The Obama Administration is quickly becoming a battleground between lawmakers and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) as the search giant’s ties to the White House are called into question.
Eric Schmidt, the search giant’s CEO, backed President Obama for his 2008 presidential bid, going on the campaign trail to show his support. After Obama won the election, Schmidt became a member of the President’s Transition Economic Advisory Board. He now sits on the President’s Science and Technology Advisory Council.
Apart from Schmidt, several former Google employees have found new homes in the Obama Administration. Sonal Shah, for example, currently runs the White House’s Office of Social Innovation. Shah was once the manager of development at Google.org, the search company's philanthropic arm. The White House’s Director of Citizen Participation, Katie Stanton, was also formerly a Google employee.
But perhaps the most worrisome example of Google’s ties to the White House, at least for critics, is Andrew McLaughlin. The former Google head of public policy was appointed in May 2009
by President Obama as the White House’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer. As soon as he was hired, consumer watchdogs started speaking out.
“When you bring in a political operative from one of the most powerful companies in that industry and turn over policymaking to those individuals, they can’t help but have conflicts of interests,” said Jeff Chester, the founder of the Center for Digital Democracy, in an interview at the time. “You need someone who can look at this in an independent way, who doesn’t view the use of all these very powerful digital tools through solely corporate eyes.”
Such comments have been echoing through Washington for quite some time. And they’ve heated up considerably since it was revealed that McLaughlin was using his personal email account to communicate with current Google staffers about government policy, including net neutrality legislation. The issue, according to government watchdogs, is that personal emails are not archived and thus not required to be retained under the Presidential Records Act.
Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California is especially concerned about McLaughlin’s use of personal email to discuss policy with Google. Earler this month, Issa sent a letter
to Google requiring the organization to answer several questions regarding its willingness to furnish email messages sent to, or received from, lawmakers or other key political figures. Issa has said that he’s concerned Google has too much access to the White House, potentially giving the company unnecessary influence on policy.
It’s an understandable worry. Lobbying has become a major issue in current government affairs. According to a recent New York Times article that Issa cited in his letter to Google, “lobbyists say that they routinely get email messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts.”
But it goes beyond that. With such close ties to the White House, Google could potentially impose its will on policy. For some consumers, that might be a good thing, especially when it comes to net neutrality, but is there a line being crossed that could have a negative impact on the average Web user?
Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” pledge notwithstanding, the company is a for-profit organization that has come under fire recently for several issues, including Street View concerns, Google Buzz privacy troubles, and much more.
Some fear that, having such a close relationship with the White House, Google's increasing influence could conceivably help it maneuver its way out of legislative decisions that would put any potential privacy overreaches in check. That, in turn, could have a direct impact on users who desire more privacy and security while using the Web. Like any other company, Google needs a powerful watchdog, they say, or the company could potentially ignore user desires.
For its part, Google has said little in the past about its relationship with the White House or lawmakers in general. In May, the company said in a statement that its relationship with government is extremely important to its operation: “We understand that in order to be successful in Washington we need relationships on both sides of the aisle, and we have worked over the past few years to strengthen those relationships.”
Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate. But most can probably agree that Google’s White House ties are growing stronger. And eventually, we will find out if it’s really beneficial to its users.
At press time, Google had not submitted a comment in response to requests.
— Don Reisinger is a technology and video game columnist.
You have a point, Paul. I would, however, promote vigilance on this matter just the same (as this article already shows), especially on the part of the media. Its watchdog function in a democratic system is particularly helpful in a case like this. Also, if Google does end up "infiltrating" the system too much, even a well-intended administration might find its hands tied at some point.
Think about it - if you were President and wanted to move the country into the 21st century, do you hire your CTO from some unheard of company, from some dinosaur struggling to stay relevant like IBM, or from the most successful 21st century company? Since I was not in the consideration, I can think of no one better than Mr. McLaughlin. After me, he's the next best suited guy to come up with White House tech policy. Republicans are just looking for holes that aren't there. As far as the Google House appointing American Presidents, I'm pretty sure the Internet and the information contained therein and distributed about will make or break the next election. Of course you'll Google the candidates. And of course Google will put some money behind their favorite - after the recent Supreme Court ruling, every large company will. But a smart citizen visits multiple websites and compares multiple sources before forming impressions about candidates. Corporations and the businessmen behind them have been trying to influence elections since they've existed. Somehow we've managed.
Since we are talking about the most transparent administration in U.S. history, one can only infer that there is not much really going for Google at this White House. I can see GM wielding more infleunce under o broken Washinton of yesteryears than Google trying now to navigate the murky waters of double regulation from an administration belieivng itself to be 21st agency of change.
Good point, Joe. If there is that much influence by all those companies, where does it end? Or, perhaps more appropriately, how does it end?
As politics becomes even more muddied by business, it's highly likely, at least in my opinion, that companies like Google will continue to have influence simply because that's the way it has always been.
Comparison shopping on lobbying can be a dangerous game. I agree that $1.3 million is a small sum for such a big company, but given the influence it has outside of spending money, why should it invest any more than that? It's the small group or company that needs to spend more, not the giants.
Good point, Dave. And I hear what you're saying. But is Google's involvement worse or better than GM's in the past? Is there more at stake today than there was when GM had influence in D.C.?
During President Eisenhower's watch, Charles Wilson was named Secretary of Defense, Wilson had been the Chairman of General Motors, at that time the largest employer and wealthiest company in the US. Asked if he could ever make a decision against GM he said.. "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." This was later bastardized to read "Whats good for General Motors is good for America."
We have countless laws on ethics, every civil servant from the President down takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Enforce the laws, let experts in the field come in and help. Hold them to the ethics laws that the other civil servants face.
Who knows maybe 60 years from now Google will be the GM of the late years of the 21st century.
I think bias and familiarity is human and can actually add value. I think the dividing line is solely serving a single proprietor's product/service that it moves into the unethical.
Google spent $1.34 million on federal lobbying during the second quarter, up 41% from the same period a year ago, according to DC-based nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
While they may be using their "friends" they are also starting to invest. Though, 1.34 million in lobbying as a percentage of their size is still a tiny investment in lobbying compared to some highly regulated industries.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
When Twitter launched, the social network was a place for people to share random thoughts on any topic. In fact, it was often criticized for featuring tweets that included only basic information about what a person was doing at the time. “Eating a sandwich” was the kind of tweet critics commonly cited.
With the US debt super committee failing to reach an agreement last month and mandatory costs of about $1 trillion looming, defense IT is now in the crosshairs.
When it comes to online crime, there are several groups, including content creators, that say it’s a bane to our existence. However, there are others who, though acknowledging that crime exists, believe that trying to aggressively pursue the criminals might infringe on the rights of the innocent.
If one were to poll the world’s consumers about Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and its many business exploits, nearly everyone would say it is competing in search and advertising. They might also say Google is involved in the mobile space, thanks to its Android operating system.
Over the past few years, lobbying has taken center stage in US politics. People on both sides of the aisle have tried to limit the impact lobbyists have on government officials.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
The plan for unmanned police drones to patrol traffic and other city conditions in Seattle has sparked a new set of legal concerns about privacy. Law traditionally lags technology, but we can expect now to see a new round of activity in the courts as legal definitions begin to emerge on what "next-gen privacy" will look like.
Google Internet Evangelist Vinton G. Cerf is right to argue that the Internet is not a basic human right. (Though Kim knows he was the one to say it first…)
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
Email This
