Subpoena Resistance Hurts Google Stock 407
imrec writes "Google stock sees a record 8% decline shortly after news concerning the government's request for Google's search logs broke earlier this week." From the article: "'There are potentially concerns that Google could be in the cross-hairs of the Justice Department,' Kessler said. 'Investors are worried about interest rates and inflation and they felt technology stocks like Google, Apple, Yahoo and others were able to withstand these kinds of pressure. But now that ability is in doubt,'"
Two Words . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Google should stick to "not being evil" (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahhh, now we'll really see whether they can really live up their "Don't be evil" policy! Does Google prefer stock price over ethics? While my instinct tells me the answer is firmly "no" I think we are all interested in the result.
I think Google did the right thing. In the western democracies we all have strict rules governing the powers of the various investigative authorities. There are very good reasons for this. The Police and Justice Department have incredible powers granted to them by the state. However, the same power that allows them to catch criminals can also be used for less noble purposes.
In any organisation of considerable size there is always a rogue element. An element that is deceitful, unethical and motivated by influences orthogonal to the goals of the institution. Sometimes these are fairly benign: David Blunket trying to get a quick visa so he and his bit on the side have a nanny to look after their child. Sometimes these can be very malicious: Robbers breaking in to the Democrat headquarters and planting bugs so Nixon could spy on their election campaign. (I'm British so they may be inaccuracies in this account)
The law is there not only to protect us from criminals but to protect us from the people who catch them too. In many ways, the protection from the people who catch criminals is vastly more important than protection from criminals. What criminal can get state sanctioned approval to search your home? Impound your possessions? Wrongfully impression you?
All over the western world, governments are granting their Police more and more powers in the name of combating terrorism. The chance of being killed by a terrorist is approximately zero. For comparison, in Britain 0.03% of us will die[1] in ALL possible mishaps this year. That takes account of murder, car crashes, being eaten by ferocious llamas and so on and so forth.
I would therefore venture that the threat posed by increasing Police power is vastly greater than the threat of terrorism. In Britain, we saw this illustrated for us nicely when an octogenarian, life-time member of the Labour party was escorted from the annual conference and arrested under anti-terrorism legislation. Here was a man saying that war in Iraq was unjust and he gets arrested under anti-terrorism legislation. This war on terror is becoming a war, conducted by ourselves, against ourselves to remove the democratic values we cherish so dearly. Shakespeare himself could not write such a dark tragedy.
Getting back to point. Just because the Justice Department says Google should jump it does not mean Google should meekly reply: "How High, Officer?". Just because the government asks you to do something does not mean that they have the proper authority to ask for it. Let them prove in a court of law that they have the proper authority to make such a claim. If they're right, they'll win and Google will have to capitulate. If they're wrong, then a precedent is set and the complicated system of checks and balances has once again protected liberty.
Simon
[1] - The Independent, Yesterday, in the Editorial section. Feel free to correct this figure if it is incorrect.This is FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
the decline in the Google shareprice because of the DOJ action
is silly.
The point of insanity (Score:1, Interesting)
What kind of insanity is this, that the government goes out of control, spending billions on a pointless war, spends billions more spying on its own citizens - and Google has its stock price downgraded because it stands up to a basic infringement on the rights of American citizens? Even though this would have no effect on profitability or income? Jesus Christ on a stick.
Re:Google should stick to "not being evil" (Score:5, Interesting)
There is HUGE difference between the Government and the Law.
Law is NOT made by Justice Department.
Google is right in standing up the Republican Justice Dept and saying: "Here's my middle finger. You can lick it or you can screw yourselves with it."
Obviously, the request was made by justice dept. not for fighting terrorists, but just to "help" other campaign corporates like MSFT to learn Google secrets.
This government is for criminals, by criminals (DeLay, Jack Abr.., etc). and for the criminals.
Since when do we start listening to criminals and reveal our business secrets to them.
Just TWO more years Google. Hold On !!!
Seconding the nonsense crowd (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole market is down, and given how high prices Google's stock is, the drop looks all the more extreme.
Now I'm not a financial guy nor do I know a whole lot about investing and the like, but I am wondering why Google has not split this stock long ago? Their current price is doing a lot to keep small investors out of owning anything but a pittance of Google stock. Does anyone with market knowhow have an explanation for why a company would let it's stock go so high when it will suffer such extremes in value during currnent market fluctiations like right now? I know most companies split their stock when it gets expensive enough. Why not Google?
Re:Two Words . . . (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Two Words . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google will ultimately have to bow to sharehold (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For christs sake (Score:5, Interesting)
intentionally misleading interpritation (Score:4, Interesting)
should be:
"Subpoena Hurts Google Stock"
The Resistance is the only reason the stock didn't drop by 20%. Our federal PR machine would like you to believe that the resistance is the problem.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google relies on software patents (Score:1, Interesting)
Uh, pagerank is a trade secret, not a patent. If it were a patent, we could all pull it up on a patent search site and learn how to optimize our sites to score awesome pagerank. They do have patents (one on their method for removing duplicate results, one on having separate ranking for websites in general, and websites within a single query, and possibly others), but none have been enforced (yet).
as well as the Overture patents
LOL, so eager to slam google eh? Google for 'google overture patent', and you'll find that Overture is a completely separate company (owned by Yahoo), who sued Google over their patents. Man, the gall of that evil Google, creating a completely separate company to throw around software patent suits against themselves.
Double nonsense. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to spin things, you might say that MSN, AOL and Yahoo all lost value because they lost customer trust by selling them out. Well, look at this [com.com], I'm not the only person who thinks that way. If Google fails to keep their customer data confidential, all tech firms will suffer.
As for the crosshairs of the DOJ, has the reporter forgoten about the big M$ anti-trust case and continued monitoring? Microsoft is not in the crosshairs, they are in the jaws of the DOJ vice and can be squeezed at will. Any change in Washington's mood can have M$ paying fines or split into companies the size of a fruit stand.
Republicans Creating Bad PR (Score:5, Interesting)