Google News buries news of Google's FTC investigation under Daniel Lyons fluff [updated with respons

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 152
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    apart from I'm a speed reader, which costs me a small fortune in books. I had all ready read that article.

    Then you should be able to put together an argument other than "you're paranoid."
  • Reply 142 of 152
    drewys808drewys808 Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cadillac88 View Post



    Lyons' can't even admit he is one of the staunchest nay-sayers of Apple there is. It's probably a tie between Lyons and Dvorak for Top Nay-Sayer. I mean, sheesh. Come on. It's one thing to skirt the question but this guy totally denies the obvious. Lyons is a smart enough guy but he's hell bent against Apple so there is no trusting him when he suggests that he's objective. Some of his "Fake Steve Jobs" was hilarious and some was even slightly insightful (when he made his Fake Steve Jobs talk about the tech industry happenings from outside of Apple). But mostly "Fake Steve Jobs" was meant to portray Apple and Steve Jobs in a bad light.



    But it's not Lyons fault that the FTC hid the truth about Google's manipulation of its search results and it's strongarm tactics against the hapless. There had to be a back room agreement or something.



    Google sez it's the machine that done it but obviously that's not always the case. Google meddles when it shouldn't but gets free passes.



    99% of mobile malware is on android but who's riled up? Apple gets a sniffle and it's a huge deal. Front Page - in 200 languages. It's wierd shit like this that makes it easy to think there is plenty of manipulation of all kinds of stuff going on. I mean, a free pass on malware? And we have how many commenters here sticking up for Google? No wonder it's not hard to take 90 plus percent of DEDs article as absolutely true and the remaining 10% is probably true. Googlers try way too hard and there seems to be too many here on an Apple website. It's overflow. An onslaught really. And constant. I think you all have an alarm network and work in concert. You come in veritable droves when DED writes. Like Pavlovian dogs who have been Pavlovian dogs for too long.



    Off topic here, but are you a professional writer? If not you should be. Great prose in a poetic and appealing style.

  • Reply 143 of 152
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    flaneur wrote: »
    No, Snowden wouldn't necessarily know the details, because it's based on a complicated interlocked history, not on day-to-day operations..
    Snowden has already released details of things that weren't "day to day" like CIA plans to hack Apple, information concerning collection of data flowing thru carriers and servers handling web traffic and stuff like that. . Doesn't seem reasonable he wouldn't also have documentation of Google (or MS or Yahoo or Apple or whoever) actually being a CIA controlled company if it were factual. If there's truth to it it should have come out by now, particularly with others surely looking after being prompted by the Ahmed article. It's not brand new. But whatever someone wants to think there's support out there somewhere for it.
  • Reply 144 of 152
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Snowden has already released details of things that weren't "day to day" like CIA plans to hack Apple, information concerning collection of data flowing thru carriers and servers handling web traffic and stuff like that. . Doesn't seem reasonable he wouldn't also have documentation of Google (or MS or Yahoo or Apple or whoever) actually being a CIA controlled company if it were factual. If there's truth to it it should have come out by now, particularly with others surely looking after being prompted by the Ahmed article. It's not brand new. But whatever someone wants to think there's support out there somewhere for it.



    See ICREACH:  http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/25/snowden-documents-reveal-nsas-own-secret-google

     

    Google "a target":  http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html

  • Reply 145 of 152
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    Good links. So if Google was already controlled by the intelligence community there would be no need for the NSA to try to find a way in to Google servers, making them a target. As I figured, Snowden already commented on it. Thanks!
  • Reply 146 of 152
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    flaneur wrote: »
    apart from I'm a speed reader, which costs me a small fortune in books. I had all ready read that article.

    Then you should be able to put together an argument other than "you're paranoid."
    I could but Ahmed suffers for me a snooze fest style of writing that tries to obsfucate his own point.
    But it's a good thing that's the NSA and the CIA control every media organisation and info company as no one seems to be using this information to batter google.
  • Reply 147 of 152
    Today I deleted all Google apps from my iPhone, iPad and iMac.
  • Reply 148 of 152
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Good links. So if Google was already controlled by the intelligence community there would be no need for the NSA to try to find a way in to Google servers, making them a target. As I figured, Snowden already commented on it. Thanks!

    As far as I've read, part one and some of two, Ahmed's point is not that Google is "controlled" by intelligence entities, only that they partially funded Google's early existence and also promoted the mass surveillance/data-relational architecture that would be useful for global info warfare.

    This is clear if you read the article. If you don't want to, that's understandable. I'm reluctant to click on Spam's links above.

    In any case, control is not the issue, encouraging the private innovators develop search and big data technologies is. The depressing fact is that our vaunted Internet data-crawler engine is seen as a tool of investigation by the military state. They will still need to work behind the scenes to get their back doors. No way could they let Brin or Page in on the secret, it would seem to me. Maybe Ahmed covers this in part two.
  • Reply 149 of 152
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    flaneur wrote: »
    As far as I've read, part one and some of two, Ahmed's point is not that Google is "controlled" by intelligence entities, only that they partially funded Google's early existence and also promoted the mass surveillance/data-relational architecture that would be useful for global info warfare.

    This is clear if you read the article. If you don't want to, that's understandable. I'm reluctant to click on Spam's links above. .
    I read most all of part one.

    You should take a look at Spam's first link, iCreach, since it talks about just what you brought up in your post tho sans Google.

    Edit: I've now read part two as well. Damning Google disclosures in part two will disappoint as they're barely mentioned in passing. Instead it veers off into claims concerning Facebook, Cisco, eBay and Enron. Even Disney got a mention as attending semi-secret Highlands Forum meetings and taking part in small private panel discussions along with reps from GE, IBM, and PayPal. :\

    The Google connection in part one could probably have been covered in a couple of paragraphs. It primarily revolves around research funding Brin and Page received while students at Stanford, which the author mentions as common, and the later Keyhole purchase, a project originally funded in part by DARPA. Note that Apple's SIRI also received DARPA funding, something not very unusual in emerging tech research and development.

    There's also several paragraphs spent on mention of Google, Cisco, Sun and other tech employees, some with 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the intelligence community. Overall it's a pretty long read with a lot of repetition.
  • Reply 150 of 152
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    rob53 wrote: »

    And if you search using DuckDuckGo, theapp-store.com comes up first followed by pages of references to the only official App Store by Apple. I scrolled down and got tired searching for a reference to a different applications store. This is one of the reasons I don't use Google or Bing search. I seem to just get results instead of tailored results. (At least I tell myself I'm getting good results.)
    That's not what I see:
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=The+app+store&ia=apps
  • Reply 151 of 152
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    "Google meets with White House officials once a week on average"

     

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/8287961/google-ftc-white-house-lobbying

  • Reply 152 of 152
    waterrocketswaterrockets Posts: 1,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    "Google meets with White House officials once a week on average"

     

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/25/8287961/google-ftc-white-house-lobbying


     

    That's a very meaningless statistic. On a given day, it could be three people signing in the morning, and again after lunch. If that was the only visit in a six week period, the average is still one visitor per week. Of course wsj has a paywall to see their data and support.

     

    At any rate, I have no trouble believing that Google could be the biggest lobbyist ever. That's how the game is played though.

Sign In or Register to comment.