Regulating Google
An article from the economist said that Google has made publishers, telecom companies, libertarian and privacy defenders worried (if not 'upset'). I would put news agencies on the list.
So far however, the article said, Google is clean. No violations of copyright laws nor competition laws. The alchilles heel might be on privacy law.
Supposed google failed (either deliberately or by omission) to show my blog in its search results, or it reduces my page rank unfairly, on what bases can I sue Google, other than through their Terms of Services?
BTW, here's an excerpt from the economist's article:
So far however, the article said, Google is clean. No violations of copyright laws nor competition laws. The alchilles heel might be on privacy law.
Supposed google failed (either deliberately or by omission) to show my blog in its search results, or it reduces my page rank unfairly, on what bases can I sue Google, other than through their Terms of Services?
BTW, here's an excerpt from the economist's article:
Ironically, there is something rather cloudlike about the multiple complaints surrounding Google. The issues are best parted into two cumuli: a set of “public” arguments about how to regulate Google; and a set of “private” ones for Google's managers, to do with the strategy the firm needs to get through the coming storm. On both counts, Google—contrary to its own propaganda—is much better judged as being just like any other “evil” money-grabbing company.Google is a capitalist tool, I agree. But it represents the new form of capitalism. The legal infrastructure we have today regulates the 'old' capitalism. It may not be adequate to 'catch' google.
Labels: google, legal futurism, privacy
Links to this post