[bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco

Sun Jul 16 09:01:12 EDT 2017

On Friday 14 July 2017 03:11 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> The CFA is also not as transparent as it urges everyone else to be, it
> has refused to say who funds it in the past, has no details of who
> funds it on its website, either - though Oracle confirmed at one point
> it was one of its funders.

It is certainly very odd that CfA (Campaign for Accountability) with the
name and mandate it has, and which alleges Google funds academics but
hides that information, while using the outcome research for its private
purposes, itself refuses to divulge its donors.. I find it unacceptable.
In fact I wrote to them questioning them on this strange policy and 
asking to let us know their list of donors. They responded, quite
promptly, that they do not divulge their donors and "their work speaks
for itself". I will presently forward our exchange to this elist.

Meanwhile, we still do need to take the information that CfA divulges
very seriously, for the implication it has for our sector. The
information shows how their funding peaked when they were caught in
regulatory problems. And of course we know from our own experience how
google has gone around the world setting up Internet policy centres,
supporting existing ones, and placing google policy fellows. It is never
black and white. It depends on the total impact that a corporation is
able to control in an area of its private interest. It depends on the
extent to which it is into legal/ regulatory trouble, and can be
considered as an offender in this respect, and such things. On all these
counts, IMHO, Google has crossed the redline, big time and long ago, and
we need to assess its funding of this sector, both civil society and
academic. This must be discussed in these spaces.

Google participates, indeed leads, many government transparency
projects... That should also mean that they should themselves be
transparent in what is supposed to be their public interest work Unless
their academic and CS funding is not public interest but private
interest work, which in that case is ipso facto problematic. We should
be able to get up and ask this obvious question in numerous panels that
we - as in civil society - sits alongside Google.

I do, however, feel that the broad brush that the report applies to
indiscriminately name academics that may at any time may have accepted
google funds for some projects is problematic, and should have been
avoided. But that does not serve to excuse those cases, which is a very
huge number, where it seems that funds were directly accepted in areas
in which google in involved in regularly trouble - current or possible
future ones, and often such funding was not disclosed.

As we accept that such reports should not take extreme black and white
approach to condemn all kinds of corporate funding, similarly we as
civil society groups, eager to watch out to protect public interest,
cannot take a similar blanket view that everything is well with google
and other cooperate funding.

parminder

>
>
>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>> But here's an article putting the other side of the story:
>>
>> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635
>>
>> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too.  Does that mean that
>> whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the
>> few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF
>> fellow?
>>
>> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>         Google has spent millions funding academic research in the
>>>         US and Europe
>>>         <https://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news> to try to
>>>         influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has
>>>         claimed.
>>>
>>>         Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that
>>>         appear to support the technology company’s business
>>>         interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as
>>>         antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for
>>>         Accountability (CfA) said in a report
>>>         <https://campaignforaccountability.org/new-report-reveals-googles-extensive-financial-support-for-academia/>.
>>>
>>>         “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to
>>>         influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens,
>>>         CfA executive director.
>>>
>>>         ................
>>>
>>>         Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half
>>>         of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly
>>>         by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said.
>>>         Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000
>>>         (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of
>>>         their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases
>>>         directly funded by Google, according to the report.
>>>
>>>         ...........
>>>
>>>         “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably
>>>         points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead
>>>         of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of
>>>         academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as
>>>         big oil and big tobacco
>>>         <https://www.theguardian.com/world/series/tobacco-a-deadly-business>.”
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion
>>>
>>> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for
>>> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means
>>> that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or
>>> benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in
>>> violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google
>>> funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read,
>>> Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously
>>> compromising public interest.
>>>
>>> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic
>>> love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big
>>> oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main
>>> energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain
>>> they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs
>>> academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to
>>> undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them.
>>> It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170716/f77d6ceb/attachment.htm>