[bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
Jeremy Malcolm
jmalcolm at eff.org
Mon Jul 17 13:25:25 EDT 2017
I am not going to reopen this discussion but Parminder you were on one
side of it, and there is another side which has a very different
perspective. I have written a paper which revisits this and gives both
sides. Here is the link to the preprint:
http://www.malcolm.id.au/owncloud/s/l1khaU4JGiPRnXR
Don't worry the paper is very neutral and even-handed (compared to some
of our earlier, more heated debates).
On 17/7/17 2:44 am, parminder wrote:
>
> Thanks James, you are very clear, and indeed I agree.
>
> These are clear and specific requirements of academic and civil
> society transparency, which should be upheld by all
>
> Alas though some participating groups asked for the same in the
> initial years of this bestbits coalition, in terms of those
> organisations that become key steer-ers of this global coalition. The
> involved major groups refused to divulge their funding (like as you
> mention, with an end of year annual reporting and such), and the
> people/ groups who had asked for accountability were kind of pushed
> off the group. One of them was a listed founding member of bestbits
> who asked to be removed from the list of founders as a consequence of
> this disagreement. Sorry, I digress here perhaps. But then just saying
> that, unfortunately, this civil society coalition itself does not pass
> the criterion of "transparency" that you rightly frame.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Monday 17 July 2017 01:40 PM, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a
>> requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil
>> society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that
>> that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in
>> the acknowledgements of the paper/research).
>>
>>
>>
>> For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990 at
>> the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources of
>> indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations donor
>> page is a great example
>> http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/
>> <http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/>, now an argument
>> might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic,
>> maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small
>> project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly
>> don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their
>> funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of reporting
>> it leading to situations like we have now.
>>
>>
>>
>> If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me
>> in the right direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 05:51
>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>; Renata Avila
>> <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>; Jeremy Malcolm
>> <jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same
>> league as big oil and big tobacco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency.
>>
>>
>> Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we
>> actually begin to talk what that means.
>>
>> So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that
>> you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their
>> funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is
>> counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that
>> discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very
>> group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to
>> hearing your response.
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org]
>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00
>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>
>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>; Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in
>> same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>
>>
>>
>> I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of
>> ICANN mission.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic
>> research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our
>> work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict
>> accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful
>> companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense,
>> health, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> We need more and better accountability and also make visible how
>> big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby,
>> research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the
>> experience from other sector, like public health and the environment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy to continue the dialogue off list.
>>
>>
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> Renata Avila
>>
>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>
>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>
>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon
>> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>
>> No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct
>> research in an independent manner, that we need to stop
>> looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t
>> sully those academics who are working on critical areas of
>> research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’
>> by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk
>> around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they
>> write or talk they give or opinion they express.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>]
>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31
>>
>>
>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>; Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in
>> same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there is more:
>>
>>
>>
>> The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will
>> total more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The
>> multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how
>> these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based
>> drafting team is currently working on a charter for a
>> Cross-Community Working Group that will create
>> recommendations for Board consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en
>>
>>
>>
>> My point:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research
>> in poor countries.
>>
>> - If not google, it is Facebook.
>>
>> - That harms legitimacy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves.
>>
>>
>>
>> What if we advocate for those funds to *support public
>> interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of
>> Google (or other companies) funding research.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it clear now?
>>
>>
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> Renata Avila
>>
>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>
>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>
>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon
>> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>
>> The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running
>> in the event of financial distress and is not subject to
>> any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it
>> would still be bound by ICANNs mission.
>>
>> Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion
>> at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Renata Avila
>> [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>]
>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19
>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>; Jeremy Malcolm
>> <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts
>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>
>>
>>
>> Its reserve fund.
>>
>>
>>
>> It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas...
>>
>>
>>
>> Figures in USD (millions) Page 9.
>>
>>
>>
>> Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>> Renata Avila
>>
>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>
>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>
>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon
>> <james at cyberinvasion.net
>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money,
>> ICANN does some very limited funding of research but
>> doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and
>> there is very little research that is within ICANNs
>> mission anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Renata Avila
>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05
>> *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts
>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>
>>
>>
>> I second Renata.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a
>> funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It
>> will be great to have a larger pool of funds
>> supporting our efforts, which are becoming more
>> mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years
>> (especially for developing countries). The production
>> of research is extremely concentrated and, as
>> austerity is rampant all over the World, State
>> funding to research is shrinking by the day even for
>> developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion
>> (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this
>> area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/)
>>
>>
>>
>> And in small countries, priorities of both
>> governments and private sector to support research
>> support traditional areas, such as health or
>> education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting
>> local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in
>> order to continue our work and efforts with
>> impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated
>> effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways
>> towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of
>> Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants
>> like Facebook or Google, is valid now.
>>
>>
>>
>> What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to
>> fund all global and local advocacy and at least part
>> of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding
>> for advocacy and more pressure on governments for
>> research?
>>
>>
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Renata Avila
>>
>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>
>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>
>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter:
>> @webfoundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino
>> Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> Unless they are transparent about it and clear
>> about it not interfering with their research ethics.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the public education system in developing
>> countries it is quite common to see funding being
>> misused. Researchers who get money from
>> international organizations, even some national
>> ones, using public universities to advance an
>> agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an
>> astroturfing exercise.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is why access and production of knowledge
>> needs to be always transparent and public.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately most of internet policy has not
>> waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will.
>>
>>
>>
>> Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm"
>> <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>> escreveu:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170717/fca5aedc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list