6 ms·

How Google enlisted congressmen it bankrolled to fight $6bn EU antitrust case

13 points by Libertatea 11y ago

rdancer 11y ago
How quaint the EU is compared to the US: "Lobbying" in EU means giving money to institutions that write position papers & free sandwiches for politicians; "lobbying" in the US means bribing sitting politicians outright with benjamins.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  All of the Congresspeople mentioned in this article have received HEAVY contributions from Google. Anna Eshoo receives a huge amount of money from Google every single term. She basically receives above full-time minimum wage every year from them, she should probably be called a Google employee.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    If she were an employee, she would have a salary. What she has is a bribe. Those bribes are much higher than what you say, though, as they are structured in a way that is not even publicly available, what with PACs, board membership for household members, info for insider trading, future job offers, "speaker fees"...
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
I've actually been talking about these Congresspeople and the letters they've been writing for months. It's nice to see confirmation that I'm not the only one who finds it suspect.
cryoshon 11y ago
Title should be "Google bribed US congressmen to fight EU antitrust case which could hurt their profits." Google is one of the most powerful companies in the world. We need a system for holding them accountable when they intentionally corrupt our political apparatus for their own benefit. Surely there must be some Google employees here-- how can you consent to complicity in this socially harmful activity by your employer?
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Google employees, from my experience, live in an incredible state of cognitive dissonance. The way Google markets itself to it's employees is even better than the way it markets itself to the public.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    Can you elaborate?
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      One of the things expressed to me by a Googler was that when something cool or new came out, he would think "I hope Google does something like that so I can use it". Similarly, I've watched Googlers suddenly get excited about putting a new product in their home once Google has acquired it (like Dropcam). The device wasn't substantially better (or at all different) after the acquisition, but it's status as a Google product made it worthwhile. A couple months ago, a Googler on Twitter stated that all serialization protocols that aren't Protobufs are 'considered harmful'. The Googler stated that Cap'n Proto was included in that, because it wasn't made by Google; the funny part, is that Protobufs v2 and Cap'n Proto are authored by the same person, but he since left Google. https://twitter.com/evankroske/status/656303486175350784 https://twitter.com/evankroske/status/656303486175350784 There seems to be an expressly distinct attitude at Google about things made by Google compared to things not made by Google which extends beyond pride or common sense. It's likely partially driving why Google often announces new 'standards' led by them, rather than contributing to existing standards not owned by them.
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      (2nd Part) Googlers also do not see privacy the same way normal people do. Most Googlers are engineers, and they look at privacy and security as the same thing. So when you post something publicly, they consider that to be public information. To them, collating various bits of public information about you is okay, even though many people have publicly posted information that is semi-private in different circles or communities around the web. Google doesn't recognize that it may be okay for me to have an unflattering picture of me on a beach on a social networking profile, but say... wouldn't want it presented on the screen of the phone of a business contact I'm calling for a professional company. Because both my phone number and profile photo are public, they don't see the distinction. Google doesn't get context. Furthermore, Googlers don't have any recognition that Google storing data could be a privacy concern. They have utmost faith in the security of Google servers, processes, and procedures, and think that storing data on their servers with access of "only me" is perfectly safe. Which is why Google heavily promotes people to upload ALL of their photos automatically, even if they might be racy or otherwise sensitive. So it's not shockingly surprising to me for Googlers to fail to recognize privacy concerns as such, or for them to feel like any measure needed to defend Google is acceptable. They have utmost faith in Google's products and services, and anything that doesn't get that, be it law or person, just 'doesn't understand' or 'isn't keeping up with the times'.

13 points by Libertatea 11y ago

How quaint the EU is compared to the US: "Lobbying" in EU means giving money to institutions that write position papers & free sandwiches for politicians; "lobbying" in the US means bribing sitting politicians outright with benjamins.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
All of the Congresspeople mentioned in this article have received HEAVY contributions from Google. Anna Eshoo receives a huge amount of money from Google every single term. She basically receives above full-time minimum wage every year from them, she should probably be called a Google employee.
- rdancer 11y ago
  If she were an employee, she would have a salary. What she has is a bribe. Those bribes are much higher than what you say, though, as they are structured in a way that is not even publicly available, what with PACs, board membership for household members, info for insider trading, future job offers, "speaker fees"...

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

I've actually been talking about these Congresspeople and the letters they've been writing for months. It's nice to see confirmation that I'm not the only one who finds it suspect.

cryoshon 11y ago

Title should be "Google bribed US congressmen to fight EU antitrust case which could hurt their profits." Google is one of the most powerful companies in the world. We need a system for holding them accountable when they intentionally corrupt our political apparatus for their own benefit. Surely there must be some Google employees here-- how can you consent to complicity in this socially harmful activity by your employer?

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Google employees, from my experience, live in an incredible state of cognitive dissonance. The way Google markets itself to it's employees is even better than the way it markets itself to the public.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Can you elaborate?
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    One of the things expressed to me by a Googler was that when something cool or new came out, he would think "I hope Google does something like that so I can use it". Similarly, I've watched Googlers suddenly get excited about putting a new product in their home once Google has acquired it (like Dropcam). The device wasn't substantially better (or at all different) after the acquisition, but it's status as a Google product made it worthwhile. A couple months ago, a Googler on Twitter stated that all serialization protocols that aren't Protobufs are 'considered harmful'. The Googler stated that Cap'n Proto was included in that, because it wasn't made by Google; the funny part, is that Protobufs v2 and Cap'n Proto are authored by the same person, but he since left Google. https://twitter.com/evankroske/status/656303486175350784 https://twitter.com/evankroske/status/656303486175350784 There seems to be an expressly distinct attitude at Google about things made by Google compared to things not made by Google which extends beyond pride or common sense. It's likely partially driving why Google often announces new 'standards' led by them, rather than contributing to existing standards not owned by them.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    (2nd Part) Googlers also do not see privacy the same way normal people do. Most Googlers are engineers, and they look at privacy and security as the same thing. So when you post something publicly, they consider that to be public information. To them, collating various bits of public information about you is okay, even though many people have publicly posted information that is semi-private in different circles or communities around the web. Google doesn't recognize that it may be okay for me to have an unflattering picture of me on a beach on a social networking profile, but say... wouldn't want it presented on the screen of the phone of a business contact I'm calling for a professional company. Because both my phone number and profile photo are public, they don't see the distinction. Google doesn't get context. Furthermore, Googlers don't have any recognition that Google storing data could be a privacy concern. They have utmost faith in the security of Google servers, processes, and procedures, and think that storing data on their servers with access of "only me" is perfectly safe. Which is why Google heavily promotes people to upload ALL of their photos automatically, even if they might be racy or otherwise sensitive. So it's not shockingly surprising to me for Googlers to fail to recognize privacy concerns as such, or for them to feel like any measure needed to defend Google is acceptable. They have utmost faith in Google's products and services, and anything that doesn't get that, be it law or person, just 'doesn't understand' or 'isn't keeping up with the times'.