5 ms·

Google: new concerns raised about political influence by ‘revolving door’ jobs

88 points by alt_ 10y ago

ppod 10y ago
The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country, but this is one of its biggest problems. The magazine Private Eye basically every week lists out multiple cases where well-paid managers have moved between government and industry and used influence of one to help their friends in the other. Nobody seems to pay it too much attention. But you build one duck-moat..
- Jerry2 10y ago
  >The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country You sure about that? Just a week ago, a mafia expert called the UK "most corrupt country in the world". Give this a read: UK is most corrupt country in the world, says mafia expert Roberto Saviano http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-saviano-britain-corrupt-mafia-hay-festival-a7054851.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-savia...
  - xbmcuser 10y ago
    not for UK citizens or laws according to the article it is most corrupt as all the ill-gotten and corrupt proceed from all over the world are parked in the Uk
kneel 10y ago
Google has collected vasts amount of information and they can recruit skill and develop almost any type of software they want. It seems like a no brainer they're going to play an ever growing role in government. How big a role do they play? What is the limits?
- _audakel 10y ago
  Is it a bad thing that Google plays a more involved role? They have on numerous occasions lent their technical expertise to improve horibly broke aspects of the federal govt (Healthcare.Gov is an example) . If they can improve the technical aspects (open apis for govt data for example), it might help bring more light to the parts of govt that are unavailable to ordinary citizens.
  - maxander 10y ago
    No one cares if they build websites for the gov't (indeed it's exemplary citizenship), the concern is rather that their involvement will include influencing policy. They have many interests relating to existing or potential regulations (on self-driving cars or big-data mining, for instance.) Their interests aren't necessarily so obviously malign as oil or cigarette lobbyists, but we'd still like regulators to be theoretically acting purely for the sake of the public good.
  - azakai 10y ago
    It's not good or bad necessarily, but it is incredibly dangerous. Google is a massive corporation with unprecedented information about ordinary people. Information that we would never let governments collect on us. As Google becomes more connected to governments, that separation might break down. The Snowden revelations showed us part of the hidden picture here. But the public picture, as described in this article, is enough to worry about.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Conversely, the government represents one of the biggest threats to Google-sized companies, so it's not at all surprising that such companies preemptively maintain influence with governments with applicable jurisdiction. If there wasn't a steady stream of new threats (ranging from minor to existential) coming out of government, there'd be less need to maintain influence within it.
_audakel 10y ago
I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches both hiring former members of the SEC and having many of its employees go on to fill top financial regulatory positions in government. People are not up in arms about that. I am sure other top banks in Europe do similar things ie have people they can influence in top positions or hire them. It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing, and the first tech company to try it at this extent. People just don't like change, and the people who used to have that power (large financial institutions ) don't like that the weird kids from palo alto are moving in their territory
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  >It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing Right. Basically the banks have been playing this game for so long and are quite smart about it so they've learned how to keep things on the down low so the public won't get up in arms about it. They're also way ahead of tech in the PR game (or rather, not having undesireable PR pop up). Just look at how much flak big tech gets vs big banks (imo both have issues) with respect to gender equality and inclusivity, even though the banks are just as bad if not worse for women and many minority groups.
  - ENGNR 10y ago
    Finance has a pretty bad reputation these days though, saying finance is corrupt isn't exactly news worthy, which is why Hillary Clinton is copping so much flak for having a close relationship with Goldman Sachs. If it was Google instead I don't think it'd be as big an issue
    - sharemywin 10y ago
      It's there but like you say no one makes a big deal of it. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-show-state-departments-close-relationship-with-google/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-s...
  - rpgmaker 10y ago
phantom_oracle 10y ago
The most important piece of the article: > Questions have been raised about who funds the Google Transparency Project. The CfA declined to say, and this prompted suspicion that it is bankrolled by rival media and internet companies keen to check the company’s power. If you're going to be a transparency-watchdog, it helps that your own organization remains transparent as well.
- rpgmaker 10y ago
  This is a very bad attempt at deflecting attention from the the very tight (and troublesome) relationship Google has with USG and this is very well documented by now. That this specific company isn't very transparent doesn't take anything away from this troublesome fact. So no, that's not the most important piece of the article at all.
fo_rill 10y ago
The more I see the name "Alphabet" the more crooked and untrustworthy everything associated with it feels. It will be a cancerous flaw staining the reputation that Google has thus far earned, until it goes away. It feels like a pre-emptive "Altria" or "Xe Services" type rebrand, and it smells foul and deceptive.
- deprave 10y ago
  Alphabet is basically a name to do things with Google money that people would have approved of if they immediately knew Google was associated with. It's a way to fool most people who probably won't bother figuring out where this "new" multibillion dollar corporation came from. Hopefully the media keeps reminding everyone what Alphabet really is...
shkkmo 10y ago
Perhaps we should requires some sort of "non-compete" like clause to limit regulators accepting jobs at the companies they were regulating?
- neolefty 10y ago
  In principle yes. It requires some extra support though -- regulation alone won't lead to a healthy situation: 1. We need to pay & respect regulators well enough that people will want to pursue it as a career, because once you start down it you won't be allowed to work in industry. 2. Expertise can be difficult to develop, but it's absolutely necessary for complex industries. Who is best-equipped to regulate, say, fossil fuel exploration? An experienced expert from that industry, since they know the ins and outs intimately. But they are also likely to have conflicts of interest. See Deepwater Horizon for an example of how badly it can go wrong when expert regulators turn a blind eye. Occasionally it will go very well, like with Tom Wheeler of the FCC. He is an expert veteran of the telecom industry, and he seems to have public good in mind, and he values the regulatory role well enough to put some real effort into it and take professional risks. But his case is exceptional -- it's rare to find someone like that, from what I've seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
bla2 10y ago
Does anyone here know who funds CfA? Or how these "revolving door" numbers compare to any other company? Feels like a smear campaign.

88 points by alt_ 10y ago

ppod 10y ago

The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country, but this is one of its biggest problems. The magazine Private Eye basically every week lists out multiple cases where well-paid managers have moved between government and industry and used influence of one to help their friends in the other. Nobody seems to pay it too much attention. But you build one duck-moat..

Jerry2 10y ago
>The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country You sure about that? Just a week ago, a mafia expert called the UK "most corrupt country in the world". Give this a read: UK is most corrupt country in the world, says mafia expert Roberto Saviano http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-saviano-britain-corrupt-mafia-hay-festival-a7054851.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-savia...
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  not for UK citizens or laws according to the article it is most corrupt as all the ill-gotten and corrupt proceed from all over the world are parked in the Uk

kneel 10y ago

Google has collected vasts amount of information and they can recruit skill and develop almost any type of software they want. It seems like a no brainer they're going to play an ever growing role in government. How big a role do they play? What is the limits?

_audakel 10y ago
Is it a bad thing that Google plays a more involved role? They have on numerous occasions lent their technical expertise to improve horibly broke aspects of the federal govt (Healthcare.Gov is an example) . If they can improve the technical aspects (open apis for govt data for example), it might help bring more light to the parts of govt that are unavailable to ordinary citizens.
- maxander 10y ago
  No one cares if they build websites for the gov't (indeed it's exemplary citizenship), the concern is rather that their involvement will include influencing policy. They have many interests relating to existing or potential regulations (on self-driving cars or big-data mining, for instance.) Their interests aren't necessarily so obviously malign as oil or cigarette lobbyists, but we'd still like regulators to be theoretically acting purely for the sake of the public good.
- azakai 10y ago
  It's not good or bad necessarily, but it is incredibly dangerous. Google is a massive corporation with unprecedented information about ordinary people. Information that we would never let governments collect on us. As Google becomes more connected to governments, that separation might break down. The Snowden revelations showed us part of the hidden picture here. But the public picture, as described in this article, is enough to worry about.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Conversely, the government represents one of the biggest threats to Google-sized companies, so it's not at all surprising that such companies preemptively maintain influence with governments with applicable jurisdiction. If there wasn't a steady stream of new threats (ranging from minor to existential) coming out of government, there'd be less need to maintain influence within it.

_audakel 10y ago

I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches both hiring former members of the SEC and having many of its employees go on to fill top financial regulatory positions in government. People are not up in arms about that. I am sure other top banks in Europe do similar things ie have people they can influence in top positions or hire them. It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing, and the first tech company to try it at this extent. People just don't like change, and the people who used to have that power (large financial institutions ) don't like that the weird kids from palo alto are moving in their territory

hkmurakami 10y ago
>It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of thing Right. Basically the banks have been playing this game for so long and are quite smart about it so they've learned how to keep things on the down low so the public won't get up in arms about it. They're also way ahead of tech in the PR game (or rather, not having undesireable PR pop up). Just look at how much flak big tech gets vs big banks (imo both have issues) with respect to gender equality and inclusivity, even though the banks are just as bad if not worse for women and many minority groups.
- ENGNR 10y ago
  Finance has a pretty bad reputation these days though, saying finance is corrupt isn't exactly news worthy, which is why Hillary Clinton is copping so much flak for having a close relationship with Goldman Sachs. If it was Google instead I don't think it'd be as big an issue
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    It's there but like you say no one makes a big deal of it. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-show-state-departments-close-relationship-with-google/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-s...
- rpgmaker 10y ago

phantom_oracle 10y ago

The most important piece of the article: > Questions have been raised about who funds the Google Transparency Project. The CfA declined to say, and this prompted suspicion that it is bankrolled by rival media and internet companies keen to check the company’s power. If you're going to be a transparency-watchdog, it helps that your own organization remains transparent as well.

rpgmaker 10y ago
This is a very bad attempt at deflecting attention from the the very tight (and troublesome) relationship Google has with USG and this is very well documented by now. That this specific company isn't very transparent doesn't take anything away from this troublesome fact. So no, that's not the most important piece of the article at all.

fo_rill 10y ago

The more I see the name "Alphabet" the more crooked and untrustworthy everything associated with it feels. It will be a cancerous flaw staining the reputation that Google has thus far earned, until it goes away. It feels like a pre-emptive "Altria" or "Xe Services" type rebrand, and it smells foul and deceptive.

deprave 10y ago
Alphabet is basically a name to do things with Google money that people would have approved of if they immediately knew Google was associated with. It's a way to fool most people who probably won't bother figuring out where this "new" multibillion dollar corporation came from. Hopefully the media keeps reminding everyone what Alphabet really is...

shkkmo 10y ago

Perhaps we should requires some sort of "non-compete" like clause to limit regulators accepting jobs at the companies they were regulating?

neolefty 10y ago
In principle yes. It requires some extra support though -- regulation alone won't lead to a healthy situation: 1. We need to pay & respect regulators well enough that people will want to pursue it as a career, because once you start down it you won't be allowed to work in industry. 2. Expertise can be difficult to develop, but it's absolutely necessary for complex industries. Who is best-equipped to regulate, say, fossil fuel exploration? An experienced expert from that industry, since they know the ins and outs intimately. But they are also likely to have conflicts of interest. See Deepwater Horizon for an example of how badly it can go wrong when expert regulators turn a blind eye. Occasionally it will go very well, like with Tom Wheeler of the FCC. He is an expert veteran of the telecom industry, and he seems to have public good in mind, and he values the regulatory role well enough to put some real effort into it and take professional risks. But his case is exceptional -- it's rare to find someone like that, from what I've seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

bla2 10y ago

Does anyone here know who funds CfA? Or how these "revolving door" numbers compare to any other company? Feels like a smear campaign.