5 ms·
Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research
- gress 12y agoCan we now finally acknowledge that Google has an anti-privacy agenda?
- jimbograss 12y agoSigh. No only is that report is wrong: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research-independent https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research... It also specifically notes that it's a Stanford decision not a Google one.
- DannyBee 12y ago???? When you file amicus/other briefs in federal court, you are often required to state whether or not you have a financial interest in the case or receive funding from the parties/etc. Stanford filed a proposal in a case that involved Google. In order to fulfill the above requirement, they made a statement that while Google gives them money, they didn't use it for the stuff they are talking about in the brief. They then conclude "For these reasons, we do not believe we have a conflict of interest with either Google or with the Plaintiff class." That's it. Blogger then decides this is a request by Google, rather than a fucking statement of financial interest. The only agenda here is yours :)
- gress 12y ago“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” But, fair enough about the original article.
- seanflyon 12y agoI disagree with both your conclusion and how you state it. You should put forth a logical argument that supports your position instead of asking a question that presupposes your conclusion.
- Raphmedia 12y agoWho cares? Depending how it is managed, this is a smart move. Accept money from anti-privacy advocates, put it in demilitarization researches. Then, accept money from anti-demilitarization advocates, put it in privacy research. But perhaps I'm too optimist.
- belorn 12y agoIt all depend on how one phrases the exchange. Someone might get the wrong idea if a person went to the university with a briefcase full of money, politely telling them to focus their time on something other than privacy research.
- doctorshady 12y agoStanford I'm not too concerned about. The fact that Google is taking such a negative stance on privacy is quite concerning, though.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- nwenzel 12y agoPublicity stunts get in the way of actual progress. Money is fungible so it's impossible to actually hold true to that promise. They could only use google money to buy sandwiches. But then money that used to go towards sandwiches can now be put towards privacy.
- jimbograss 12y agoApparently that report is inaccurate: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research-independent https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research... Edit: not sure exactly why my comment was downvoted, the link I submitted is the response from Stanford CIS (the party who filed the legal document in question) disputing the article.
- gress 12y agoThe denial is only that they didn't make any promises to Google. Not that Google's interests weren't considered.
- jimbograss 12y agoHave you actually read any of the items?
- tptacek 12y agoOdd how the most important comment on the thread, which debunks the source article decisively, can somehow be at the bottom of the thread.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoIt happens every now and then; that's why I have a habit of scrolling through the entire thread, including skimming the greyed-out posts.
- dang 12y agoThis post was killed by user flags while the URL was http://www.propublica.org/article/stanford-promises-not-to-use-google-money-for-privacy-research http://www.propublica.org/article/stanford-promises-not-to-u..., presumably because that article is inaccurate. We've switched to the url that appears most accurate. If there's a better article, we can switch it again.