30 ms·
Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoWow. Even as the resident Google critic, I never expected Google would sink down to the level of endorsing the TPP. :/ This is a clear break from the EFF's position (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) and a strong indication of their increasing closed door ties with the Obama administration.
- cloudjacker 10y ago> a strong indication of their increasing closed door ties with the Obama administration. This is what I want when I grow up. I want this power.
- ddorian43 10y agoOds are you won't get it, just will be on the bad side of the deal, being oppressed instead of opressing others.
- tzs 10y agoOr it could be an indication that Google is considering a bigger picture than the EFF is. TPP is a comprehensive agreement, covering a wide range of topics and activities. Here are the titles of the major components: Competition & Business Facilitation Competition Policy Cooperating & Capacity Building Cross Border Trade in Services Customs Administration & Trade Facilitation Development Dispute Settlement Electronic Commerce Environment Financial Services Government Procurement Intellectual Property Investment Labour National Treatment & Market Access for Goods Regulatory Coherence Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures Small & Medium-sized Businesses State-Owned Enterprises Technical Barriers to Trade Telecommunications Temporary Entry for Business Persons Textiles & Apparel Trade Remedies Transparency & Anti-Corruption The EFF's opposition seems to be almost all based on just one of those components (Intellectual Property). It is quite possible that others, including Google, could see enough positives in the other components to outweigh the negatives the EFF sees in the IP component even if they agree with the EFF that those IP provisions are serious negatives. This is especially true when you consider that much of the EFF's criticism of the IP section is over provisions that are already in effect in the US, and to a lesser extent in Europe. For instance, the US and Europe already have the 70 year copyright term, and the US and Europe already have anti-circumvention measures (DMCA in the US, the Copyright Directive [1] in the EU). Basically, many of the things the EFF objects to ALREADY APPLY to Google in most of Google's markets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
- nitrogen 10y agoThis is especially true when you consider that much of the EFF's criticism of the IP section is over provisions that are already in effect in the US... A core purpose of the EFF is to keep IP law from spinning out of control, and to roll back the places where it already has (which is pretty much everywhere). This would be more nearly impossible than it already is if the US laws calcify into treaty form, which is a very good reason for them to oppose the TPP.
- yuhong 10y agoI doubt it is even in Google's business interests to do this either.
- banach 10y agoThe scope of this agreement is a problem in and of itself. By stapling together what should actually have been tens or hundreds of smaller agreements the authors of the TPP are ensuring that both support and opposition to the treaty from the broad population are under-informed positions based on ideology. If this were anything else than an anti-democratic power grab, they would break the treaty down into pieces, around which we could have a meaningful and accessible discussion.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoOf course they do. They were probably involved in drafting it.
- nullnilvoid 10y agoJulian Assange and Edward Snowden second that. The extent Google is tied to Obama administration is astonishing.
- narrowrail 10y agoI am sorry, but hours-old accts commenting on highly controversial threads, spouting poorly cited 'almost conspiracies' doesn't seem helpful. I may be completely off, but that is how I feel; this is something that has become far too common on HN. Am I in my own world on this?
- nullnilvoid 10y agoJudging other people by the age of their accts instead of their reasoning, you are in your own perfect world. Here is a simple example which shows how liberal Google is (there are plenty of them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg
- lucb1e 10y ago> prohibits [participating countries] from requiring local storage of data > It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services As a Dutchman I can see why Google likes this.
- lumberjack 10y agoIt's not like our politicians would ever dream of doing something like that anyway. I have a certain feeling that they would be more prone to obey Google than their constituents.
- donarb 10y agoTTIP and TPP are two different trade agreements.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoOf the very many terrible things in these trade treaties (most notably the massive expansions of copyright and patents), this is one of the few that seems helpful. It's a step towards not having to care (as much) about national borders on the Internet. A company providing a service accessible to the entire Internet should not have to worry about jurisdictions other than their own.
- josho 10y agoTo offer an alternative viewpoint. In Canada we have laws that protect personal health data. For instance my doctor cannot save my patient data outside of the country. This is a major pain for SAAS vendors, and I understand google's position. However, as a patient I appreciate knowing that my personal health data is not being sent around the world to other jurisdictions that may not have the same privacy and data protection laws that we do here. So, I have to wonder do we have a problem of countries requiring local storage for reasons that are questionable? Or is this simply a preemptive strike ensuring companies like google continue their easy access to global markets? Given my example above I suggest its the latter.
- lumberjack 10y ago>The TPP advances other important Internet policy goals. It prohibits discrimination against foreign Internet services This is really it, I think. Makes sense. They don't want another China to happen to them.
- typon 10y agoIts always funny when people naively forget that Google, Apple, etc. are megacorps, not some startup ventures. They are the man. This endorsement doesn't surprise me one bit.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoAh, but Google often does the things it knows people aren't going to like behind closed doors. (For instance, Google's control over Android is done via confidential agreements. The public hasn't seen a version of these agreements newer than 2011.) An open, public endorsement of something that most tech enthusiasts who use their products know is a bad thing, is a very surprising move. I'm pretty sure I've seen a number of Google employees condemning the TPP in the last year or two as well.
- ikeboy 10y ago>most everyone who uses their products knows is a bad thing I very much doubt most of their users could even tell you what it stood for, let alone have an opinion on its value.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoThat's fair/true. I should've used language that better expressed it being "tech enthusiasts".
- dcgudeman 10y agoIs this a satirical comment or are you actually using the word "megacorps" seriously? Just because a company is big doesn't mean it is nefarious. You should explain why these companies are evil and how them endorsing TPP is a bad thing.
- stonogo 10y agoA single company's opinion on a multinational treaty should be completely irrelevant. The fact that it matters speaks poorly of our representative government, and the fact that Google is willing to use that power to attempt to influence policy decisions speaks poorly of Google's respect for citizen rule.
- sremani 10y agoI support TPP for geopolitical reasons, I am sure the Elites in the corridors of Power in Google do it for "access" and ability to sue the shit out of the gubmints that come in their way.
- cwkoss 10y agoWhat are your geopolitical reasons?
- sremani 10y agoI concur with Ian Bremmer's view on TPP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniOW9G9TQA At a fundamental level, US defining and guiding the world economic order as it has done with Bretton woods.
- darklajid 10y agoI couldn't listen to that video for long, it wasn't quite bearable. Stopped after 2 minutes. Can you explain it from your point of view? These first 2 minutes repeated 'strong United States' about five times already or so. Is that what you consider 'geopolitical reasons'?
- sanderjd 10y agoThis comment seems very holier-than-thou to me. Did you intend it that way? If not, it still seems a bit inconsiderate to ask someone to summarize a video a mere 8 minutes in length, which they were kind enough to link.
- notthegov 10y agoIf these benefits are legitimate, why can't they focus on 5 or 10 specific objectives, and write them in some concise form like the Bill of Rights? Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? Is the only way for progress to happen? And even if the TPP is completely beneficial, it is still part of the philosophy of economic integration. Which at its heart is promoting the centralization of power and the diminishment of classical liberalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration#Stages
- jdavis703 10y agoWhy should other countries give those "5 or 10 specific objectives" to American companies in exchange for nothing (since those countries don't really have an equivalent "tech" industry it really wouldn't be mutually beneficial). This is where things like allowing foreign workers to undercut American salaries comes into play.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago>Why does it need to be 2,000 pages and full of complex, obsfucated concepts and details? The cynic in me says thinks of the TPP as a gigantic pile of economic concessions to specific corporate interests. The more generous interpretation is that free trade creates winners and losers, but there's generally more winners than losers. The length of the agreement is then the result of multilateral negotiations. Each party realizes - in excruciating detail - how they're getting screwed, and attempts to negotiate concessions for agreeing to the entire thing.
- pzone 10y agoOf course it's a gigantic pile of economic concessions. But mostly that's in the form of tariffs which aren't struck down as quickly as others. Some countries really really want to keep their little pet tariff, like Japan taxing automobile imports. They get to keep those taxes for 30+ years instead of reducing them to zero as quickly as we want. So no it's not perfect, but at least they agreed to move toward freer trade eventually.
- 10y ago
- cwkoss 10y ago"Don't be evil" seems to be more of a general guideline than a rule these days.
- fixermark 10y agoMotto. Or slogan.
- davb 10y agoThis endorsement surprises me just because the TPP is so blatantly anti-consumer, pro-corporation. I'm under no illusion that Google's anything other massive tech-savvy advertising company, but the self-serving corporate side of the company is usually hidden behind the pretty veneer of "tech for the people". Supporting a trade agreement like the TPP (especially given the lack of transparency in the process) lacks their usual subtlety.
- forrestthewoods 10y agoIs it anti-consumer? Convince me. I'm open. But I also want you to include counter-arguments. I want to hear both sides to reach a conclusion. So far most anti-TPP arguments I've read are high on rhetoric and low on substance.
- sounds 10y agoHow about anti-national-sovereignty? The secret drafts and the extra-legal processes weaken national sovereignty. I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
- jonknee 10y agoHas there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? I mean that's pretty much the point in these things, lots of horse trading behind closed doors.
- tremon 10y agoHas there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? Have there been many trade agreements that were drafted by corporations instead of government representatives?
- jonknee 10y agoOf course the government was involved. Of course corporations were involved (it's trade, completely pointless without corporations!).
- revelation 10y agoThe free flow of information must be why they released this tidbit on Friday afternoon? If they are so proud, surely a banner on Google is appropriate. It's for a good cause after all.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoThis is how you dump a story. Everyone's on the way out the door for the weekend. Google will publish something "amazing" on Monday morning to excite everyone to the level that people forget Google sold them out three days prior.
- revelation 10y agoIt's how you publish bad news, specifically.
- mac01021 10y agoThis doesn't make sense to me. The purpose of endorsing something is to be heard by the public, thereby persuading them. You don't deliberately do it when noone is listening. You might as well just not do it.
- urmish 10y agoWhat are some alternatives to google search. I think I can get away from the rest of their products in the coming few months.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoDuckDuckGo is pretty fantastic all around. Bing is alright, to be honest (some of their data widgets are more comprehensive than Google's), but you will find times with Bing that you are sad with the results.
- urmish 10y agoDuckDuckGo it is then. Bing is still Microsoft's product, so thats a bummer.
- cpeterso 10y agoDuckDuckGo's killer feature is its thousands of !bang search shortcuts. They integrate with content sites' own search forms, so the results are similar to but often better than Google's site:example.com searches because the sites' have more domain knowledge over their content. https://duckduckgo.com/bang https://duckduckgo.com/bang
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- contextual 10y agoDuck Go !Bang showcases the most useful bangs for DDG: https://is.gd/duckgobang https://is.gd/duckgobang
- PeCaN 10y agoIf anyone isn't sold on DuckDuckGo: using quotes for literal queries actually does something, instead of Google deciding that's not actually what you meant. That's the killer feature for me: it actually obeys "advanced search" operators.
- habosa 10y agoIn another discussion about the TPP I was pointed to this link: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ I thought it was a very enjoyable way to learn about the agreement and why one might oppose it.
- Esau 10y agoDisappointing. But that's Google these days.
- anonbanker 10y agoif Trump wins, there will be no TPP, at least if he sticks to his campaign promises. We all accidentally get a gift if he makes it to the Oval Office.
- Eleopteryx 10y agoAccording to https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_... all of the remaining candidates oppose the TPP.
- MrZongle2 10y agoAt the moment. Senator Obama opposed quite a few things as well.
- Eleopteryx 10y ago>At the moment. Well, yes, people lie. My point was that Donald Trump wasn't a special case in terms of his position on the TPP.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pbarnes_1 10y ago"if he sticks to his campaign promises" Hahahahahahaha.
- anonbanker 10y agoDon't get me wrong, I don't trust a politician to keep his promises. He's just the best shot against the TPP we have, it seems (I trust Clinton less than Trump, and nobody votes libertarian).
- syoc 10y agoI see that the point about countries not being allowed to require local storage because >These provisions will support the Internet’s open architecture and make it more difficult for TPP countries to block Internet sites -- so that users have access to a web that is global, not just local. I do however believe that there is a aspect that has been overlooked here. Many cooperations, private and governmentally controlled, handle sensitive data. Having a SLA with Microsoft, Amazon or Google that states that this highly sensitive data is ONLY to be stored in specific data centers is the only way for a lot of non flexible IT departments to regain some control over their data. This is a widely popular demand. I can only see this as the "X eyes" with USA in charge removing one more hurdle in their way to total information control.
- fraserharris 10y agoTPP binds governments from requiring local data storage, not private contracts.
- jkeler 10y agoFirst they manipulated search suggestions in favor of Hillary and now this :(
- packetslave 10y ago[citation needed]
- MichaelGG 10y agoProbably referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg Was on HN but flagged. Google replies: "Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms." Seems like "criminal" and "indictment" are filtered out, which happens to benefit Hillary but seems to apply to other people. I tried a indicted people and it didn't autocomplete.
- Criticism123 10y agoThen why does it autocomplete "Crooked Trump" but not "Crooked Hillary"?
- raddad 10y ago"The analysis found a very different result with Google’s top competitors, Bing and Yahoo. When spotted the terms “Hillary Clinton cri” and “Hillary Clintion ind,” Bing and Yahoo brought up as their top choices “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” and “Hillary Clinton indictment” as part of their auto-complete functions using the same key letters, according to SourceFed. While that could reflect legitimate differences in the engines’ algorithms, Mr. Lieberman said that a search of “Hillary Clinton crime reform” on Google trends showed that “there weren’t even enough searches of term to build a graph on the site.”" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/10/google-denies-burying-bad-hillary-clinton-stories/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/10/google-denie...
- bla2 10y agoDisappointing. The were a loud voice against SOPA/PIPA. All it takes for them to do an about-face is a bill that includes a few bits about protecting multinational internet companies.
- jkeler 10y agoI would better trust EFF on this: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
- fattire 10y agoEveryone links to that general page, but I'd think the EFF analysis on how it affects digital rights specifically might be even more persuasive for this crowd: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-you-and-your-digital-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-yo...
- jonli1 10y agoUnlike most of the corporations in America, at least Google is transparent about its decisions.
- Jerry2 10y agoSpeaking of Google and politics, Julian Assange claims that Google has made a deal with Hillary Clinton and is backing her [0]. That's not far-fetched considering how intertwined Google and White House are. The Intercept has a really detailed analysis and a chart showing how Google and WH share so many lobbyists and executives [1]. Google wants to keep Democrats in the White House so they can continue their influence over various decisions and FTC (which squashed the investigation into Google's anticompetitive practices). And just today, Google was accused of whitewashing Hillary Clinton's record and not showing negative autocomplete terms [2]. Google's "don't be evil" mantra is just a way to inoculate themselves from criticism. If anyone accuses them of anything unethical or evil or inappropriate, they can always claim how they are "not doing anything evil" because that's their policy. It becomes circular logic. Assange has exposed Google's close ties to the State Department in the past as well. For example, give this NY Times article a read [3]. If you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes, Assange also published a book about his meeting with Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen of Google [4] and he published the complete transcript of their meeting. He also covered how Jared Cohen, formerly a State Department employee, was involved in regime changes around the world while at Google. Assange also states that in 2015 former Google CEO Eric Schmidt launched “The Groundwork,” a startup specifically designed to get Clinton elected. [5] Finally, Clinton's email release also confirmed that Google was involved in helping Syrian rebels who were trying to bring down the Syrian regime [6]. [0] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-working-closely-with-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-julian-assange-34780998.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-wor... [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-google-search-viceo-2016-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-google-search-vi... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banalit... [4] https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ [5] http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/julian-assange-google-is-in-bed-with-hillarys-campaign-video/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/julian-assange-google-is-i... [6] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-syria-rebels-defection-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-a6946121.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
- shmerl 10y agoWhat? So Google supports all the horrible IP provisions there? TPP must be ditched because it's an abomination in the current form, and it's not fixable because of "fast track". Google should officially change from "don't be evil" to "be evil" now.
- superobserver 10y agoThis comes across to me as nothing more than proof that Google is doubling down on HRC being elected now.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoI'm sure they are, and Google's definitely worked closely with Hillary before. Though at last public claim, even Hillary said she was against the TPP.
- fixermark 10y agoWhen has Google worked closely with Hillary? I'm not familiar with that story.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoHillary's emails include back and forth with Jared Cohen, a former State department employee who now heads a Google subsidiary called Jigsaw (formerly 'Google Ideas'). That should be enough to figure out what search terms to use. :)
- fixermark 10y agoSo "Google works closely with Hillary" is sourced to Hillary in the past corresponding with a former employee of hers who is now heading a Google subsidiary? That's borderline tin-foil-hat levels of conspiracy theory. By that logic, Google "works closely" with Oracle via the connection to Eric Schmidt; that's just as believable if you ignore the messy lawsuits they're engaged in.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoIf you actually read the details, as I indicated one should, Hillary's email archive includes collaboration with Jared Cohen WHILE he works at Google, on foreign affairs related projects.
- golergka 10y agoIt's sad to see that most of the commenters here decided to discuss it as a news tweet ("Google endorses TPP which, as we know, is terrible") instead of a text that makes some points on the matter. Seems like most don't even address the text in any way — which means people don't stop for a second to doubt their opinion on TPP, or even discuss arguments of the "enemy camp".
- grownseed 10y agoThe announcement starts by patronizing the reader ("most of us imagine container ships ..."), then proceeds to use a "for the children"-type argument ("small business"), directly followed by "for freedom!" argument with little to no substance. Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are beginning to recognize the Internet’s transformative impact on trade. Sure, in the sense that the TPP is designed by and for corporations, like Google, who don't want stuff like, say, the EU, getting in their way when trying to defend the users' rights (e.g. right to be forgotten). The paranoid in me also thinks this is in fact an agreement between organizations like Google and the US government to "legally" syphon foreign data directly from US soil, but there is of course absolutely not enough transparency to substantiate this either way. I clearly don't support TPP in the first place, but I find this announcement from Google borderline insulting, TPP or not. The condescending tone alone makes me cringe, but the whole "we're fighting for freedom" cover story is just disgusting.
- nashashmi 10y agoSeems like they agreed to the deal to have a bigger influence on future trade deals. I don't think they like this deal particularly. But they are swallowing the pill for having a say in the next one.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoLet me translate this into truthiness: even though TPP and TPIP favor multinational corporations over the sovernty of countries and what is best for people, Google is promoting what is best for their profits.
- adultSwim 10y agoBoycott Google
- victornomad 10y agoI guess they want to pay even less taxes... Ireland is getting too expensive perhaps?
- beedogs 10y ago"okay, be evil."
- sosuke 10y agoHow many Google engineers would have to strike at once to get them to change their tune? 80%? Things only start changing when it gets bad enough to walk away.
- thomasdullien 10y agoGiven the intense regulatory pressure (especially in the EU) that Google is finding itself under, this is unsurprising. The TPP would greatly help in easing 3 strategic concerns, which are: 1) Data protection regulation that would severely impact Google. Google is kinda caught in the crossfire here. The EU is upset at the US intelligence community (Post-Snowden), and wishes to have some assurance of protection for their citizen's communication. The USG does not see why it should do this, and the data protection regulation is the EU's way of saying: If we can't get you to cooperate by being friendly, we will have to pass legislation that will hurt US companies; they can then perhaps pay lobbyists to change your mind. So it is not really Googles fault, but they are caught in the middle. 2) Anti-Trust considerations. Google is extremely dominant in the European market, much more so than in the US. See #3. The momentum for an Antitrust case in the EU is high. 3) Industrial policy considerations. Right now, the EU does not have an "Internet powerhouse"; there simply are no modern Internet giants in the EU. Interestingly, both China and Russia have "inadvertently" created local giants (mostly by censorship, which has had the strange side-effect of being equivalent to import tariffs, but for Internet services -- e.g. an accidental protectionist measure that allowed local competition to emerge). Some voices have been heard in recent months that advocate that the only way the EU won't get entirely left behind is industrial policy toward creating an internet giant. This could even mean blocking US-based giants for a while. If TPP passes, Google will have a very powerful tool to wield against these three concerns. It is entirely rational of them to support it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]