Slashdot Mirror


Senator Orrin Hatch Asks FTC To Investigate Competitive Effects of Google's Conduct in Search and Digital Advertising (thehill.com)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Google's search and digital advertising practices are stifling the marketplace. From a report: Hatch sent a letter to FTC [PDF] Chairman Joseph Simons expressing concern about reports in recent years ranging from Google restricting competing advertising services to collecting data from users' Gmail inbox contents. "Needless to say, I found these reports disquieting," Hatch wrote. "Although these reports concern different aspects of Google's business, many relate to the company's dominant position in search and accumulating vast amounts of personal data." The letter comes at a time when critics of Google's market power are gaining momentum, helped along by growing concerns over data privacy. But most of the lawmakers echoing those concerns have been Democrats and Hatch, the longest-serving member of the Senate, may be the highest-profile Republican to call for the government to take antitrust action against Google.

47 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Hunt for Google by hviezda14 · · Score: 1

    Well, Google is the best big corporation there. Better than Microsoft, better than Facebook. But it has money, so politics will come to hunt them.

    1. Re:Hunt for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That, and it's a big target at a time where POTUS is looking for enemies he can vilify to distract from is own problems.

    2. Re:Hunt for Google by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      They are not any better than any other tech company.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    3. Re:Hunt for Google by DarkRookie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone can see his problems already. They are all over twitter. He shares them
      Its just that nearly half the country believes the racist, misogynistic, gay bashing vitriol that he speaks. He is not a good or even neutral human. He is Chaotic Evil thru and thru.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    4. Re:Hunt for Google by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well, they're better than Microsoft and Facebook. That's not saying much though, since those two companies are basically the least ethical in the entire history of companies.

    5. Re:Hunt for Google by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Works both ways bud.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:Hunt for Google by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      uh, hey, guys, remember us?
      please?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    7. Re:Hunt for Google by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you remember his prohibition on transgender people in the military? I do.

      Here are some other examples: https://www.usnews.com/opinion...

    8. Re:Hunt for Google by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      https://www.usatoday.com/story...

      Some of his racist ones

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    9. Re:Hunt for Google by DarkRookie · · Score: 1
      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    10. Re:Hunt for Google by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      He is a terrible human being. Discarding any political stuff. His history has shown that.
      Along the lines of Hitler. He just didn't have the same fertile environment as him to lock up the poor, blacks, Hispanics, and everyone else his donors do not like and claim it was for the betterment of the country.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    11. Re:Hunt for Google by easyTree · · Score: 1

      ** NEWSFLASH **
      A politician is a terrible human being!

      More, right after this message from our sponsor...

      "Have you ever felt the persistent itch that democracy isn't scratching?

      Get: All New and Improved; Communism 2.0, NOW!"

    12. Re: Hunt for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He doesn't bash us (gays). In fact, he's said very little with respect to the LGBTQ community and always avoids responding to questions in every interview, changing the subject. To follow, most federal sites have removed references to LGBTQ progress since the administration took office. He _did_ say he believes marriage should stay "traditional," whatever that means for someone with multiple divorces and cases of infidelity.

      Instead of bashing, he appoints officials to attempt to erode any LGBTQ equal rights gains made over the years, namely because his core base (ultra-conservatives) are typically those who do bash gays.

      I think it's fair to say words that come out of his mouth mean nothing (even less than your run-of-the-mill lying politician), but his administration's actions definitely do mean something. While silence leaves room for ambiguity of interpretation, actions still mean something.

    13. Re:Hunt for Google by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Do you remember his prohibition on transgender people in the military? I do.
       

      Wait until you get the impeachment you crave. You're not going to know what President Pence's views on LBGTSPUEQI* are going to be.

    14. Re:Hunt for Google by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that nearly half the country believes him. People screaming can seem like a lot more than they are and they will go back to their holes once people have had enough.

    15. Re:Hunt for Google by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      You have to compare it to the fact that anyone that has an R by their name usually starts at 10% for black approval.

      It's just the way it was and he is changing that.

    16. Re:Hunt for Google by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Actually, we know exactly what Pence's views on women and gays are. If Pence ever does become president, there will be a lot of SJWs longing for the good ol' days under President Trump.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    17. Re:Hunt for Google by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      So, zero examples of "gay bashing vitriol" provided, right?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    18. Re:Hunt for Google by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      So, no "gay bashing vitriol" in that article....

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    19. Re: Hunt for Google by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      I do find it interesting that an obvious flamebait comment literally directed at half the country and which is clearly untrue in at least one particular is currently "insightful", but my reply asking for examples of the claim has been modded down to 0 at this point.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    20. Re:Hunt for Google by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1, Troll

      You want mentally unstable in the military so they can get the taxpayer to pay for rearanging their genitalia ?

      As opposed to mentally unstable invisible sky fairy serving commanders who describe the Wall of Separation as a fraud?
      I'll take LGBTQ over your kind of favored crazies every day

    21. Re:Hunt for Google by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that one got autocorrected: ...not going to want to know...

    22. Re: Hunt for Google by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      AHHH,yes, UNSOURCED YOUTUBES, absolute proof
      That an a guest BLOG on the Wash. Post.
      Absolute proof....That you are a fucking idiot

    23. Re:Hunt for Google by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Not really. Pence is already impeachable.

    24. Re:Hunt for Google by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Narrative fail:
      1. I rarely hear directly from Trump saying anything and I see anything on Fox News about once every two years ago. Sorry to contradict your premises.
      2. I asked for specific facts, an actual example of the guy's claim. He could produce no quotes even resembling what he claimed. He presented no relevant facts at all. Your resort to attacking the person simply asking for an example or two is quite revealing about your level of irrational obsession. How about you get someone to actually present some relevant facts to the claim which was made before accusing people of ignoring them?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  2. Well of course by quietwalker · · Score: 1

    It's a purely political move. Hatch has got his tongue so far up Trump's backside that he can taste what Trump's eating before he swallows.

    Trump puts the hate out on google, Hatch responds by saying "Hey! I hate google too!"

    I'm not saying that this isn't a smart thing to do, at least in the short term, but he's not concerned about antitrust or regulation. He's concerned about being on Trump's good side, and antitrust and regulations are the tools he happens to be using now to get that done. He's not suddenly into regulation, it's just that the ends justify the means.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeig... proves this out, btw, if you're more interested in stats than clever metaphors about ass kissing sycophants.

    1. Re:Well of course by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      "It's a purely political move. "

      Google only has itself to blame for giving in last year to corporate media news demands on filtering their news results. Same mistake Facebook made. Corporate media news created the "fake news" tag to beat them out and limit new media outlets. Trump has nothing to do with this (although they would love if he would stop using Twitter).

    2. Re:Well of course by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Same AC? Or well played troll...

  3. He should ask them to find his missing glasses by haruchai · · Score: 2
    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  4. Good idea. Wrong reason by DarkRookie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see this being a bad thing per say. Unless Google has gone thru that within the last year or so.
    But the reason to look into it cuz the president is an idiot is not.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re: Good idea. Wrong reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hows Rupert Murdoch doing lately?

      Remember when it was you guys it was all "cooperations are people, they should be able to support canidates"

      What you meant is...only if it's a republican candidate, If not, collusion.

  5. Orrin Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is just about THE most clueless Senator when it comes to technology. And he's carrying Trump's water here since Google is the latest entry on the Trump Enemy List.

  6. Equifax by suman28 · · Score: 2

    .....and yet when Equifax collected all that data and LOST the data, he didn't feel obligated to do anything. Sounds about right!

    1. Re:Equifax by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Here's the very first google result for https://www.google.com/search?... .

      Please attempt an attack line next time which takes more than 5 seconds to totally disprove.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:Equifax by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If you read the link.... as the Senate Finance Chairman, he held up the IRS from giving Equifax a contract and told Equifax to:

      Provide the Committee a detailed timeline of the breach, including when it began, its discovery, the investigation of its scope and source, notification of authorities, efforts to notify customers and consumers, notification to the Equifax board of directors, and notification of Equifax senior executives – including, but not limited to, John Gamble Jr., Rodolfo Ploder, and Joseph Loughran.

      Please describe Equifax’s efforts to identify the scope of affected consumers and breadth of information compromised.

      What steps has Equifax taken to identify and limit potential consumer harm associated with this breach?

      Does Equifax plan to provide notice to each affected consumer, or will it rely on the consumer-initiated checks found at “equifaxsecurity2017.com” to inform them?

      Your firm set up a website, “equifaxsecurity2017.com,” in the wake of this announcement.

      The site states that “[t]he information accessed primarily includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in some instances, driver’s license numbers,” (emphasis added). What other information was or may have been accessed on these accounts?

      As a remedy to those whose PII was accessed, Equifax is offering free, temporary access to its own identity protection services. Does the firm plan to promote its paid service to these individuals at the end of the free year?

      Credit monitoring can protect against identity thieves opening new accounts, but what protection does Equifax plan to offer consumers who may have had their existing credit accounts compromised?

      The site’s terms of service contain a binding arbitration clause, binding participants of the program from participating in any class-action lawsuits that may arise from the incident. Friday morning, Equifax updated their terms of service to include an opt-out provision giving consumers 30 days to notify Equifax in writing that they do not wish to participate in the arbitration provision. Please explain the decision to require this opt-out to be made in writing. Do any other services provided by equifaxsecurity2017.com require consumers to contact Equifax in writing? Are there any technical barriers preventing Equifax from providing consumers the ability to opt-out on the equifaxsecurity2017.com site?

      Please describe the resources that Equifax has focused on its own information security. Does Equifax employ a Chief Information Security Officer? If so, to whom does this person report? How many full-time employees focus on information security? Do any members of Equifax's board of directors have a background in information security?

      In the past 24 months, how many times has Equifax employed third-party cyber security experts to conduct penetration tests of its internal and external systems? Has the company addressed all of the issues identified by these experts and implemented all of their recommendations? Please provide us with copies of all penetration test and audit reports produced for Equifax by outside cyber security firms.

      Does Equifax have procedures in place to receive and act on vulnerability reports from outside parties including security researchers? If so, please describe these procedures, when they were implemented, and how frequently the company acts to remediate vulnerabilities identified by third-parties.

      Equifax has stated that the breach occ

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  7. Re:I'm loving it by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I followed it fine. Are you sure he's the one who is dumb here?

  8. Re:Microsoft missed its shot! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Microsoft was being funded by the CIA, NSA, and FBI to backdoor Windows and Internet Explorer. They had to kill off Netscape because it couldn't be intimidated, coerced, or bought.

  9. Orrin - retire already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know that it's ageist, but there needs to be mandatory retirement at age 80 for Senators, Prez & VP, and supreme court justices. I'll leave an opening for US Representative. (2 yr terms). I mean pilots are forced out at a certain age and they only control the lives of a couple hundred people.

    This is enlightening and scary:

    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_senators_by_age.html

  10. "What do you call a senator who's served..." by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ``... in office for 18 years? You call him home.''

    -- 40+ year incumbent Orrin Hatch

    That was Hatch when he was running against his predecessor.

    Time to go home Orrin.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  11. Clarity by sycodon · · Score: 1

    It is unlikely that they can pass a regulation to make Google behave they way they want, nor should they.

    They CAN, and should, pass regulations requiring that Google and all the other sites have complete transparency of their policies and rules.

    Further, that the rules should be objective in nature and that there is a process in place to contest findings of rule violations. No one should be wondering why their content is blocked or otherwise not available to people who are looking for it.

    There is also an argument to be made that the methods they use to rank sites be clearly explained.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  12. Not Trump's Proaganda Machine by BrendaEM · · Score: 2

    The majority of people hate Donald Trump; the results should reflect that.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Not Trump's Proaganda Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's right tho. Only the stupid and most morally bankrupt among us still support Trump.

  13. Google??? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    This is the same Google that in 2017 was fined 2.4 billion Euro by the EU for manipulating search results?

    https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  14. Good Example of Irony by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Orrin Hatch, one of the architects of striping both the FTC and FCC of their ability to regulate business is asking the FTC to investigate Google because they are mean to "conservatives".

    The irony is palpable with a man who's spent his career defanging governments ability to go after monopolies asking government to investigate when they don't have the authority to do a damn thing and he knows it because he was instrumental in taking those abilities away.

    But Hatch is a sycophant who finally proved he didn't have any morals and he proved it when he got down on his knees and serviced Trump. It's a good thing he's retiring because he shat all over his legacy the last 4 years.

  15. Re:I'm loving it by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I this case I'm looking at the proponent of the legislation, and suspecting that it will be much worse if it passes.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Firearms? by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Google blocks various legal firearm related links and searches so why not?

  17. Re:Microsoft missed its shot! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Empirical evidence abounds. All you have to do is watch where the money has been going for the past 30 years. I'm smart enough to know the litany of "accidental" exploits were largely left unaddressed on purpose, and even when they weren't actively inserting them they were using management and hiring practices they knew would make passable security nearly impossible to achieve while at the same time eliminating any impetus to even try. Nobody even questions this anymore in the IT community. Luckily for Microsoft though, most the computer geeks out there are complicit in the evildoing because they see the cultivating of this type of naivety amongst regular users as a limitless opportunity for new revenue streams. They're happy to help marginalize people like me who point out that the emperor wears no clothes.