Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet United States

Google Goes to Washington 217

Posted by CowboyNeal from the red-white-and-click-through dept.
DIY News writes "Google has hired a lobbyist in Washington D.C. to influence the nation's laws governing the Internet, telecommunications and copyrights. Google sees a presence in Washington as a necessity as government becomes more involved in the Net's development. Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Goes to Washington More

Google Goes to Washington

Comments Filter:

  • coming soon! (Score:5, Funny)

    by isecore ( 132059 ) <isecore@NOSPAM.isecore.net> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:33AM (#13746312) Homepage
    Google.gov coming to a website near you!

    • You joke, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clark625 ( 308380 ) <clark625@nOspam.yahoo.com> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:17AM (#13746476) Homepage
      I'm in the Army currently, and my office computer has access to a bunch of Department of Defense internal networks that suposedly has all the data I could ever want. The problem is it's poorly indexed. So, if I need a particular obscure form or technical manual, it can be near impossible to find. What scares me is that I can often go to Google and find the data I want (or at least a link to a secure server with the data).

      google.gov may seem silly to those in the private sector... but if Google did index private government and military sites, and allowed access only to authorized individuals, I wouldn't complain. Heck, I'd be happy at my new efficiency.

      • Re:You joke, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by generic-man ( 33649 ) * on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:29AM (#13746511) Homepage Journal
        Couldn't the various agencies get Google Search Appliances [google.com] and then enable searching across all their various networks?

        (Google would be done faster than the government anyway, even after Google's mandatory 6-year beta period.)

        • Re:You joke, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:37AM (#13746541) Homepage
          Do Google's search algorithms make sense for an intranet in which you probably don't have quite the diversity of link counts? On the web, you have pages which have massive in-links and pages which have extremely few, but on an intranet, is that a reliably available and reasonable indicator of authority?

          • Re:You joke, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Kiaser Wilhelm II ( 902309 ) <slashpanada@gmail.com> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @12:02PM (#13746646) Journal
            I dont know how the search appliances work differently than Google.com, but what I do know is that they work damned well at our company for indexing informration just like Google.com does for the whole net.

            If Google is marketing these appliances at various sized companies, then I would imagine they would have taken the time to make the algorithims appropriate for the target audience.

          • Do Google's search algorithms make sense for an intranet in which you probably don't have quite the diversity of link counts?

            You sort-of have a point, and one that would probably be particularly thorny for the military. To get PageRank working on the mass of documents like training manuals, you'd also have to have every trivial communication spidered. All email and orders, regardless of classification.

            Are the guys at Google smart enough to build a system that can work with classified and non-classi

          • On the web, you have pages which have massive in-links and pages which have extremely few, but on an intranet, is that a reliably available and reasonable indicator of authority?

            On the other hand, on a corporate intranet the type of search performed, the dataset one is searching, and the searcher's behaviour and motivations are different creatures. Off the top of my head, those should all improve the performance of a search appliance.

            On a corporate intranet one doesn't have to deal with millions of sp

    • Quick Question (Score:5, Funny)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @12:08PM (#13746667) Homepage
      Does he get to lobby for whatever he wants one day a week?

  • Good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe they can get some of the outdated and impractical copyright laws changed. I imagine they've probably got enough dirt on every member of Congress to get things done.

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nametaken ( 610866 )
      Maybe they can get some of the outdated and impractical copyright laws changed. I imagine they've probably got enough dirt on every member of Congress to get things done.

      That's what we pray for, because "In Google we trust".

      But honestly, when's the last time you heard of a major corporation actively and intentionally influencing American politics for the direct benefit of consumers?

      Google always has been, and always will be, looking out for themselves first. The only question now is whether or not they'll
      • While capitalism is predisposed to breaking down into monopoly states, sometimes it works. If Google works to break Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop, lobbies for fair use rights to index and playback arbitrary content, fights the kinds of software patents that have been weilded against it, Google could both do a lot of good while looking out for its own self-interest.

        One of the nice things about the 'net is that nobody has figured out a way to get a solid monopoly lock. People aren't tied to your hardw
        • You may very well be right. However, the scenario you're talking about where Google helps us because they're helping themselves is what prompted me to write this sentence the way I did:

          actively and intentionally influencing American politics for the direct benefit of consumers

          It worries me, because what Google wants this week might benefit me (if even by accident), but what if what Google wants next week hurts me? Quite suddenly they go from heros to just another hyper-mega-globocorp stomping all over my

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:36AM (#13746322)
    Google googles google. Google is not just a search engine. Google features many excellent services such as Google Mail, Google Froogol, Google Maps, Google Woogle, Google Choogle and Google McNoogle. Google is implementing a new alternative to Paypal. Google is building their own internet to replace the existing one. Google is releasing a new office suite. Google is releasing their own brand of Linux. Googley woogley woo!

  • They'll be lonely (Score:4, Interesting)

    by republican gourd ( 879711 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:36AM (#13746327)
    A progressive company with fairly reasonable takes on copyright and employment that isn't going to be lobbying from a position of entitlement-because-we've-always-made-money-the-sa me-way? They'll be so lonely... Nobody will want to get drunk on the steps of the Capitol with them except the Kennedy's.
    • Its pretty easy to have a 'fairly reasonable take' on copyright when its not your creations or works you are applying that take to.
      • Its pretty easy to have a 'fairly reasonable take' on copyright when its not your creations or works you are applying that take to.

        It is also easy to have a 'fairly reasonable take' on copyright when it is your 'creations or works' to which you're applying it.

        Many people do. I do. Many makers of music do, as do many writers, makers of video, etc.

        Are you asserting that you don't have a fairly reasonable take on copyright, because of something in particular?

        Just asking.

      • It seems that it's also fairly easy to not have a 'fairly reasonable take' on copyright when its not your creations or works you are applying that take to. *cough* Walt Disney Company *cough*
    • > Nobody will want to get drunk on the steps of the Capitol with them except the Kennedy's.

      On the contrary, quite a few people will want to. For the same reason Orren Boyle got drunk with Wesley Mouch.

  • Quite frankly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twiztidlojik ( 522383 ) <dapplemac@m[ ]com ['ac.' in gap]> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:37AM (#13746329) Homepage
    Quite frankly, I'm surprised a company with that kind of revenue stream DIDN'T have a lobbyist in washington.

  • I'm confused...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZiakII ( 829432 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:38AM (#13746335)
    So this week is google good or evil.... I can never keep up.....

  • You used to be cool, Google. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BillyBlaze ( 746775 ) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:48AM (#13746374)
    Before everyone can complain about Slashdot's irrational love for Google, let me make it known that it's coming to an end, at least for me. My biggest complaint about Microsoft hasn't really been so much about poor software that doesn't obey standards, or horrible market practices, but that they're actively spending huge amounts of money to influence the Government of my country in ways that directly benefit them, at my expense. It's a sad fact that money has a huge influence on government, and that Bill Gates has more influence on government that probably thousands of regular voters combined. Google used to be above all this, but if they're not?

    Granted they haven't done anything yet. But simply by buying governments, they make it so that in order not to be evil, their politics have to agree with mine, which means they won't agree with someone else. And why would they agree with me? Hiring lobyists is clearly the kind of thing they had to do to placate shareholders, who only care about money and would see nothing wrong if Google elected a president to do nothing but take money from poor people and give it to Google. It seems like because of this effect, it's really hard for a publicly traded company to stay "Non-Evil" (tm) for long.

    • It's a sad fact that money has a huge influence on government... Google used to be above all this, but if they're not?

      AFAIK, Google has always been about understanding how people work...

    • Re:You used to be cool, Google. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peet42 ( 904274 ) <Peet42 AT Netscape DOT net> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:18AM (#13746480)
      Hold that thought...

      But remember, it's also possible that Google will lobby to have unworkable copyright/intellectual property laws revoked, break up the teleco's stranglehold over cheap bandwidth, prevent the movie industry from dictating what you do with the DVD player you just bought or a myriad of other things that the US Gov't currently votes on without being particularly well-informed on the subject.

      Me, I'll wait and see what happens before I start complaining. :)
      • Keeping in mind, of course, that they already have a rather significant patent on PageRank...
      • It does not really matter what a company lobbies for , It's the fact that the company is using money to pervert the democratic process .
        Representatives are meant to represent their constituents wishes , lobbying perverts this process . If a company wants to change some part of the law they should use that money to persuade the people .

        MR Lobby :"Mr Representative sir , I believe that proposition 101 is not in the best interests of our country"
        MR Representative " Oh is that so , I think it's rather good for
      • But remember, it's also possible that Google will lobby to have unworkable copyright/intellectual property laws revoked, break up the teleco's stranglehold over cheap bandwidth, prevent the movie industry from dictating what you do with the DVD player you just bought or a myriad of other things that the US Gov't currently votes on without being particularly well-informed on the subject.

        Right after they finish hand-delivering blankets to the poor, and stopping off to help an old lady across the street...

        Goog
    • My biggest complaint about Microsoft hasn't really been so much about poor software that doesn't obey standards, or horrible market practices, but that they're actively spending huge amounts of money to influence the Government...

      Maybe you should be in politics instead of IT since you're not bothered by how M$ hurts IT but you have issue with how many industries participate in government?

      • Perhaps I ought to clarify that a bit. It's not that I don't mind shoddy software (I despise it), it's that I respect the right of an organization to write shoddy software. It shouldn't be illegal. I do not, however, respect the right of corporations to directly influence the democratic process. (Business practices are kind of a grey area - on the one hand, that's the breaks, on the other, at least some regulation is necessary.)
    • Companies, by definition, exist if they make money. As they get larger, and loose their monopoly posistion(derived eithr from patents or superior technology that is hard to copy) and become more subject to market and regulatory forces, all companies that start good become just another company; that is, it is easier to make money by buying some congressman then by coming up with new products. IT is easier to dump toxic waste into the river in the third world then act responsibly; these things just happen
      Its

    • Re:You used to be cool, Google. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @12:28PM (#13746751)
      but that they're actively spending huge amounts of money to influence the Government of my country in ways that directly benefit them

      Does it every occur to you that Microsoft is thousands of people and millions of investors? Grandmothers, pension funds, yuppies, and plenty of Google and Novel investors also own their piece of MS. MS is people, just like Google is, GM is, and the mom and pop coffee shop down the street is. Why on earth would a company that has so much at stake, with hundreds of millions of customers around the world, not want to look out for itself within the context of how the government that's regulating the economy frames things? I wouldn't want to invest in, or base my business operations around products built/serviced by a company that doesn't care what the business climate looks like, or is willing to be steamrolled by the noisiest person that doesn't like them.

      Hiring lobyists is clearly the kind of thing they had to do to placate shareholders, who only care about money and would see nothing wrong if Google elected a president to do nothing but take money from poor people and give it to Google.

      "Clearly?" Is that really, really clear to you? And out of curiosity, how does a president go about taking money from poor people? Does he have pictures of all of the congressional reps and senators with goats or something? The president can't take money from anybody. He can't write tax law, he can't appropriate money. The only thing he can, within narrow bounds, direct cabinet officials to work within the framework established by congress to spend, or not spend as much, on certain domestic things. Not putting as much money into some specialized entitlement give-away is not the same as taking money "from" poor people.

      Regardless: our current form of government would be pointless without a functioning economy. The economy completely depends upon employment and productivity. Those companies (like Google) that have a major role to play in productivity can and should make sure that they're heard by people who are working on laws and regulations that impact how they, their employees, their users, and industry do what they do. It's not "buying" government to make yourself heard or to make sure that people with a rational clue about what you do are responsible for the legal framework within which it's done. Doing nothing about it - the opposite of the employees and owners/investors in a company "buying" that voice - is the positve act of giving away that voice to someone else. You know, like to someone who thinks the internet is nothing but a porn vehicle and should be shut down, etc. Would you rather than Google stay at arm's length from politics and give up ground to crazies? I wouldn't.
      • Why on earth would a company that has so much at stake, with hundreds of millions of customers around the world, not want to look out for itself within the context of how the government that's regulating the economy frames things?

        Obviously a company should and does care about those things. But that does not mean the corporation (as a group) should be allowed to directly influence the democratic process. The employees can vote in the interest of the company, and if these votes aren't enough, the company

    • It's a sad fact that money has a huge influence on government, and that Bill Gates has more influence on government that probably thousands of regular voters combined. Google used to be above all this, but if they're not?

      Microsoft used to above this. They had ZERO political cachet - they didn't believe in lobbying, period. Then Sun Microsystems, AOL, Oracle, Netscape and a few others funded by the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital firm decided that it'd be a fun thing to make huge lobbyin
    • Democracy doesn't end when you cast your vote, it begins. Voting for a candidate only puts a person in power who is likely to agree with your views...you still have to interact with them and convince them to actually enact laws and regulations to codify and protect your views. That process is what lobbyists are professionals at.

      If I got arrested I would get a lawyer--a reactive approach to professional legal respresentation. Lobbying is a proactive approach to professional legal representation--to help make
  • Hah! Microsoft will follow suit. I am sure Ballmer will be packing his bags soon.

    Question is:

    How can I have a share on this?

  • Opening an office != Hiring a lobbyist (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2005 @10:58AM (#13746416)
    The article title is misleading. Google has had lobbyists on tap in Washington for quite awhile. Google is is also a member of trade groups (e.g. - NetCoalition) which do a substantial amount of lobbying on behalf of the search/tech/ad/etc industries. They're opening an actual government relations office now - a big step up from hiring a few lobbyists who split their time with other clients.

    Senate lobbying disclosures here [senate.gov].
    House lobbying disclosures here [house.gov].

  • Google Blog Link and Content (Score:5, Informative)

    by lababidi ( 879163 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:01AM (#13746432) Journal
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/google-goes -to-washington.html [blogspot.com]
    Google goes to Washington

    10/06/2005 07:09:00 AM
    Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, Senior Policy Counsel

    It seems that policymaking and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C. affect Google and our users more every day. It's important to be involved - to participate in the policy process and contribute to the debates that inform it. So we've opened up a shop there. The first member of our Washington team is Alan Davidson, a veteran thinker and advocate for issues we care about.

    Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication and innovation. OK, that sounds a little high and mighty, so let me break it down into something a bit wonkier with a sampling of the U.S. policy issues we're working on:

    Net neutrality. As voice, video, and data rapidly converge, Congress is rewriting U.S. telecommunications laws and deregulating broadband connectivity, which is largely a good thing. But in a country where most citizens have only one or two viable broadband options, there are real dangers for the Internet: Should network operators be able to block their customers from reaching competing websites and services (such as Internet voice calls and video-on-demand)? Should they be able to speed up their own sites and services, while degrading those offered by competitors? Should an innovator with a new online service or application be forced to get permission from each broadband cable and DSL provider before rolling it out? Or, if that's not blunt enough for you, what's better: [a] Centralized control by network operators, or [b] free user choice on the decentralized, open, and astoundingly successful end-to-end Internet? (Hint: It's not [a].)

    Copyrights and fair use. Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong, viable fair use rights in this new digital age. We support efforts by the U.S. Copyright Office to facilitate the use of orphan works (works whose rights-holders can't be found), while fully respecting the interests of creators. We applauded the Supreme Court's carefully calibrated decision in the Grokster case, but worked to defeat legislation that would have created new forms of liability for neutral technologies and services like Google.

    Intermediary liability. As a search engine, Google crawls the Internet, gathering information everywhere we can find it. We're a neutral tool that allows users to find information posted by others - like a continuously updated table of contents for the Internet. Not surprisingly, we don't believe the Internet works well if intermediaries and ISPs are held liable for things created by others but made searchable through us. That's why Google will continue to oppose efforts to force us to block or limit lawful speech; instead, we focus on providing users the information, tools, and features (such as SafeSearch) they need to protect themselves online.

    This is just a taste. We're also engaged in policy debates over privacy and spyware, trademark dilution, patent law reform, voice-over-Internet-protocol (VOIP) regulation, and more. The Internet policy world is fluid, so our priorities will surely morph over time. And, of course, Google is a global company. In a future post, we'll introduce you to some of the policy issues we're confronting outside the U.S.

    • I can't think of any company blogging about their lobbying efforts.

      With so many people watching Google's every move, this could introduce a lot of people to issues most /.'ers care about.

      This could have quite an interesting impact. I pity the elected officials that side with vested interests and go against popular company arguing for sane policies supported by most of their informed constituents.

      If Google stays open about its efforts, it could get far more bang for the buck.

  • Where did this text come from? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:03AM (#13746442)
    "Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."

    I can't find it in TFA so was it included by the DIY News or CowboyNeal?

    Anyway, does the author mean to say Google would rather not be protected by the Washington government of the day?

    Personally I find commercial interests should be banned to get involved in politics at any level, in a democracy they don't have voting rights so it's none of their business.

  • brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)

    by scooviduvoctagon ( 801935 )
    "Google sees a presence in Washington as a necessity as government becomes more involved in the Net's development." So.... google goes and lobbies to further involve the government in the Net's development - thereby lending even more weight and leverage to the very phenomena that caused them to hire some weasel out of washington in the first place - brilliant. Don't feed the Government. It only encourages them.

  • Not Making Microsoft's Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by donnacha ( 161610 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:12AM (#13746466) Homepage
    One of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made was not realizing early enough that they needed to pump a substantial slice of their pie to DC. If they had had an astute lobbyist on the ground, making "campaign contributions" to both sides, there never would have been a government investigation, they wouldn't have lost momentum through having their attention diverted and their public image wouldn't have taken quite such a beating - who will ever forget the belligerent attitude of Gates' deposition, who could have failed to smile at the embarrassing memos that were trawled up?

    As a side note for non-US citizens: in America corruption has been legalized in the form of campaign contributions. To get elected, politicians must spend vast sums of money on TV advertising. The airwaves that get TV to the masses nominally belong to "the people" but are sold off to major corporations such as GE for a pittance. The corportations then create programming that desperately pursues a mass audience (i.e. quality is not enough, as in the case of Firefly, cancelled before even finishing it's 1st season). The corporations then sell that mass audience back to the politicians in the form of short adverts. The adverts are extremely expensive but the experience of the past half century has consistently shown that the frequency of adverts has a vital role in winning office.

    This is great for the corporations because, far more importantly than the revenue that they earn from this exploding advertising spend, it means that no politician has a realistic chance of getting into power unless he is getting lots of corporate campaign contributions (corporate contributions dwarf personal) and, therefore, no representative of the people will ever be able to truly work in the people's interests. Both of the main American parties are equally dependent on this system and, therefore, the only real differences that can exist between them are presentational.

    The problem with Microsoft was that they got big so quickly that they didn't have time to take the hint and assume their role in this particular circle of corruption. One of the first things they did when the Clinton administration turned on them was to hire the most expensive lobbyists they could find and start spraying contributions in all directions., guaranteeing that next adminstration, Republican or Democrat, would step down the legal attack.

    Google is making sure that they don't make the same mistake.

  • Money (Score:2, Funny)

    by PGC ( 880972 )
    Buy your congressman today !

  • Wth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:29AM (#13746512)
    "Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."

    Says who, and why?

    It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.
  • Not a huge deal people... Yes, lobbyists can be bad... I don't know who is looked up to more... pimps, used car salesmen, crack dealers, or lobbyists... ... but... eff also has lobbyists, there has to be some linux centered lobbyists around d.c... it is a sad fact that money buys power and our congress is cheap.. I am surprised though it took this long to get google to have a three person office inside the beltway...

    I just hope they can stop some of the insane things that other lobbyist try to put through.. like flags on digital tv content... bad congresscritter bad... sit in a corner in timeout for two minutes.
    • The real vote in democracy is a stock purchase, and Google now has more votes than Microsoft. Google wants open standards, universal and free net access, and to make the operating system layer transparent. For those reasons, they have my vote. If they turn evil, then I'll "vote" for the next tech company that reflects values I agree with.

  • The Advent Of Liberation Of Knowledge Is Nigh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mercedo ( 822671 ) * on Saturday October 08, 2005 @11:54AM (#13746619) Homepage Journal
    This is a very good constructive initiative. The price of book in paper includes cost to bind a book, cost of paper, printing, and then loyalty of copyright. In the age of the Internet almost limitless proliferation of copyrighted materials can be done, the price of book should exclude other than loyalty of copyright. I hope the price of knowledge's going to be much cheaper than the price of book in paper. Welcome.

  • Our Great Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by malsdavis ( 542216 ) * on Saturday October 08, 2005 @01:03PM (#13746878)
    Ahh, great to see our great nation's "democratic" process at work. If only I was rich enough to afford my own lobbyist, then I could get that bit extra say in government also.

    Hang on that doesn't sound like the democracy they talked about in school!

  • Google already has an EU lobbyist (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FlorianMueller ( 801981 ) on Saturday October 08, 2005 @01:08PM (#13746905) Homepage
    In the build-up to the European Parliament's second-reading vote, a Google lobbyist also became active in Brussels (the de-facto capital of the EU). Patricia Moll previously worked for Microsoft as Government Affairs Manager. If you search for her name on Google in connection with Microsoft's name, you can still find various articles and other references.

    Since Google had not been involved in the earlier stages of the debate on that European software patent directive, they didn't want to publicly state their position on that controversial issue. However, Patricia was in close contact with the FFII, a non-governmental organization that opposes software patents, as well as some companies that were at least somewhat critical of software patents.

    It seems that Google mostly lobbied for a far-reaching interoperability privilege. That's important to them so they can, for instance, perform certain operations on PDF files as part of their search services. Some people said that Google was also critical of the idea to legalize software patents in Europe, and that may have been the case, but none of the MEPs who I asked was able to confirm that Google took a critical position on software patents (I didn't ask that question to many politicians, so the fact that no one confirmed it may not mean much).

  • Google has easily replaced Microsoft as the most powerful computer company in the world and we are now seeing them flex that power. There are two ways in a vacuum to look at this:
    1. Google is looking after the people by using their force for good and making sure the bad government and other corporations are kept in check.
    2. Google has moved to the dark side and are in bed with big government and big business.

    Of course we do not live in a vacuum and the reality is probably that Google really has to protect i
  • Google plans to hire Mr. GW Bush to influence the laws governing the entire US and its allies. Bourses reacted sharply with a steep increase in Google's share price. The other rumor is that google might also hire Mr.@#$&%&*, who currently is President of all Martian creatures.
    End of bulletin

  • Now how'd the U.N. sneak in here? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday October 08, 2005 @02:21PM (#13747153) Homepage
    The article summary has an odd little sentence suddenly announcing that one of the issues relevant to Google's lobbying is the U.S. "shielding" "companies" from "multilateralism". But the article doesn't mention the U.N. at all, or anything related to them or the EU or the DNS internationalization dispute, and while Google News has lots of stories about Google hiring this lobbyist, searches for "google U.N." or "google EU" turn up nothing whatsoever relevant. The only specific thing Google says in the linked article about their motivations in hiring this lobbyist:
    "Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong, viable fair use rights in this digital age," McLaughlin wrote.
    Looks like somebody was trying to use the slashdot front page as a soapbox for their belief that evil "multilateralism" is something U.S. companies need to be "shielded" from, and then subtly imply that Google agrees with them?

    Interesting, because it seems to me that the only thing the U.S. government is "shielding" from the international community is its own power. It also seems to me that if instead of demanding government control over the root servers and touching off this spat with the EU/UN, the Administration had just handed control of the DNS servers over to ICANN like it originally promised, U.S. companies would be the primary beneficiaries. ICANN is certainly an entity with problems, but right now it is nothing if not an industry body.
  • That Google isnt cool anymore? They are acting like any other mega-corporation.

    Or does it take something else to de-cool them?

  • Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net."

    You say this like it's a good thing....

    I think it's entirely reasonable for other countries to want to control their own top-level domains and know that the root server's won't suddenly "forget" them at the request of the Pentagon.

    The 3-letter domains should have been abandoned a long time ago, or at least placed below ".us" in the do

  • ./ robot (Score:2, Informative)

    by MHleads ( 751029 )
    Has ./ set a robot to post each blog entry of Google's official blog [blogspot.com] on Slashdot, albeit with a delay of 48 hrs?

    Here I give tomorrow's ./ headline - "Google launches Feed Reader"! No kiddin', visit reader.google.com
  • Among its efforts, the government has worked to shield private U.S. companies from demands by the United Nations and other countries for multilateral control of the Net.

    The rest of the world will have to make a new worldwide net to prevent one country from dominating it - interesting...

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close