell out their own, it is hardly the Unites States' fault.

Re:Next?

[Charliemopps]

"the war on drugs" that we have here in the US is just a simple catch phrase for the increase in arrests, incarceration and prison sentences that are supposed to target illegal drugs because they are though to be a root cause of violent crime.

What's happening in Mexico however, is nearly a civil war. A REAL war. And Google should be commended for trying to help. The people of Mexico are suffering greatly due to our own greed, and addiction. It's a terrible thing.

Re:Next?

[CodeBuster]

The war on drugs, as well as all other wars, only profit the profiteers. The wars are a lost cause. The first casualties in any conflict are truth and innocence.

Michael Douglas, in his role as Judge Robert Wakefield in the film Traffic , said it best:

"If there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don't know how you wage war on your own family."

Re:Next?

[Oddscurity]

“The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.”
Google will be no an exception.

You're suggesting Google will inevitably start trafficking in sex workers and organs?

Re:Next?

[RazorSharp]

And Google should be commended for trying to help.

Trying isn't enough. The only way to stop the drug cartels is to decriminalize drugs; and it will still be an uphill battle after the decriminalization. Until this happens everything else will just help to escalate the violence even further. There's ample proof for this from all around the world. Google should be condemned for participating in the abject farce that is called the war on drugs.

I agree that Google should not be commended for trying, but not for the reason you mention. I see it as vigilantism and orchestrated vigilantism is a clear evil in my mind (opposed to non-orchestrated: i.e., you happen to see a mugging and interfere, but you're not going around scaling buildings in your Batsuit looking for muggings to interfere with).

For some reason the governments of the world all think they're entitled to use Google as a tool for 'justice.' I appreciate Google's openness about what information they give out, and I appreciate a lot of the charity and projects they undertake in the name of positive social change, but a business has no place enforcing the law. In any instance. Corporate prisons and mercenaries are examples of the malfeasance. Businesses lack the moral authority that the government has to enforce the law.

Concerning decriminalization: If you think cocaine should be decriminalized then you know very little about it. Perhaps if marijuana was decriminalized then enforcing cocaine prohibition wouldn't be so difficult. But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema. For reference: Amy Winehouse. I agree that laws that target the users and give them prison time (such as Reagan's War on Drugs) are detrimental to society, but the government has a responsibility to fight trafficking. The only reason cocaine is so expensive is because the government fights trafficking. If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.

Re:Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The only way to win the war is to legalize drugs. The problem is, there are lots of really big players who don't want to see that happen.

The war on drugs is used to federalize police forces, basically side stepping the US Constitution. Police don't want to see unneeded funding go away.

The Federal Government uses drugs as a leveraged tool with cartels to obtain favors. This in part is what the illegal Gun Walker program was about. The Cartels don't want the war to go away as they are more or less in bed with the US governemnt.

Billions of dollars are used to fight wars in different countries under the guise of the "War On Drugs." Much of this money goes to contractors and mercenaries. These guys don't want the war on drugs to go away.

Doctors love having a monopoly on drugs. Doctors don't want drugs legalized and by extension, don't want the "War On Drugs" to go away.

Prisons are the largest growing government service in the US. The US has the largest prison population of any industrialized nation. Literally you could make 80% of crimes disappear by legalizing drugs. Prisons don't want to see the "War On Drugs" disappear.

All of the above bribe...err, lobby government officials to maintain the insane war on drugs. Between taxes and wasted revenue, up to 100 billion per year could be used elsewhere in the economy if the war on drugs were stopped. Much of that would actually pay down our country's insane debt.

Basically you have three types of people when it comes to the war on drugs. One, the ignorant and/or selfish. Two, the corrupt. Three, those who are in favor to stopping the war on drugs and legalizing them. Hell, most of the drug laws are unconstitional anyways as you can't legally ceed Congressional authority to third parties and yet that's exactly what most of the illegal anti-drug laws do - to the FDA. Yes, that's right, according to Congress, the FDA has congressional authority when it comes to drug laws. That's blantantly illegal and unconstitional.

I could go on and on...but frankly, any position other than stopping the war on drugs literally is in support of kidnapping, sex slaves, torture, mass murder (some of which can be directly pinned on Obama and his administration - See Gun Walker), child labor, so on and so on. Basically supporting the war on drugs literally supports and empowers the worst criminals and crimes against humanity.

Stop supporting criminals, bribery, and fraud in the US government. Stop the war on drugs.

Re:Next?

[oreaq]

I agree that chronic cocaine usage has some serious medical side effects; and cocaine is still relatively harmless compared to other synthetic drugs like methamphetamine. I don't believe that decriminalization would necessarily increase chronic usage of these though. You can buy heroine and cocaine with practically no risk from law enforcement in any major European city and our healthcare and prison systems seem to be able to handle the the burden quiet fine. From the outside the situation in America regarding prisons and healthcare looks worse.

The number of users to me seems to be more correlated with certain social factors regarding the users than with the legal status of the drugs. If you want to decrease overall usage of cocaine, et al. decriminalization is essential to be able to tackle those factors effectively.

Re:Next?

[datsa]

But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema.

What does that have anything to do with it being a crime punishable by jail time? Alcohol causes liver damage, and tobacco causes lung damage. Should possession of those merit jail time as well? Hell, I live in a city whose mayor wants to ban soda.

If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.

This reminds me of the equally baseless argument against legalizing prostitution - as if everyone would do it if it became legal, and society would crumble from the new license. This is typical nanny state mentality. Wouldn't legalizing cocaine in fact take a significant burden *off* prisons and law enforcement?

p.s. I agree with everything you say re Google and vigilantism.

Re:Next?

[sjames]

For all of the massive efforts over a period of decades, cocaine is cheaper than ever. When crack hit the streets, prices fell off of a cliff. I certainly don't think cocaine should be recommended in any form, but I don't think it should be illegal for adults either.

The sad fact is that some people will freely choose to do things that can only lead to their demise. Laws against it so far have only done harm. They take a person who has a really bad habit and rip away whatever support structure they might have and make sure they are branded for life so they can't do any of the things (like get a good job or get student loans) that can actually help an addict to recover.

If you don't let them have cocaine, they'll turn to meth. Get rid of that (as if we can) and they'll turn to 'bath salts' and become face eating zombies.

Re:Next?

[Fned]

If you think cocaine should be decriminalized then you know very little about it.

If you think that decriminalizing drugs causes drug use rates to increase rather than decrease signifigantly, then you know nothing about decriminalizing drugs that is actually correct.

You'd be better off wholly ignorant than believing things that are the opposite of true.

Don't be evil

[detritus.]

One innocent person spied on, arrested or charged with the help of Google to advance this "don't be evil" agenda is one too many.
You can't be evil to fight evil. You're passing ones and zeroes back and forth for crying out loud...

Re:Don't be evil

[Wrath0fb0b]

One innocent person spied on, arrested or charged with the help of Google to advance this "don't be evil" agenda is one too many.
You can't be evil to fight evil. You're passing ones and zeroes back and forth for crying out loud...

This is absurd. Obviously every human system for making decisions is going to make errors; those errors will be both type I (false positive) and type II (false negative). While it's up for debate what the acceptable ratio of those errors is when making laws or punishing lawbreakers, it's pretty clearly false that even one false positive is more evil than any number of false negatives. For a tongue-in-cheek historical overview of the arguments over *what* the ratio is, see N Guilty Men.

None of this is to impute that we are giving criminal defendants a fair shake or that the system as a whole could do better (which I think, by the way, there are reforms that would reduce both type I and type II errors simultaneously, thus convicting more of the guilty and acquitting more of the innocent). Nor do I dispute that we should err very strongly on the side of acquitting the guilty rather than punishing the innocent -- the magnitude of the error is not nearly the same. But to get any useful traction on the problem, you can't start with "it's evil to have a system that convicts even a single innocent suspect" because that ignores that such a system would have to acquit so many guilty suspects to get the 0% error rate (if not all of them). Instead, you have to do the hard work of looking at each particular policy and judge whether, taken as a whole and including the effect of wrongful conviction, unpunished crime, criminals that go on after one offense to violate the rights of more victims and so forth, the policy is a net positive or a net negative.

The same extends to Google's program here -- maybe it's evil, maybe it's not, but it certainly doesn't merit such a judgment based on the existence of even a single false positive.

Re:If we start filtering...

[chronoglass]

when filtered incorrectly...

Re:If we start filtering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Prohibition always works. Worked great for booze - works great for weed, heroin, cocaine and meth.

Vacation plans

[riverat1]

Google execs better change their plans if they were going to vacation in Mexico any time soon.

Oh shit... this is their excuse?

[erroneus]

So now they are siding with the "war on drugs" in order to push their means and methods which are considered by many as questionable of not simply creepy and discomforting? What's next? "Think of the children" and "fighting terror"?

Google. You're a commercial interest whose product lies in the information you collect so you can sell more advertising and marketing services. I will not forget that. You have not forgotten that. Why do you want everyone else to forget that?

This is all well and good.. until...

[bmo]

... the same technology is aimed not at sex, drug, organ, or baby traffickers, but rather ordinary citizens trying to organize against an oppressive government.

Google supposedly abandoned China over censorship. This is far and away more dangerous than mere filtering of words.

--
BMO

Mixing up their criminals

[billcopc]

Let's not lump drug trafficking in with sex and organ trafficking. The latter are heinous atrocities, the former is a contrived product of repressive government policy.

Drug trafficking would never have become a problem if governments hadn't created the giant void in the market that allowed them to exist in the first place. People want to get high, they will do so whether the nanny statists like it or not.

Re:Mixing up their criminals

[russotto]

The reality is that the drug cartels are responsible for massive human rights atrocities on a scale unparalleled by any other offenders in today's world.

Except governments.

Re:Mixing up their criminals

[TapeCutter]

they are the same

The three crimes you listed are all illegal and we all know the law is an ass, but that's were the similarity ends. The third is a victimless crime which leaves a lot of people like me scratching their heads as to WHY it is illegal in the first place. Laws are supposed to be made to benifit "the people", prohibition benifits nobody except the well organised thugs on both sides of the "war". We learnt that lesson with alcohol and it still baffles me that just after dismantiling alcohol prohibition because of it's detrimental effects on society, they turn around and do it again! As one would expect the same "cure" has caused same social tragedy as it did the first time around, this is evidenced by the fact that the US has 500K prisoners held for drug offences, whereas the EU with almost twice the population has a mere 600K prisoners held in total (that's all offrenses, not just drug offences). This is the primary reason why the US has the highest per-capita incaceration rate of ANY nation on the planet, including China and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Mixing up their criminals

[misexistentialist]

Prohibition of selling sex and organs pushed those markets into a shady area as well. It's actually more obvious in those cases how much the government needs crime, since the government had to imagine those markets selling ladies in shackles and kidneys in coolers when it couldn't find them.

Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Taco Cowboy]

When people read "drug cartel" they think of "illicit drugs", such as cocaine, meth, ice, and so on

But who _are_ the real drug cartel ?

Ever been to hospital lately ?

Ever wonder why the hell everything there is so expensive ?

Doctors of course wants to get their fair share and over-charge the patients, but, if we dig deep enough, we see a culture of vulture in the medical industry - and the "LEGAL DRUG" industry is a very essential part of the Culture of Vulture

They always paint the picture of "It takes so and so billions to carry out the research" so "we need to charge so much and so much for the drugs to recover our cost"

Really?

The legal drug industry is a MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR industry, dominated by several oligopolies, and because of it, drugs that would have cost mere cents to produce are being sold for hundreds and hundreds of dollars

No matter how big Google is, Google still can't take on the true "Drug Cartel". They are just too powerful !
 

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[slew]

Drugs aren't the reason hospitals are so expensive. Hospitals mostly just pass on the cost of drugs to their patients (via their insurance companies). If two drugs cost $10 and $100, and the hospital wanted to charge you $100 to put a pill in a cup, you would likely be billed $110 and $200, respectively. The reason hospitals are so expensive ($100 to put a pill in a cup is not unheard of) is that they spend money on stuff (like medical equipment) that is overpriced and then need to bill it out. Hospitals also have to cover for uninsured treatment losses (mostly ER related).

As to why drugs are so expensive, well the main reason for that is that we've collectively decided to pay them in the US. Some other countries have decided otherwise.

Why have we decided to pay the high price for pills in the US? Well, it's of course complicated, but often it boils down to the fact that it is sometimes strangely cheaper to give someone a standard overpriced pill than have a high-priced doctor supervise a custom course of treatment. Thus insurance companies would rather pay a standardize price for a pill (that they can knock down the price, don't be fooled that they pay that price), than try to figure out how to cost out a non-standard treatment by a doctor.

Don't fool yourself, if some actuary in an insurance company thought it would be cheaper to pay for a custom doctor supervised treatment than to pay an over-inflated price for a pill, they would do it in a heartbeat. Thus, there is no incentive for the magic pill makers to drop their prices below the cost of equivalent doctor supervised treatment with using cheaper pills.

Let's be clear, I'm not saying that doctors and hospital and drug-companies aren't skimming off huge of profits, but most of the profit is a result of our desire to have the latest and greatest cool stuff (not unlike Apple). Those one-off stories about some patient not being able to afford some cancer therapy drug tug at the heartstrings, but in reality affects a very small part of their bottom line (many times, the drug companies just end up donating those drugs to kill the bad publicity). A drug like Lipitor, Humira, Nexium, and Viagra are the USD$1B drugs they are really concerned about and those are the ones that feed into the human desire for the latest and greatest and they are just charging what the market will bear...

The real question (in my mind) is how to stop the consolidation of the drug companies into multi-national monopolies (reducing competition) and generating entities that are too-big-to-fail (can't sue them out of existance, who will make the drugs)? That's is a general problem that has less to do with drug companies in specific, but all companies in general.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Taco Cowboy]

1) The global prescription drug revenue is not even $1 trillion

Oh, this _is_ cute !!

First of all, the total expenditure of LEGAL drugs is MUCH MORE than mere "prescription drugs" bills

For example over-the-counter non-prescription drugs, such as Aspirin, are still being made by oligopolies of the Legal Drug Industry, such as Bayer

Although there are generic brands of Aspirin, Bayer is still raking in truckloads of $$$ from Aspirin

Another example - Many drugs expenditures are not included under your "under 1 trillion dollar global prescription drug expenditure" category because they are being used in hospitals (for example, anesthesiological drugs that are being used in surgical theatre), by military medics in conflict areas around the world, prescription drugs that are being sold to American buyers in border towns in Mexico, and so on

And secondly, your "under one trillion dollar" figure is suspicious, at best - because the figure you quote is only from USA/Europe/Japan.

You have conveniently omitted the figure from countries such as India, or the whole African continent, or China, or Latin America

Those countries may not be spending as much on "prescription drugs" simply because a lot of those so-called "prescription drugs" are not classified under the "prescription" criteria in many countries around the world.
 

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[the_humeister]

Here you go

Global pharmaceutical sales are expected to grow by 5% to 7% in 2011 to around $880 billion, compared with a rise of 4% to 5% this year, thanks to robust growth in emerging markets, especially China, as well as new innovative treatments, according to IMS Health. The headwinds pushing back against that growth include budget pressures in the developed world and patent expirations.

The 17 so-called "pharmerging countries," which include such nations as Brazil, Russia, India, Venezuela, Poland and the Ukraine, are forecast to see their pharmaceutical spending grow at a 15% to 17% rate in 2011, to between $170 billion and $180 billion overall. Especially impressive is the rise in what is now the world's third-largest pharmaceutical market: China. Spending there is predicted to grow by 25% to 27% to more than $50 billion next year.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Afecks]

2) Drugs cost money to develop, show efficacy in clinical trials, etc. Most drugs going through the pipeline are duds. For the ones that do work we have patents. And once those 20 years are up, those drugs become generic and cheaper. The generics work, and most people should be opting for them. If they aren't they're just being sheltered from the true cost of the name-brand drugs. Or do you think drugs like atorvastatin just came out of nowhere?

For starters, healthcare would be cheaper because there would be no patents on drugs, there would be no mandatory medical licensing and there would be no need for the currently absurd amounts of malpractice insurance.

1. Drug patents - Intellectual property is incompatible with libertarianism. Instead of recovering R&D costs through artificial government enforced monopolies, R&D would be paid for by private investors and charity. Americans donate something like 300 billion dollars to charity each year. Much of the cost for new drugs is spent jumping through FDA hoops. Historically, the first to market with new drugs retain something like 80% market share even when competitors make generic versions. The FDA has the incentive to keep new drugs off the market because if the FDA makes a mistake, it gets bad press. Whereas the millions that die each year because they are denied safe and effective drugs by the FDA go unnoticed (kind of like how jobs that are lost make the papers but the jobs that are never created go unnoticed).

2. Licensing - While it seems wise to let doctors regulate doctors (who else would be a better expert than existing experts), putting existing firms in charge of regulating the competition is a terrible idea. Because new regulations typically apply only to new licensees, the current firms can make unreasonable rules to prevent new competition. There's no incentive to improve the standards and every incentive to make them stricter than necessary. Current absurd standards involve language requirements for doctors in a bid to keep out foreign competition. Being able to speak English has no bearing on medical expertise. Translators are a lot cheaper than English speaking doctors.

3. Malpractice Insurance - Removing an infected splinter recently cost a close relative around $800, a procedure that should have cost closer to $80. Why? Because if anything were to go wrong, the doctor could be sued and therefore has to charge more to cover insurance premiums. Allowing individuals to sign waivers allowing minimal or no insurance coverage would put the choice where it belongs, with the risk taker. You can pay $800 if you want that kind of security or you can pay $80 if you are willing to take the risk that removing a splinter could turn into a life-threatening catastrophe.

This is merely scratching the surface of the reasons that the American medical system is a joke. For deeper analysis of the FDA, check out Mary Ruwart's interviews and website. She was a pharmaceutical research scientist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals for 19 years. Robert Murphy has a concise article called "Flower Power" on how occupational licensing hurts us all. Finally, a good read is Richard Epstein's article "Medical Malpractice: The Case for Contract" for obvious reasons.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[LordLimecat]

Comparing medical drug monopolies in the US to cartels in mexico displays a shocking ignorance. You may use phrases like "these monopolies are killing us" metaphorically, but in Mexico it isnt so metaphorical. Whens the last time these "vultures" killed several reporters for reporting on them? Whens the last time they killed local police with explosives?

The utter lack of perspective from so many in the first world is a little depressing. You realize how great your life is in the US, that you can actually GO to a hospital, that you dont have to worry about a drug cartel firebombing your house? That we have freedom of the press here?

But no, the monopolies here-- not the cartels in mexico-- are the REAL monsters, what with their high prices and all.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[LordLimecat]

For example over-the-counter non-prescription drugs, such as Aspirin, are still being made by oligopolies of the Legal Drug Industry, such as Bayer

Although there are generic brands of Aspirin, Bayer is still raking in truckloads of $$$ from Aspirin

You are basically getting mad at Bayer because people prefer Bayer asprin over generic? Wow, just wow. Somehow we went from a country founded on the principles of democracy and capitolism, to one where offering a product to consumers at a price they like is an abominable thing.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinical trials and research many times done on the taxpayer's dime at publicly funded universities and colleges. Often further funded by government (tax payer) grants. Pharma is a racket and if our elected officials and the agencies that were supposed to regulate the industry weren't so deeply in bed with Big Pharma, there would be prison sentences for things like saying it's OK to give pregnant women dugs that weren't even tested on pregnant women. That is just a single example of the corruption and deceit perpetrated by Big Pharma and the FDA. All the while, the Dept. Of Justice looks the other way and your elected officials accept campaign contributions from them. That, sir, is a CARTEL.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Kjella]

1. Financing is one thing, but your rant about the FDA is way off the mark. You think unregulated greed is going to give you better results? That they're not going to lie about their efficiency, downplay side effects and sacrifice lives for the sake of profit - all actual medical effects of course not guaranteed and no liability for harm in the small print. How's that strategy been working out for your banking sector?
2. Have you any idea how many fucked up doctors there are out there who shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine, even with the system that's in place? You think any clown should be able to start calling themselves doctor and cutting people open or feeding them prescription drugs? At the same time as you're doing away with malpractice insurance so now they'll be economically screwed as well as medically screwed?
3. No doubt you Americans have a rather fucked up system, but what does that have to do with medical patents? We also have to deal with patents here in Europe and we don't have these issues, that should be a pretty good clue you're barking up the wrong tree. Try a lawsuit-happy country that loves to award $millions and you're off to a good start.

Re:Who are the real "Drug Cartel" ?

[Lehk228]

typical libertardian bullshit, it does not cost $720 to insure for a $80 procedure

and let's get rid of licensing for medicine, after all it's not like society already found out what happens when you do that and passed all sorts of licensing requirement laws to keep it from happening again, and lets leave malpractice victims to be supported by public assistance, then cut public assistance too.

Full stop.

[sidragon.net]

This is an attempt to legitimize any incursion into privacy they want. No adversary so sophisticated as the drug cartels will engage in illegal activity out in the open, so to speak. It is entirely trivial to deploy tools for securing communications. The only logical conclusions to this initiative are: infringements upon the rights of innocents, and prohibitions on cryptography and anonymity.

End drug cartels by legalizing drugs

[Darkness404]

End drug cartels by legalizing drugs. When you prohibit something with a large, inelastic demand you create violence. There's a reason why (except in prisons where they are banned) you don't see people stabbing other people for cigarettes because they are available just about anywhere. When alcohol was banned in the US, there was a rise in organized crime selling booze. When prohibition ended, gang violence declined massively. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs.

Bye bye civil liberties

[stevegee58]

Hello security theater.

Google sells people, more data more money

[Stonefish]

This is a PR and marketing strategy. Google relies on selling people to companies however this hegemony is threatened by lawmakers whom may constrain what google collects. By saying that we might be able to win the war of drugs if you let us collect more data on people is a simple strategy and the government is so silly that they'll buy it.
They want people to associate limitations on google's ability to collect data with crime.

Re:If we start filtering...

[Merls the Sneaky]

Caffeine would be the most prevalent.

Re:Miserable Failure

[Nimey]

Are you ignorant enough of history to think that Obama entered office in January 2007?

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29google.html?_r=1

The "miserable failure" here is you.

Re:simple

[bmo]

2. stop indexing stuff related to illegal keywords!

What, exactly, are these?

Explain. Give 5 examples and the law that says they're illegal.

>more farcical stuff I shall not even deign to ask you to back up

>making the searching for certain terms a red flag

You're quite the totalitarian bootlicker.

--
BMO

We what the internet to improve productivity!

[hamster_nz]

The internet is great for all businesses, but it better not improve the productivity of :
- drug traffickers,

- child predators

- religious fundamentalist (except Christians of course!)

- unauthorised file sharing

- white power groups (except those in the Southern USA, where it is a tradition).

- anti governmental uprisings (except in Egypt and Syria - those uprisings are OK)

- or scammers and spammers (except those Himalayian Gojo berries and commercial Vitamin pills - those are real businesses)

- those promoting the views on "Global Warming/ Climate change", on either side of the debate

- school kids who "dis" their school

- People who believe that endless economic growth is impossible and ultimately unsustainable - the end is near!

U.S. Government, big drug cartel

[rubycodez]

Federal agencies get funding from illegal narcotics when congress says no to programs, that's why our troops in Afghanistan protect drug lords, fields, shipments. Some federal reserve banks launder money for the cartels, that also big business. The victimless crimes that keep at least a third of the prison population are also fodder for the huge business of the prison systems. Therefore, the price of narcotics must be kept high and so the "war on drugs" escalates. We fight both sides of the "war on drugs", it's big money and agenda driver.

If the US really wants to win the War On Drugs...

[hyades1]

...Just legalize them. ALL of them. Deal with the people who can't deal with drugs as a health care problem, exactly the way alcoholism is addressed.

How big a problem is bootlegging since Prohibition was repealed?

Ok, I take it back

[Taco Cowboy]

After a brief but extensive search online, I take back the "multi-trillion dollar industry" remark.

The LEGAL DRUG INDUSTRY just broke the ONE-TRILLION-DOLLAR MARK on 2012

Based on the following report:

http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/ims/menuitem.d248e29c86589c9c30e81c033208c22a/?vgnextoid=4d47d1822e678310VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextchannel=437879d7f269e210VgnVCM10000071812ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default

In 2011, the global sale of pharmaceuticals totalled 956 billion dollars, and it was predicted (back in 2011) that the figure to hike another 70 billion dollars or so, for 2012
 

Re:Ok, I take it back

[Anonymous Coward]

After a brief but extensive search online, I take back the "multi-trillion dollar industry" remark.

Do you also take back your snide remarks? And just how does one do a brief but extensive search?

Google chose the wrong motto

[A nonymous Coward]

Google at first was a pretty simple nice company.

Then they started tying all their lines together even where the fit was poor, just so they could cross-correlate everything for more advertising dollars. Not that I have anything against making money, that's what businesses are for, but they seemed to lose track of their original purpose.

Now they are entering the holier-than-thou stage. A short while ago they decided to ban all weapon-related items in their shopper. Not the search itself, not yet, just the shopper. I don't mind them having their own personal opinions about weapons, but when you claim you want to be the world's information indexer, yet start making political decisions like that, it makes me wonder, and a little bit sad. What next? Ban sodas over 16 oz from shopper? Ban those from search too? Where do you draw the line? Trans-fats? Sugar itself? Red M&Ms? Low-mileage cars? Once you let your personal political bias into your business decisions, you have taken the wrong fork in the road.

And now they join the War On (Some) Drugs. Their power has gone to their heads. They may still be king of searches, but once people realize they provide incomplete filtered searches, they will be ripe to lose their reputation.

Makes me a little bit sad. Even tho I didn't like their tying all their products together, at least they were still efficient and simple. Now I no longer can trust them to be impartial and complete. They used to stand up to foreign governments who tried to dictate search filters. Now they do it themselves.

what's really happening in Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

In Mexico it's mostly fighting between cartels and it is NOT even near a civil war, so that statement is greatly exaggerated. Sure, if you count the killings all these years the numbers seem high (40,000+ dead, lost count already), but this is a country with 90+ million people and the cartels are not killing each other outside the streets of every city, one has to keep in mind that the trouble spots are very localized. As a regular citizen you just do not see that on your everyday life. Still it is indeed a very sad situation with no real ending in sight, even with 6 years well into the fight. Drugs are the most lucrative business in the planet period, as long as there is the demand and the challenge to meet that demand remains of extreme risk and costly (it is an ilegal activity requiring lots of resources to operate and distribute: bribe money for politicians/goverment/police/military , weapons, safe houses, killers, dealers, informants, etc ) there will be unscrupulous individuals that will rise to meet that challenge (and they will just keep getting away with it, the money is too much). The only real solution is dropping the price for end consumers and that means legalizing (or whatever you want to call it), then keep on fighting the cartels til they colapse because of lack of resources, then funnel all that drug war money into youngsters education and rehab programs for the ones already in it. That is really the only way to solve both countries problems.

Hazardous Duty Pay

[xs650]

This would be a good time for anyone driving a Google Streetview car around Mexico or working in a building that says Google on the front to demand duty pay.