Tag: Jim Hood

This Bud’s for You, ISIS?

On Monday, Google was granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit aimed to stop the investigation of the search giant by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.  Thanks in part to leaked information from the computer hacking of Sony Pictures late last year, Google has attempted in the court of public opinion to portray Hood’s investigation as a movie-industry-backed witch hunt, despite the fact that the scope of Hood’s investigation is neither unprecedented nor lists copyright infringement anywhere near the top of the AG’s concerns.

In fact, at the very top of that list is whether or not Google is complying with a legally-binding, non-prosecution settlement entered into with the federal government in 2011 regarding the company’s knowingly advertising against traffic driven by illegal pharmaceutical transactions.  Settled for a whopping half-billion dollars to keep executives from facing possible criminal charges in that case, the question of whether or not Google has been complying with the terms of the settlement (i.e. has stopped profiting from illegal pharmaceutical traffic) sounds to me like a matter that’s in the public interest; and this type of due-diligence by AG Hood is in no way unprecedented. This is not to say that copyright holders do not have an interest in Hood’s investigation given that copyright infringement by Google is part of the scope.

Of course, in the court of law (not public opinion), Google’s suit aimed at stopping Hood’s investigation is predicated on safe harbors provided for website owners in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In this post, I suggested that the over-broad application of safe harbors becomes a hyperextension of the “I didn’t know” defense, and is particularly bizarre when applied to companies that own technology designed specifically to know a great deal.  If the court finds that the AG’s investigation cannot move forward based on safe harbors in the 1996 law, this will further congeal both a legal and cultural bias that anything goes as long as it happens online.  That would certainly be a win for the major Internet companies, but in case after case, we see evidence as to why it would not be a win for the public.

By way of example of the world in which we now live, Silk Road founder and owner Ross Ulbricht was convicted in early February, though his defense was in part based on safe harbors in the the Communications Decency Act. But, do a Google search for “Silk Road” right now, and Item #3 will be a link to silkroaddrugs.org, which ostensibly provides guidance to new anonymous marketplaces for illegal narcotics.  In fact, the entire first page doesn’t even list one recent article reporting on the outcome of the case against Ulbricht.  Y’know, because the Internet is all about the most useful and most relevant information — that is if you go hunting for it behind whatever manipulated algorithmic logic a search company has decided to prioritize.

Note:  Silk Road’s market trafficked in illegal narcotics while Google’s settlement was regarding illegal transactions for prescription pharmaceuticals.

A story reported yesterday on CNN Money reveals a new perspective on the whole “Aw shucks, we didn’t know” defense by companies like Google — and it’s the B2B perspective.  Because when money comes into the equation between advertiser and media company, bullshit doesn’t work quite so well. Imagine you’re Anheuser-Busch, one of the most American of all brands, the company whose iconic Budweiser Clydesdales were filmed standing in Liberty State Park bowing their heads at the empty patch of Manhattan skyline where the Twin Towers once stood.  Now, imagine your brand is being advertised on YouTube against ISIS recruiting videos.  Do you see a problem?  Set aside public opinion and the courts for a moment, because when major advertisers say, “You better be able to control where our ads appear,” Google will suddenly find it within its power to know far more than it often pretends it can know.  The CNN article quotes a Google spokesperson thus:  “We also have stringent advertising guidelines, and work to prevent ads appearing against any video, channel or page once we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partner.”  And that’s great, but then if Google can actually achieve this goal, can the company not reasonably know other things, like whether or not it is engaged in any of the illegal activities being investigated by an attorney general?

Orlowski Details Google’s Silencing Miss. AG

As a follow-up to my last post about Google churning the Sony hack into SOPA suds, I wanted to call attention to this detailed article by Andrew Orlowski in The Register.  In that last piece, I refrained from enumerating Google’s conflicts with the laws of several countries, including our own.  I am not an investigative journalist and don’t maintain a detailed diary of those accounts, though I certainly read about many of them.  I also refrained from speculation as to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s rationale for “taking a break” in his investigation since Google has filed suit against his office; but as Orlowski points out, we should not overlook the fact that the search giant is worth more than Hood’s entire state or that the suit itself looks like a neatly-coordinated PR move.

“The innuendo this time was clear: state AGs were colluding to “break the internet” all over again. It ignited the same persecution fantasy that had fuelled [sic] the SOPA protests (“Let’s get rid of this legislation so we can start enjoying culture again,” wrote one Berkman scholar during the anti-SOPA campaign, somehow implying he couldn’t play music, go to the theatre or watch a movie).

Then, after the stories had circulated, quite coincidentally Google dug into its pockets and launched a highly unusual lawsuit against the attorney general of America’s poorest state.”

Most importantly, Orlowski emphasizes that Hood’s interest in Google hardly begins or ends with the company’s role in copyright infringement of properties belonging to Hollywood studios.

“What Hood wants to know is how Google is complying with a legally-binding settlement. And he’s curious to know whether advertisers are being skimmed – as whistleblowers have long alleged. This is certainly of interest to small businesses, typically “mom and pop” shops, that use Google’s Adsense. That’s the only area where one can argue Hood “opens up a new front” against Google – and he’s seeking more than compliance. And, given the economic interests of poor Missippians and the fact the USA is reluctant to apply fraud or consumer protection laws against Google, it’s hard to see why he shouldn’t.”

If anything, the copyright holders’ interests are among the lower priority concerns for authorities that have been investigating Google, appropriately taking a back seat to fraud, illegal drug trafficking, and human trafficking.

“Have a look how, and where, copyright figures in his 79-page Google subpoena. Just three press releases, none of which relate to copyright infringements, are on the Mississippi website. It’s the very last item on the list. It’s a sub point.”

And in case you don’t read the article, I have to quote Orlowski’s summation in which he makes the most important point:

“My puzzle is, why do intelligent progressives unthinkingly sign up to this agenda? The consequences of Google’s success in silencing Jim Hood are that corporate power cannot be restricted by one of democracy’s main mechanisms for reining it in. Google and Facebook are increasingly resembling “suprastates” to whom national – and perhaps international – law doesn’t apply. But if you think that replacing laws with a free-for-all leads to anything other than the strong crushing the weak, then I have a bridge to sell you.”

See Andrew Orlowski’s full article here.