Jump to content

Criticism of Google

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by W163 (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 18 October 2011 (→‎Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust: add new sub-section on Alternatives to Google and monopoly power, with references, as part of the anti-trust section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main article: Google

Criticism of Google includes possible misuse and manipulation of search results, its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy, possible censorship of search results and content, and the energy consumption of its servers as well as concerns over traditional business issues such as antitrust, monopoly, and restraint of trade.

Google Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies. Google hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products,[1] and generates profit primarily from advertising through its AdWords program.[2][3] Google's stated mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful,"[4] but this mission, and the means used to accomplish it, have raised concerns among the company's critics. Much of the criticism pertains to issues that have not yet been addressed by cyber law.

Page Rank

Main article: PageRank

Possible misuse of search results

It has been argued that if your search is not found on Google it does not exist. Many people only look at the first few pages of Google search results. A group of Austrian researchers has observed a tendency to misuse the Google engine as a "reality interface". Ordinary users as well as journalists tend to rely on the first pages of Google search, assuming that everything not listed there is either not important or merely does not exist. The researchers say that "Google has become the main interface for our whole reality. To be precise: With the Google interface the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools".[5]

Danger of page rank manipulation

See also: Google bombing and Search neutrality

The page ranking algorithm of Google can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search engine could be subjected to manipulation, Google Watch implemented a Google bomb by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by The New York Times, which later printed a correction.[6][7]

A group of Austrian researchers warns that page rank can be influenced by individual views of the Google staff: "it became clear that not only mathematical algorithms and software, but also human brains in the Google headquarters will edit information processed by Google and decide what will go online and in which form."[5]

Page ranking related lawsuits

In 2006, the parental advice Internet site Kinderstart.com sued Google for setting its Page rank to zero, claiming that the reset caused the site to lose 70 percent of its audience.[8] In this lawsuit, it was stated, that "Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized".[9] Kinderstart claimed that they were penalized for being a Google competitor (setting up the search engine). Kinderstart has formally lost the process (while their rank seems no longer zero). Google Incorporated claims that allowing one to win such process would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other penalized sites to protest as well.

Numerous companies and individuals, for example, MyTriggers.com[10] and outspoken, controversial transport tycoon Sir Brian Souter[11] have voiced concerns regarding the fairness of Google's PageRank and search results after their web sites disappeared from Google's first-page results. In the case of MyTriggers.com, the Ohio-based shopping comparison search site accused Google of favoring its own services in search results (although the judge eventually ruled that the site failed to show harm to other similar businesses). Souter accused Google of censoring his personal website, www.BrianSouter.com.

Copyright issues

Google Print, Books, and Library

Main article: Google Books

Google's ambitious plans to scan millions of books and make them readable through its search engine have been criticized for copyright violations.[12] Also, the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers and the Association of American University Presses have both issued statements strongly opposing Google Print, stating that "Google, an enormously successful company, claims a sweeping right to appropriate the property of others for its own commercial use unless it is told, case by case and instance by instance, not to."[13]

On September 20, 2005, the Authors Guild, a group that represents 8,000 U.S. authors, filed a class action suit in federal court in Manhattan against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books through its Google Library program. Google states that it is in compliance with all existing and historical applications of copyright laws regarding books.[14] The publicized contract between Google and the University of Michigan makes it clear that Google will provide only excerpts of copyright text in a search. The contract says[15] that it will comply with "fair use", an exemption in copyright law that allows people to reproduce portions of text of copyrighted material.

Cached data

Kazaa and the Church of Scientology have used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that Google remove references to allegedly copyrighted material on their sites.[16][17] While Google potentially faces lawsuits when not removing such links,[18] critics argue that Google has an obligation to direct users to intended content and not censor results based on copyright.

The New York Times has complained that the caching of their content during a web crawl, a feature utilized by search engines including Google Web Search, violates copyright.[19] Google observes Internet standard mechanisms for requesting that caching be disabled via the robots.txt file, which is another mechanism that allows operators of a website to request that part or all of their site not be included in search engine results, or via META tags, which allow a content editor to specify whether a document can be crawled or archived, or whether the links on the document can be followed. The U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under American law in Field v. Google and Parker v. Google.[20][21]

YouTube and Viacom

Main articles: YouTube and Criticism of YouTube

On July 14, 2008, Viacom compromised to protect YouTube users' personal data in their $1 billion copyright lawsuit. Google agreed it will anonymize user information and internet protocol addresses from its YouTube subsidiary before handing the data over to Viacom. The privacy deal also applied to other litigants including the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein organization and the Scottish Premier League.[22][23] The deal however did not extend the anonymity to employees, because Viacom wishes to prove that Google staff are aware of the uploading of illegal material to the site. The parties therefore will further meet on the matter lest the data be made available to the court.[24]

Privacy

After privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, declared in December 2009: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."[25]

Privacy International has raised concerns regarding the dangers and privacy implications of having a centrally-located, widely popular data warehouse of millions of Internet users' searches, and how under controversial existing U.S. law, Google can be forced to hand over all such information to the U.S. government.[26]

In its 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.[27][26]

Carl Hewitt, Emeritus Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, noted that intimate personal information is a "toxic asset" in Google datacenters because it will lead to government regulation "analogous to medical and legal practitioners." Consequently, he recommended that Google should perform semantic integration in equipment controlled by a client so that client information in Google datacenters could be decrypted only by using a client's private key.[28][29]

Potential for data disclosure

In early 2005, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court to force Google to comply with a subpoena for, "the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a two-month period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query)."[30] Google fought the subpoena, due to concerns about users' privacy.[31] In March 2006, the court ruled partially in Google's favor, recognizing the privacy implications of turning over search terms and refusing to grant access.[32]

Cookies

Google originally placed a cookie on each registered user's computer, which can be used to track that person's search history, and that cookie was not set to expire until 2038.[33] As of 2007, Google's cookie now expires in two years but renews itself when a Google service is used.[33] There is no evidence that Google turns over information to the FBI or the NSA, though some users remain anxious about the possibility.[33] In response, Google claims cookies are necessary to maintain user preferences between sessions and offer other search features. Other popular search engines, such as Yahoo! Search and Microsoft's Bing, use cookies with distant expiration dates as well; an alternative set up by privacy advocates, Scroogle, does not.[citation needed]

Gmail

Main articles: Gmail and Criticism of Gmail

Steve Ballmer (Microsoft's CEO),[34] Liz Figueroa,[35] Mark Rasch,[36] and the editors of Google Watch[37] believe the processing of email message content by Google's Gmail service goes beyond proper use. Google Inc. claims that mail sent to or from Gmail is never read by a human being beyond the account holder, and is only used to improve relevance of advertisements.[38] Whether Google is the only email provider that reviews the contents of users' mail, or simply the only one that publicly admits it is unknown. The privacy policies of other popular email services, like Hotmail and Yahoo, allow users' personal information to be collected and utilized for advertising purposes, but do not specify precisely what information and which services.[39][40]

Street View

Main articles: Google Street View and Google Street View privacy concerns

Google's online map service, "Street View" has been accused of taking pictures and coming too close inside people's private homes and/or people who walk down the street not knowing they are being watched on Google's service.[41][42] Aaron and Christine Boring, a Pittsburgh couple, sued Google for "invasion of privacy". They claimed that Street View made a photo of their home available online, and it diminished the value of their house, which was purchased for its privacy.[43] They lost their case in a Pennsylvania court. "While it is easy to imagine that many whose property appears on Google's virtual maps resent the privacy implications, it is hard to believe that any – other than the most exquisitely sensitive – would suffer shame or humiliation," Judge Hay ruled; the Boring family was paid one dollar by Google for the incident.[44] So far Germany has not allowed Street View but Google has images from Panoramio (which is owned by Google) available in Street View. In the Czech Republic Street View has been disallowed to take pictures of new locations since 2010 by the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection after more than 5 months of unsuccessful negotiation between the Czech Republic and Google. The Office described Google’s program as taking pictures “beyond the extent of the ordinary sight from a street”, and claimed that it “disproportionately invaded citizens’ privacy.”[45][46] Google’s Street View cars even faced vandalism on Channel island Guernsey.[47] Google Maps also censor certain international entities such as bodies of waters, usually due to political pressures. One such omission is Google's refusal to name "Persian Gulf" in its maps when one looks at the map of the Asian continent, and its previous attempts to censor or hide this internationally recognized name with other locally unrecognized alternative versions.

Surveillance of WiFi networks

Google collected about 600 gigabytes of data from users of public WiFi stations (which are not owned by Google) during 2006–2010, including snippets of emails. No disclosures nor privacy policy was given to those affected, nor to the owners of the WiFi stations, in more than 30 countries. A Google representative claimed that they were not aware of their own data collection activities until an inquiry from German regulators was received, and that none of this data was used in Google's search engine or other services.
      "...set out to photograph neighborhoods around the world, Google equipped its vehicles with antenna as well as cameras so it could create a database with the names of Wi-Fi networks and the coding of Wi-Fi routers."
      A representative of Consumer Watchdog replied, "Once again, Google has demonstrated a lack of concern for privacy. Its computer engineers run amok, push the envelope and gather whatever data they can until their fingers are caught in the cookie jar." In a sign that legal penalties may result, Google said it will not destroy the data until permitted by regulators.[48][49]

Google Buzz

Main article: Google Buzz

On February 9, 2010 Google launched Google Buzz, Google's microblogging service. Anyone with a Gmail account is automatically added as a contact to pre-existing Gmail contacts, and must opt-out if they do not wish to participate.[50]

The launch of Google Buzz as an "opt-out" social network immediately drew criticism for violating user privacy because it automatically allowed Gmail users' contacts to view their other contacts.[51]

Privacy and data protection cases and issues by state

European Union

European Union (EU) data protection officials (the Article 29 working party who advise the EU on privacy policy) have written to Google asking the company to justify its policy of keeping information on individuals' internet searches for up to two years. The letter questioned whether Google has "fulfilled all the necessary requirements" on the EU laws concerning data protection.[52] The probe by the EU into the data protection issue, As of 24 May 2007 is continuing. On June 1 Google agreed that its privacy policy is vague, and that they are constantly working at making it clearer to users.[53] The resulting modifications to its privacy policies have been met with praise.[54]

Germany

Google refused to comply with a German demand to surrender data illegally collected from unsecured home wireless networks. Google said its cars collected 600 gigabytes of "fragmentary data" including fragments of e-mails, from unsecured wireless networks in 34 countries.[55]

In November 2010, vandals in Germany targeted houses that had opted out of Google's Street View.[56]

Italy

Google-Vividown: in February 2010, three Google executives were handed six-month suspended sentences for breach of the Italian Personal Data Protection Code.[57][58][59]

Norway

The Data Inspectorate of Norway (Norway is not a member of the EU) has investigated Google (and others) and has stated that the 18- to 24-month period for retaining data proposed by Google was too long.[60]

United States

A U.S. court ordered Google to hand over two copies of wireless data that the company's Street View program collected as it photographed neighborhoods.[61]

Censorship

Google has been criticized for various instances of censoring its search results, many times in compliance with the laws of various countries, most notably in China.

Web search

In the United States, Google commonly censors search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act-related legal complaints,[62] such as in 2002 when Google censored websites that provided information critical of Scientology.[63][64] Furthermore, in February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."[65] The policy was later changed.[66]

In the United Kingdom, it was reported that Google had 'delisted' Inquisition 21st Century, a website which claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. Google later released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[67] In addition, in April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.'"[68] In Germany and France, a study reported that approximately 113 White Nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, radical Islamic and other websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[69] Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Chilling Effects for explanation.[70]

On Google Maps, Google removed street view and 360 degree images of military bases per the Pentagon's request.[71] It also removed reference to the Persian Gulf over controversy suggesting whether it should be called the Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf. However, Google Earth used both terms.[72]

As of January 26, 2011, Google's Auto Complete feature will not complete certain words such as "bittorrent", "torrent", "utorrent" and "rapidshare"[73] In addition, swears and pornographic words are not completed. However, they are not censored from actual search results.

China

See also: Google China

Until March 2010, Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[74] enforced by filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results were filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan, the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002.[75] The company claims it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it.[76] As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden.

Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights .[77] Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by Free Media Movement for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.[78] Google China had also been condemned by Reporters Without Borders,[78] Human Rights Watch[79] and Amnesty International.[80]

In 2009, China Central Television, Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily reported Google's "dissemination of obscene information", People's Daily claimed that "Google's 'don't be evil' motto becomes a fig leaf".[81][82] Chinese government imposed administrative penalties to Google China, and demanded for a reinforcement of the censorship.[83]

However, on January 12, 2010, in response to an apparent hacking of Google's servers in an attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, Google announced that “we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”[84] On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4 incident" (Tiananmen Square incident).[85][86][87]

AdSense/AdWords

Main articles: Google AdSense and Google AdWords

In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of Scientology and this was the second closing of such a site within 3 months.[88] It is not certain if the account revocations actually were on the grounds of anti-religious content, however the cases have raised questions about Google's terms in regards to AdSense/AdWords. The Adsense policy defines that "Sites displaying Google ads may not include [...] advocacy against any individual, group, or organization",[89] which allows Google to revoke the above mentioned AdSense accounts.

In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named "Turn Off the Blue Light" (TOBL),[90] claiming that it represented an "egregious violation" of company ad policy by "selling adult sexual services". However, TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services.[91] In July, after TOBL members held a protest outside Google's European headquarters in Dublin and wrote to complain, Google relented, reviewed the group's website, found its content to be advocating a political position, and restored the AdWord advertisement.[92]

YouTube

Main articles: YouTube and Criticism of YouTube

YouTube is a video sharing website acquired by Google Inc in 2006. YouTube's Terms of Service prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech .[93] User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message stating: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation".

YouTube has been criticized by national governments for failing to police content. In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that YouTube remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content.[70] In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a crime under Turkish law.[70] On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt subsequently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct.[94] Four days later, Pakistan Telecom lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official[95] concerning Islam.[96]

YouTube has also been criticized by its users for attempting to censor content. In November 2007, the account of Wael Abbas, a well known Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations, was blocked for three days.[97][98][99]

In February 2008, a video produced by the American Life League that accused a Planned Parenthood television commercial of promoting recreational sex was removed, then reinstated two days later.[100][101] In October, a video by stand-up comic Pat Condell criticizing the British government for officially sanctioning sharia law courts in Britain was removed, then reinstated two days later.[102][103] In response, his fans uploaded copies of the video themselves, and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.

YouTube also pulled a video of columnist Michelle Malkin showing violence by Muslim extremists. [104] Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, commented that while, in his opinion, Michelle Malkin disseminates bigotry in her blog, "that does not mean that this particular video is bigoted; it's not. But because it's by Malkin, it's a target." [105]

Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust

Concerns that Google may be a monopoly began to arise not long after Microsoft's grip on the internet started to slip during the Microsoft antitrust case of 1998-2002. Since that time, Google has increased its dominance of search, becoming an information gatekeeper, despite the conflict of interest between information gathering and the advertising surrounding that information, which Google does not own.[106]

In the case of the now-defunct Google-Yahoo! deal of 2008 — a pact for Google to sell advertising on Yahoo! search pages — the U.S. Department of Justice found that the deal would be "materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies" and would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.[107]

Alternatives to Google and monopoly power

For people who fear Google's domination in the marketplace or disagree with Google's ethics, alternatives do exist. In testimony before a U.S. Senate antitrust panel in September 2011, Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that “the Internet is the ultimate level playing field" where users were "one click away" from competitors such as Microsoft's Bing search engine, the Yelp review and listing site, the NexTag comparison shopping site, online merchants such as Amazon, and social networks like Facebook.[108] And there are many other alternatives: search alternatives include Yahoo!, Ask.com, Wolfram Alpha, and DuckDuckGo; video alternatives include Vimeo.com, FunnyOrDie.com, and Hulu.com; smart-TV boxes include AppleTV, TiVo, Boxee, and Roku DVP; shopping alternatives include PriceGrabber and Shopping.com; and many more.[109][110][111]

There are even open source alternatives, for example:[112] the Firefox web browser; YaCy peer-to-peer search engine; Roundcube web-based IMAP e-mail client; NewsBlur news reader;[113] Ekigal phone, video conferencing and instant messenger application;[114] TeamDrive OpenOffice plug-in (TeamDrive is freeware rather than open source);[115] and digiKam photo management and sharing.

And Students for a Free Tibet has a list of search engines, e-mail services, and blog platforms that they say "have not engaged in partnerships with the Chinese government to enable censorship or spread propaganda".[116]

The existence of alternatives doesn't mean that Google won't be subject to the special rules that apply to companies found to have monopoly power, as this exchange between Senator Herb Kohl and Mr. Schmidt at the September Senate hearing makes clear:[117]

Senator Kohl asked: "But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant -- special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you're in that area?"
Mr. Schmidt replied: "I would agree, sir, that we’re in that area.... I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of monopoly findings is this is a judicial process."

Being a monopoly or having monopoly power isn't illegal in the United States. It depends on if that power is used in ways that violate the special rules that apply to monopolies.[117]

Other

Energy consumption

See also: Google Energy

Google has been criticized for the high amount of energy used to maintain its servers.[118] Google has pledged to spend millions of dollars to investigate cheap, clean, renewable energy, and has installed solar panels on the roofs at its Mountain View facilities.[119][120] In 2010, Google also invested $39 million in wind power.[121]

Doodles

Main articles: Google doodle and List of Google Doodles

Google was criticized in 2007 for not featuring versions of the Google logo (known as "Doodles") for American patriotic holidays such as Memorial Day and Veterans Day.[122] That year, Google featured a logo commemorating Veterans Day.[123]

Google Video

Main article: Google video

On August 15, 2007 Google discontinued its Download-to-own/Download-to-rent (DTO/DTR) program.[124] Some videos previously purchased for ownership under that program were no longer viewable when the embedded Digital Rights Management (DRM) licenses were revoked. Google gave refunds for the full amount spent on videos using "gift certificates" (or "bonuses") to their customers' "Google Checkout Account".[125][126] After a public uproar, Google issued full refunds to the credit cards of the Google Video users without revoking the gift certificates.

Search within search

Main article: Google search

For some search results, Google provides a secondary search box that can be used to search within a website identified from the first search. Although this is an innovative search tool for users, it sparked controversy among some online publishers and retailers. When performing a second search within a specific website, advertisements from competing and rival companies often showed up together with the results from the website being searched. This has the potential to draw users away from the website they were originally searching.[127] "While the service could help increase traffic, some users could be siphoned away as Google uses the prominence of the brands to sell ads, typically to competing companies."[128] In order to combat this controversy, Google has offered to turn off this feature for companies who request to have it removed.[128]

According to software engineer Ben Lee and Product Manager Jack Menzel, the idea for search within search originated from the way users were searching. It appeared that users were often not finding exactly what they needed while trying to explore within a company site. "Teleporting" on the web, where users need only type part of the name of a website into Google (no need to remember the entire URL) in order to find the correct site, is what helps Google users complete their search. Google took this concept a step further and instead of just "teleporting", users could type in keywords to search within the website of their choice.[129]

Naming of Go programming language

Main articles: Go (programming language) and Go! (programming language)

Google is criticized for naming their programming language "Go" while there is already an existing programming language called "Go!".[130][131][132]

Potential security threats

Google has been criticised for providing information that could potentially be useful to terrorists. In March 2010, Liberal Democrat MP Paul Keetch and unnamed military officers criticised Google for including pictures of the outside of the headquarters of the SAS at RAF Base Hereford, stating that terrorists might use this information to plan attacks, rather than having to drive past it themselves. Google responded that there was no appreciable security risk and that it had no intention of removing the pictures.[133]

Tax avoidance

Google has been criticized for using legal, but aggressive tax avoidance strategies to minimize its corporate tax bill. Google cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the period of 2007 to 2009 using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and The Netherlands to Bermuda. Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” – helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.[134][135]

Google Watch

In 2002, the non-profit group Public Information Research launched a website known as Google Watch, which advertised itself as "a look at Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy issues."[136][137] The site raised questions relating to Google's storage of cookies, which in 2007 had a life span of more than 32 years and incorporated a unique ID that enabled creation of a user data log.[33] Google Watch has also criticized Google's PageRank algorithms, saying that they discriminate against new websites and favor established sites,[138] and has made allegations about connections between Google and the NSA and the CIA.[139] Connection with the CIA has been discussed by others as well.[140] In February 2003, Google Watch nominated Google for a Big Brother Award, describing Google as a "privacy time bomb."[136] Google now anonymizes its IP data after 9 months and its cookies after 18 months, according to Google's privacy FAQ.[141]

See also

References

  1. ^ See: List of Google products.
  2. ^ "Financial Tables". Google, Inc. Retrieved July 5, 2010.
  3. ^ Vise, David A. (October 21, 2005). "Online Ads Give Google Huge Gain in Profit". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2010.
  4. ^ Google Corporate Page, accessed 17 October 2011
  5. ^ a b Report on dangers and opportunities posed by large search engines, particularly Google, H. Maurer (Ed), Graz University of Technology, Austria, 30 September 2007, 187 pp.
  6. ^ Hansell, Saul (June 22, 2004). "Google Edits Its Prospectus to Highlight Risk of Loss". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Corrections". The New York Times. June 25, 2004. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  8. ^ Yahoo search returning numerous pages about the lawsuit
  9. ^ "KinderStart sues Google over Pageranks!", Reuters via CNN, 19 March 2006
  10. ^ Dan Levine (September 1, 2011). "Google wins antitrust victory in Ohio case". Reuters UK. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  11. ^ "Disappearing tycoon Souter blames Google". BBC News. September 12, 2011.
  12. ^ "France to oppose Google book scheme", Stanley Pignal, Financial Times, 8 September 2009
  13. ^ "Google Print Faces More Opposition", Keith Regan, E-Commerce Times, 30 August 2005
  14. ^ Martin, China (November 26, 2007). "Google hit with second lawsuit over Library project". InfoWorld.
  15. ^ "Cooperative Agreement, section 4.5.1" (PDF). University of Michigan and Google, Inc. Retrieved March 10, 2010.
  16. ^ "Google Pulls P2P Links Over Kazaa Copyright Claims", Jay Lyman, TechNewsWorld, 2 September 2003]
  17. ^ Gallagher, David F. (April 22, 2002). "New Economy; A copyright dispute with the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to do some creative linking". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  18. ^ Chris Tew (September 12, 2006). "Linking to infringing content is probably illegal in the US". WebTVWire. Retrieved October 12, 2006.
  19. ^ "Google cache raises copyright concerns", Stefanie Olsen, CNET News, 9 July 2003
  20. ^ "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Blake A. Field vs. Google, Inc., No. CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL", Judge Robert C. Jones, United States District Court (District of Nevada), January 12, 2006
  21. ^ Memorandum & Order, Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc., No. 04-CV-3918, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania), March 10, 2006
  22. ^ "Lawyers in YouTube lawsuit reach user privacy deal", Eric Auchard, Reuters, 15 July 2008
  23. ^ "Google and Viacom reach deal over YouTube user data", Mark Sweney, The Guardian, 15 July 2008
  24. ^ "Viacom backs down over YouTube lawsuit", Fiona Ramsay, Media Week, 15 July 2008]
  25. ^ Cade, Metz (December 7, 2009). "Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy". The Register.
  26. ^ a b "Google ranked 'worst' on privacy". BBC News. June 11, 2007.
  27. ^ "Consultation Report: Race to the Bottom? 2007", Privacy International, 9 June 2007
  28. ^ "Is intimate personal information a toxic asset in cloud datacenters?", Carl Hewitt, O'Reilly Radar, August 17, 2009
  29. ^ "Intimate personal information in client-cloud aggregator datacenters is headed for strong government regulation", Carl Hewitt, Retrieved January 19, 2010.
  30. ^ "ACLU v. Alberto R. Gonzales." United States District Court (Northern District of California). August 25, 2005. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.
  31. ^ Wong, Nicole. "Response to the DOJ Motion." Google. February 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.
  32. ^ Broache, Anne. "Judge: Google must give feds limited access to records." CNET. March 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 13, 2007.
  33. ^ a b c d Agger, Michael (October 10, 2007). "Google's Evil Eye: Does the Big G know too much about us?". Retrieved October 23, 2007. Cite error: The named reference "agger" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  34. ^ Microsoft's Ballmer: Google Reads Your Mail ChannelWeb, October 2007
  35. ^ "Google's Gmail could be blocked", BBC News, 13 April 2004
  36. ^ "Google Gmail: Spook Heaven", Mark Rasch, The Register, 15 June 2004
  37. ^ "Gmail: It's too creepy", Google-Watch, accessed 17 October 2011
  38. ^ "Privacy Policy", Google Privacy Center]
  39. ^ Yahoo Privacy Policy
  40. ^ Microsoft Privacy Policy
  41. ^ "EFF lawyer is smokin' on Google Street View", Dan Goodin, The Register, 13 June 2007
  42. ^ "All-seeing Google Street View prompts privacy fears", Times Online, 1 June 2007
  43. ^ "Couple Sues Google Over "Street View"". The Smoking Gun. April 4, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  44. ^ Kiss, Jemima (February 19, 2009). "Google wins Street View privacy case". The Guardian. London. Retrieved February 19, 2009. An American couple who attempted to sue Google over what they claimed was its "privacy invading" Street View technology have lost their case in a Pennsylvania court. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  45. ^ "Czech Republic stops Google from further Street View photography", Cyrus Farivar (Reuters), Deutsche Welle, 15 September 2010
  46. ^ "Czech Republic blocks Google’s data mapping feature", J.G. Enriquez, Seer Press News, 25 September 2010
  47. ^ "Google Street View cars vandalised on Guernsey", Dave Stopher, Just Search UK, 24 September 2010]
  48. ^ "Google grabs personal info off of Wi-Fi networks", Michael Liedtke (AP), Yahoo! Finance, 14 May 2010
  49. ^ Shiels, Maggie (May 15, 2010). "Google admits wi-fi data blunder". BBC News.
  50. ^ Saltzman, Marc (February 9, 2010). "Google adds Facebook-like features to Gmail". USA Today. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  51. ^ "Google's Buzz 'Has Serious Privacy Flaws'", Roddy Mansfield, Sky News Online, 12 February 2010
  52. ^ "EU probes Google grip on data", Maija Palmer, Financial Times, 24 May 2007
  53. ^ "Google privacy policy 'is vague'", Darren Waters, BBC News, 31 May 2007
  54. ^ Earth Times – Google's data Limiting Initiative Gets EU Praise[dead link]
  55. ^ "Google refuses to give up 'illegal' data", Press TV, 27 May 2010
  56. ^ "German vandals target Street View opt-out homes", BBC News, November 24, 2010.
  57. ^ "Google bosses convicted in Italy". BBC News. February 24, 2010. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  58. ^ Template:It "Caso Google-Vividown: un bel saggio che deve far riflettere" ("Google case-Vividown: a good essay that should give pause"), Guido Scorza, 16 May 2010 (English translation)
  59. ^ "The Italian Google-Case: Privacy, Freedom of Speech and Responsibility of Providers for User-Generated Contents", Giovanni Sartor and Mario Viola de Azevedo Cunha, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 18 No. 4 (Winter 2010), pp. 356-378
  60. ^ "Google Data on Users May Break EU Law, Watchdog Says", Stephanie Bodoni, Bloomberg, 25 May 2007
  61. ^ Bartz, Diane (May 27, 2010). "US court orders Google to copy data in Wi-Fi case". Reuters.
  62. ^ "Keyword: Google and the DMCA", Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
  63. ^ "GOOGLE, Censorship and Scientology?". F.A.C.T.net. March 21, 2002.
  64. ^ "Google bows to Scientology's DMCA request, yanks critics' site", Declan McCullagh, Politech (politics and technology) mailing list, 21 March 2002
  65. ^ "Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban". WebProNews. May 17, 2004.
  66. ^ ""Google AdSense Program Policies "". Google. May 27, 2011.
  67. ^ Sherriff, Lucy (September 21, 2006). "Google erases Operation Ore campaign site". The Register.
  68. ^ Simon, Caldwell (April 9, 2008). "Christian group sues Google after search engine refuses to take its abortion adverts". London: Daily Mail. [Google's] Dublin-based advertising team replied: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.' {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  69. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan; Edelman, Benjamin. "Localized Google search result exclusions: Statement of issues and call for data." Harvard Law School: Berkman Center for Internet & Society. October 22, 2002.
  70. ^ a b c Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  71. ^ Eric Ogren (March 7, 2008). "Google Caves To Pentagon Wishes". Information Week.
  72. ^ "Google fudges Gulf question", Teymoor Nabili, Aljazeera Blogs, 6 January 2011
  73. ^ "Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More", Torrent Freak, 26 January 2011
  74. ^ "Google censors itself for China". BBC. January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  75. ^ The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000, Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, ISBN: 978-0-8021-4297-9
  76. ^ "Google move 'black day' for China." BBC News. January 25, 2006.
  77. ^ "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda", Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, 1 February 2006
  78. ^ a b AFX News (January 25, 2006). "Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site". Forbes.
  79. ^ "3. Google, Inc." in “Race to the Bottom”: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006
  80. ^ "Google does not censor: take action to defend freedom of information", Amnesty International, 10 May 2006
  81. ^ "Google's "don't be evil" motto becomes a fig leaf (谷歌"不作恶"口号沦为遮羞布)". People's Daily. June 19, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2009. (English translation)
  82. ^ "Investigating on Google China's obscene information, the public says "good"! (查处谷歌中国淫秽信息，公众都叫"好"！)". People's Daily. June 26, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2009. (English translation)
  83. ^ 卫敏丽 (June 19, 2009). "Relevant departments punished "Google China"'s dissemination of obscene information by law (有关部门对"谷歌中国"传播淫秽色情信息行为依法处罚)". xinhuanet. Retrieved June 26, 2009. (English translation)
  84. ^ "A new approach to China", David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, January 12, 2010
  85. ^ A new approach to China: an update", David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Official Google Blog, March 22, 2010
  86. ^ Nicholas Carlson (March 22, 2010). "BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China". Business Insider.
  87. ^ Brian Womack (March 23, 2010). "Google Ends Self-Censorship, Defies China Government (Update4)". Bloomberg News.
  88. ^ "Google murders second Anonymous AdSense account", Cade Metz, The Register, 15 August 2008
  89. ^ "Google AdSense Program Policies", AdSense Help, Google Inc.
  90. ^ Turn Off the Blue Light, website
  91. ^ Paterson, Jody (June 24, 2011). "Google tramples sex workers' rights". Victoria Times-Colonist.
  92. ^ Cusack, Jim (August 7, 2011). "Google u-turn on sex worker group's advert". Sunday Independent.
  93. ^ "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
  94. ^ Ribeiro, John (February 25, 2008). "Pakistan causes worldwide YouTube blackout". Macworld UK. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
  95. ^ "Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban", CBS News/AP, 11 February 2009
  96. ^ "Pakistan welcomes back YouTube", Greg Sandoval, CNET News Blogs, 26 February 2008
  97. ^ "YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account". Cable News Network. November 29, 2007.
  98. ^ "YouTube reinstates account of Egyptian human rights activist". The CNN Wire: Friday, Nov. 30. Cable News Network. November 30, 2007.
  99. ^ "YouTube stops account of Egypt anti-torture activist", Cynthia Johnston, Reuters, 27 November 2007
  100. ^ "American Life League video yanked by YouTube". Catholic News Agency. February 12, 2008.
  101. ^ "YouTube Concedes Error in Banning American Life League's Pro-Life Video". PR Newswire. United Business Media. February 14, 2008.
  102. ^ Beckford, Martin (October 3, 2008). "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  103. ^ "Update: Welcome to Saudi Britain..." ReligiousWatch.com. October 5, 2008.
  104. ^ Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". The New York Times.
  105. ^ The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry), Siva Vaidhyanatan, University of California Press, 2011, page 39, ISBN: 978052025882239
  106. ^ "The Google Monopoly Begins". eWeek Microsoft Watch. December 20, 2007.
  107. ^ Fabio, Michelle (September 13, 2011). "Is Google a Monopoly?". LegalZoom.
  108. ^ "Google’s Competitors Square Off Against Its Leader", Steve Lohr, New York Times, 21 September 2011
  109. ^ "8 Google Search Alternatives", Brian Heater, PC Magazine, 12 May 2010
  110. ^ "Getting Free of Google’s Grip: The 10 Top Alternatives", Leo Babauta, Stepcase Lifehack, 9 April 2007
  111. ^ "Privacy-centric alternatives to Google, Gmail, and Facebook", Dennis O'Reilly, CNet News, 16 May 2011
  112. ^ "Open Source Alternatives to Google", Matt Hartley, Datamation, 7 February 2011
  113. ^ "NewsBlur is a slick, new RSS reader that intelligently makes sense out of your feeds", Jeff Comier, The Next Web (TNW), 11 August 2010
  114. ^ "Three free tools for teleconferencing with a 'virtual presence'", Howard Wen, Computerworld, 19 November 2008
  115. ^ "TeamDrive Embraces ODF and OpenOffice.org", Will Kraft, Application Development Trends, 25 September 2007
  116. ^ "Google Alternatives", Students for a Free Tibet, accessed 17 October 2011
  117. ^ a b "Is Google A Monopoly? 'We're In That Area,' Admits Schmidt", Matt Rosoff, Business Insider, 21 September 2011
  118. ^ "Keyword: Evil", Ginger Strand, Harpers Magazine, March 2008
  119. ^ Google to enter clean-energy business CNET News, November 2007
  120. ^ Google's Next Frontier: Renewable Energy New York Times, November 2007
  121. ^ Neate, Rupert (May 5, 2010). "Google blows $39m into wind power". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
  122. ^ Puzzanghera, Jim (October 9, 2007). "Tweaks send Google critics into orbit". Los Angeles Times.
  123. ^ "Holiday and Events – Google style! - 2007", Google Logos, Google Inc., 14 February 2007
  124. ^ "Is Google DRM crippling culture as great as it seems?", Ashlee Vance, The Register, 8 January 2006
  125. ^ "Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"", Cory Doctorow, boingboing, 10 August 2007
  126. ^ "Google Pulls Plug, Everyone Misses Point", John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine (online)], 14 August 2007
  127. ^ Nick Stamoulis (March 24, 2008). "Why Companies Are Upset With Google's Search-Within-Search". SEO Blog. Search Engine Optimization Journal.
  128. ^ a b Tedeschi, Bob (March 24, 2008). "A New Tool From Google Alarms Sites". New York Times.
  129. ^ Regan, Keith (March 24, 2008). "Google's Search-Within-Search Draws Scutiny". E-Commerce Times.
  130. ^ Francis McCabe (fmccabe) (November 10, 2009). "Issue 9 – go -I have already used the name for *MY* programming language".
  131. ^ Thomas Claburn (November 11, 2009). "Google 'Go' Name Brings Accusations Of 'Evil'". InformationWeek.
  132. ^ John Brownlee (November 13, 2009). "Google didn't google "Go" before naming their programming language". geek.com.
  133. ^ "Fury as Google puts the SAS's secret base on Street View in 'very serious security breach'". Daily Mail. London. March 19, 2010.
  134. ^ Jesse Drucker (October 21, 2010). "Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes". Bloomberg. "It's remarkable that Google's effective rate is that low," said Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. "We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent."
  135. ^ Cade Metz (October 22, 2010). "Google slips $3.1bn through 'Double Irish' tax loophole". The Register. Basically, Google licenses foreign rights to its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary known as Google Ireland Holdings, and this outfit owns a separate subsidiary known as Google Ireland Limited. It's Google Ireland Limited – the second subsidiary – that actually sells advertising across the globe. Last year, it accounted for 88 per cent of Google's $12.5 billion in non-U.S. sales.
  136. ^ a b Sherman, Chris (2005). Google power: unleash the full potential of Google. McGraw-Hill/Osborne. p. 415. ISBN 0072264411. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  137. ^ Varghese, Sam (January 12, 2005). "Google critic releases source code for proxy". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved October 11, 2008.
  138. ^ Farhad Manjoo (August 30, 2002). "Conspiracy Researcher Says Google's No Good". AlterNet. Retrieved December 12, 2009.
  139. ^ Dave Gussow (April 14, 2003). "Despite popularly, Google under fire for privacy issues". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved October 11, 2008.
  140. ^ "Google's Deep CIA Connections", Eric Sommer, Pravda, 14 January 2010
  141. ^ "Privacy FAQ", Google, accessed 16 October 2011

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Google&oldid=456133646"