Blind justice: Google lawsuit silences elected state prosecutor Google's success in "assassinating" a democratically-elected legal opponent last week raises troubling questions about corporate power and accountability. The feisty attorney for the USA's poorest state is now trying to make peace, after being on the receiving end of a highly unusual lawsuit from Google. Even if you will have …
Aren't there three issues here?
1. The MPAA exercising undue pressure on an elected official so he no longer does what the people want but what they want.
2. Google then using the law to stop him but only because it's what they want.
3. Was the action the elected official was taking the right thing to do and was it done in perspective. In other words if it was right was it being pushed ahead of other things which should have been done first.
No.
Like it or not the MPAA is just as much a constituent as Jimmy Bob Smith down at the end of the dirt road.
Like it or not the MPAA is entitled to donate to his campaign. It appears they didn't even donate the maximum amount.
And you've completely ignored the legitimate issues Andrew has raised about what Hood was doing. Which as a hard right Republican is something I am loathe to admit about any Democrat, but will do so when the facts require it.
Ultimately the only people who get to say he wasn't doing what Mississippi wants him to do are the voters in Mississippi. They'll do that next election cycle.
"Like it or not the MPAA is just as much a constituent as Jimmy Bob Smith down at the end of the dirt road."
Negative.
The individuals making up said group are entitled to representation; but the group itself is patently not a "person" or "individual", and therefore has no such entitlement (despite the purchased and very erroneous rulings to the contrary).
As a Republican myself, I can't really say what I really think should be done with both the MPAA and the Google board. However, the MPAA are not constituents of Hood's. Their attempt to develop and dialog and persuasive raport with Hood muddied waters that Google exploited to the extent that we now have this repulsive result.
The truly creepy aspect of all this is that this kind of politics hearks back to science fiction stories such as Kornbluth and Pohl's Space Merchant and William Gibson's novels. We are in the position of seeing massive corporations demanding citizen's rights under national laws and the same arguing that those same nations and states have no jurisdiction. Think about that a bit. Would it not be poetic justice a judge were to agree that some specific government has no jurisdiction and that because of that the corporation also has no standing to complain? Where would Google and the MPAA really be then?
Former coworker now at Google accidentally revealed the new slogan of the google:
All your attentions is belonging to US.
However, the google didn't go EVIL overnight. I first noticed their EVIL when the started censoring me about 8 or 10 years ago. Some sort of death penalty, but whenever I ask about it, I receive a robotic reply that the case is still under review. What case? What crime? (Presumably something that they regard as a violation of some ToS, but damn if I know what it is--or maybe my death penalty is for profanity of the most sincere sort?)
Well, now I saw phuck the google and the horse it rode in on. EVIL is as the google does.
P.S. I've noticed that criticisms of Microsoft and the google tend to elicit lots of down votes. Let me assure you that I could not care less, but if you have the guts or data to back up your disagreement, let's see your comment. In the case of the google, I'm liable to dismiss it as just more lobbying by a herd of professional sock puppets.
There are occasions when Google has been wrong and a little over enthusiastic in their desire to get data on everything (and everyone). I'm not sure that they have crossed the boundaries into being evil
In this case Hood was not so much doing a service to Mississipians but copy/paste lawsuiting for the MPAA which is not a popular organisation at the best of times.
-> Marcus Aurelius: "...Hood was [...] copy/paste lawsuiting for the MPAA"
Did you not read the article? Cause I did and I didn't read that anywhere. Granted, this is after Christmas dinner but I don't think I'm that squiffy.
On what evidence do you base that assertion? Sounds to me like you are prepared to read anything you like, as long as it agrees with what you already made your mind up about.
Selling narcotics or fake drugs over the Internet is a serious matter. Many Internet users would like Google to be above the law - in the sense that they would like to have a search engine that tells them what is out there, whether governments like it or not. But this isn't achievable.
However, while it's troubling that a corporation can bully elected governments, it's also troubling that a single state government can make law for the whole United States - and, sometimes, the whole world. Thus, while I basically support the article, there are other questions that make this more complicated.
Incidentally, for the United States to have a "51st richest state", it would have to have 51 states, which it doesn't. Alaska and Hawaii brought the total up to 50 from 48, and none have been added since then.
"Selling narcotics or fake drugs over the Internet is a serious matter."
Fair enough, it is a very, very serious matter. One addressed by the federal government, which it was and a federal court of law found Google guilty of making the unlawful process easy and ordered Google to cease and desist.
Now, a *state* Attorney General seeks to enforce a federal court order? Not his jurisdiction. His jurisdiction is state level and below, with federal matters taken care of by the federal government. the *most* he can do is ask the US Attorney General to look into the matter.*
The author then goes on about a few thousand dollars here and there, ignoring the ancient bit of old news, that state officials come cheaper than federal officials, county officials coming even cheaper than state officials and those thousands of dollars contributed are remembered.
In short, what I've said for decades; The United States of America has the best government that money can buy.
Hell, during the "Robber Baron" era of sparse handful of industrialists having the majority of the money in the nation, they actually did buy themselves the President of their choice, with disastrous long term results.
I've read the tin foil hat version, I remain in contempt of those poor souls.
I've read "the enlightened" version of the story.
Now, I've read this one.
To be honest, the truth is in the middle between the two least outlandish versions.
For, an Attorney General is notable for one other thing. The Attorney General *is* an attorney and has many attorneys working under him or her. If legal action is taken against an Attorney General, the state pays for the defense and as those attorneys are getting paid the same to go to trial or sit and surf the internet, the cost isn't all that high. Everyone needed is already on the payroll and drawing their salaries regardless of what they are doing. The only one not to be is the attorney for Google.
As annotated at the end, the judge tossed the irreparable harm part, meaning no injunction will be issued.
So, it's reality as usual, a whole lot of bastards working for different corporations playing their usual games. On both sides.
*I've quite literally lost count of how many times I had to explain my nation's system of government to Europeans and especially to people from the UK. The marvel of the many different systems is universal, the amazement that it works at all is also universal.
What isn't typically apparent is, all too often, the entire thing lurches to a halt. Usually when one level of government attempts to do the job of a superior level of government.
Powers not granted the federal government fall to the states. Powers that the states are not granted by their constitutions fall to the counties, eventually to the individual.
For quite a long time, the entire US Constitution was believed to only grant rights to the governments federal and state (an interesting notion, considering the first handful of amendments), not to mention granting of citizenship and freedom of travel.
Indeed, before incorporation under the fourteenth amendment, the militia acts (which defined what age men were to be considered members of the militia (hence, how conscripting men for the armed forces operated as a mobilization of the militias) made no sense, as those laws were directed at citizens of the nation and state, but who were not incorporated under the Constitution and federal laws. But then, we've long ignored the hell out of common sense and laws (see the torture bit, as we have signed and ratified treaties, which are the law of the land, per the Constitution). For that matter, in many states and in federal court, it is possible to request a judicial duel, as the federal government never wrote a law against the ancient common law practice and many states did not as well.
Fortunately, most of my peers are unaware of that fact.
Really, I'm serious. Out of a joke, I researched the matter. I've hat attorneys confirm it.
The United States of America, a land where sanity never broached her shores.
That would be all well and good if that was what the case WAS about. It wasn't though, it was MPAA wanting Hood to put pressure on Google over movie piracy. They put the illegal drugs crap in as a smoke screen for what it was really after. Just like how when they tried to push SOPA through they claimed it was focused on things like child pornography, which was the smoke screen for MPAA/RIAA to get blocking of sites in the US on a ISP/DNS level.
Wrong. Google want you to believe its about the MPAA and not the drugs even though Hood's got a solid case on the drug angle, and the MPAA actually have a solid legal case against Google.
As I've posted previously, Google have demonstrated that it is NOT a burden on them to remove links to illegal websites. They do it all the time for the Chinese, and they've even created more complicated algorithms to "downgrade" pirate sites. The only reason most posters here down vote the legal case for the MPAA is because of their hatred for the MPAA. While I have no love for them, I recognize the legal case as separate from them.
>Selling narcotics or fake drugs over the Internet is a serious matter.
Not defending the fake drug business, but a lot of people in the US buy REAL drugs online CoD on account of not having the cash or insurance to cover extortionate US costs which are totally stitched up over there - prices are often 3 or 4x higher compared to what we pay here - on private prescriptions or via tax/NHS. Thousands of people are doing serious gaol time for bringing in fairly mundane drugs in from Canada - and millions are dead for want of them.
I don't know if you want to believe it, but Google's general counsel has claimed on his blog that there is evidence that the subpoena from AG Hood was written by the MPAA's legal firm. Reference:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.ca/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-revive-sopa.html
Assuming that is to be believed, I think it makes sense that Google took the action that it did.
That being said, I think that silencing Hood on all matters Google is going a little overboard.
When I read an article I usually just read the article. Occasionally, when I find the article interesting I check who wrote it. It's surprising how often I start reading an anti-Google story, check the author's name and find it's written by Orlowski. There must be more than one writer in the world who has a thing against Google, why doesn't the Register give one of them a chance. Bring a little freshness to the hatred.
Not so long ago Google used its billions to sue a small record blues company for having the temerity to complain about its links to cyberlockers etc. You know those sites that, now Google has its own pay service, it is de-listing
http://news.techgenie.com/latest/google-takes-on-the-offensive-sues-record-company/
"intelligent progressives" is an oxymoron
any one claiming 'progresive' in the political sense is
1) using double think
2) refusing to acept the reality that almost with out exception 'progressive' policies are at the least bad for the majority of the people. And the poorer your are; the worse the (unintended) consequences tend to be.
In the US companies pay for the politicians election campaigns and bills , can anyone seriously think that they don't have to side with their sponsors ? It's no democracy when corporations have as much if not more power than We The People.
...weren't Google concerned about him launching his prosecution/enquiry after 'colluding' with the MPAA, and that he was acting as a pawn for the MPAA rather than working on behalf of the good citizens of Missssssspi? After all, what has misssisssspi got to do with Hollywood?
Yes, it's worrying when justice depends on who has the most money, but hey, what's new? Isn't that the American Way?
That's the lie Google are selling. Problem is, just like MS they have that existing consent decree on drugs. And they're not abiding by it. Which means the Mississippi AG has the right to pursue because it adversely impacts his citizens.
MPAA saw a chance to throw in with someone else who was going after Google. The AG read their brief, saw it mirrored his and decided it was legally sound. Since they'd already prepared a good piece of paper, he figured why waste scarce Mississippi dollars rewriting it and submitted it substantially as received. Google perceiving a real threat to their money presses have gone to the mattresses.
dont the new trade agreements rung negotiated allow corporations to compensation for democratically elected governments passing laws which restrict their profitability. Seems very similar.
Imagine an arms manufacturer suing because governments outlawed land mines which were part of their product range or pharmaceutical rules were tightened causing some drugs to be withdrawn
This post has been deleted by its author
This article reads like a piece of propaganda. Who wrote it? The MPAA? Anyone with experience of the US drugs market knows that it is a monopoly/cartel. The price of a drug in Canada or much of the rest of the world is less than half the US price. The drugs industry pays the US doctors to prescribe their drugs on occasion. As my US friends say, greed is the american way! The objective of the US government legislation was to prevent the US consumer from buying prescription drugs at reduced prices. The objectives of the entertainment industry are equally to establish monopolies/cartels, hence region coding. Copyright for 250yrs anyone?
"Google continued to profit from rogue sites. For example, Google helpfully completed the query "buy oxycodone" into "buy oxycodone online no prescription cod"."
This translates as "Google continued to do its job as a search engine." If many people enter those search terms in the land of the free, then they ought to be thrown up by autocomplete.
"Hood asked why, if Google could amend its results in response to governments around the world, it couldn't amend them to protect Mississippians?"
And the correct answer is that they shouldn't have rolled over to those governments in the first place, although they didn't have much choice. Of course, now we're in a situation where every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ounce of political power thinks they should be able to get Google to manipulate search results to serve whatever hot issue they think will get them some votes. Or sue them for some of their supposedly bottomless funds.
We really need to get past this whole idea that the solution to every problem is "make Google fix it". Piracy and copyright violations? Google's fault. Kiddie porn? Googles fault. People want to buy prescription drugs? Google's to blame. Somebody broke the law, and now their reputation is damaged. Oh look, it's Google's fault. Give it a rest already.
Which should make it easy for the FBI or whoever is responsible to find and shut down the relevant sites? If Google makes criminal activity easy to find, perhaps the authorities should stop moaning about Snowden and start using Google as a tool.
The correct answer is that they should not be advertising illegal drugs, They promised not to but they still are.
All the google apologists in here should be ashamed of themselves. Mississippi is a STATE, not a province, not a county, they part of the UNITED States, not subsumed by it.
I dunno why anyone is shocked that google uses rumor, innuendo and threats to get their own way, especially when it comes to politics, everyone else in the US political arena does.
Google's "do no evil" mantra is long gone.
First, they have to be identified as illegal.
The search results are perfectly valid for Canada.
And the restriction of drugs is the jurisdiction of the feds. Not a state.
Second, the author has obviously never lived in Mississippi. The state government has always been the "best money can buy".
This translates as "Google continued to do its job as a search engine." If many people enter those search terms in the land of the free, then they ought to be thrown up by autocomplete.
Your argument suggests that where technical quality is in conflict with the law, that the law should be made to yield. That's not a level playing field, it's flagrant disregard of the law, and if you try it, chances are your feet won't touch the ground.
And the correct answer is that they shouldn't have rolled over to those governments in the first place, although they didn't have much choice. Of course, now we're in a situation where every Tom, Dick and Harry with an ounce of political power thinks they should be able to get Google to manipulate search results to serve whatever hot issue they think will get them some votes. Or sue them for some of their supposedly bottomless funds.
Again they should comply with the law, it's a business, and complying with the law in all its insane glory is the cost of doing business.
We really need to get past this whole idea that the solution to every problem is "make Google fix it".
Are you for real ? Oh poor 300 billion dollar corporation, complying with the law should be optional for delicate little flowers like Google.
Piracy and copyright violations? Google's fault.
Google make money by serving adverts next to content, that means they can choose not to serve a particular market, if it requires they break the law, just like everybody else.
Kiddie porn? Googles fault. People want to buy prescription drugs? Google's to blame.
Google publish a list of links, they absolutely are responsible for what makes it on to *their* list. They make money by placing adverts next to content, some of that money will come from objectionable sources, and where it's flat out criminal, they should censor the list and leave the money from putting an advert next to kiddy porn on the table.
Somebody broke the law, and now their reputation is damaged. Oh look, it's Google's fault. Give it a rest already.
You don't seem to get how the law works, we as the public get to comply, that's basically the deal. Rightly or wrongly, there is a law which (personally I think is a bit pointless, but nonetheless) requires Search Engines to censor the list for particular keywords, again compliance is not optional for everyone else.
... I've just read a three-page article which seems long on conjecture and hyperbole, but rather short on facts.
(Actually I didn't even notice the byline until I was about four paragraphs into reading it and then thought "Hang on, this sounds like [scrolls up] yep, it's Orlowski."
Let's ignore the rhetoric such as "assassinating" and "silenced" and the background which is interesting, but possibly a little over-done and see what it actually says;
Oh, right. Businesses who have vested interests like to get media outlets to publish stories which are favourable to them. Just like elected politicians do (such as State Prosecutors who like to prosecute high-profile, media-friendly cases against kidnappers, paedophiles and such which boost their profile and, thus, their re-election chances) and just like Big Media do by trying to redefine copyright infringement as "theft".
All the rest of it seems to be Andrew bashing his favourite targets (Obama, people who object to excessive copyright enforcement and DCM and those who want laws to be proportionate rather than overbearing).
At least it was published as "comment" (which is only one step above "opinion")...
If you want a longer article may I suggest "Stonewalled" by Sharyl Attkisson (don't just dismiss her as just being a republican shill because "blog x says so" ) @432 pages enough for you? You can see google applying the same tactics to Hood as the Feds do to investigative reporters.
Given the links between the administration & google is anybody surprised ?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
