Quinones 1

John Quinones

Mr. Pickell

English 1020

30 November 2017

Google: Dishonest Business Practices & the Efficacy of Regulation

Google is a multinational technology company that specializes in Internet services with

the major contributor to its success being its search engine. According to a Google Search

statistic from Internet Live Stats, 40,000 search queries happen every second on average, which

translates to over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year worldwide (1).

People use this global resource for texts, images, documents, and other forms of data that

ultimately make their lives easier. Furthermore, Google has vastly evolved recently that lets its

users store their information on their servers, connects its users, and can even become an

individuals personal assistant. It is only going to get better and better and become more involved

in every users lives. Google currently exists without the similar regulations of other giant

corporations, and many believe this status quo is part of what makes it essential to run their

business in different, yet dishonest way. Consequently, recent unacceptable behaviors of Google

expose a concern whether they run their everyday business amok. Even though there have been

occasions where Googles irresponsible behavior have been addressed, such as politicians calling

for a legislative control on the company, it is a very complicated issue that they will have a

difficult time solving alone. Google has been caught committing immoral acts that puts its users

privacy at risk that can be overlooked when users are agreeing to their terms. They are doing so

without the users knowledge or consent, disregarding privacy laws of its users, because of
 Quinones 2

nonexistent regulation. Google, a monopolistic company in nature, are taking advantage of its

own users for their own benefit. This raises a controversial inquiry whether Google should be

regulated.

In an Econsultancy article, 10 Reasons why Google and SEO should NOT be Regulated,

Chris Lake, a specialist in content marketing and web optimization, stresses that regulation

would completely destroy the search engine and is just abhorrent. Lake accounts many reasons

why Google should not be regulated and one of those reasons is that the people choose Google, it

is not the other way around. The other Internet search engines are just not on the same level as

Google. A decade ago they [the people] chose Yahoo, which accounted for more than one in

two visitors referred by all search engines. Yahoo has fallen by the wayside, but noises are being

made about Bing and Microsoft has deep pockets [money]. The point is that people like to

search, and Google was simply providing the fast search results (2). Another reason being

Google has become synonymous with search for a reason: it works. And because of that [you]

stick with Google. The moment it stops working you look elsewhere. For me it has worked since

1998, and apart from the real-time joy of Twitter Search, or news-based search, I see no reason

for change (3). Lake essentially lists all deflections why Google should not be regulated in his

article, however, there is a major component that he is missing, that is, his logic. Lakes

reasoning just views one side and is totally biased. His jargon contributes to his pathos that

creates a satirical tone that almost makes the audience feel like his reasons are just too ironical

and that the other side, that Google should be regulated, just seems like a better option. Lakes

attempt that Google should not be regulated by just pointing the obvious that Google may be just

too good to change should not be enough to change the audiences opinion because there is not

just enough ample evidence to back up his profound, yet simple, claims.
 Quinones 3

Google should be regulated because of their potential for uncontrollable behavior given

the immense power they possess. Even with that power, there is always the possibility for

compromise to take place and progress in the regulating of Google, even if that means taking it

one step at a time.

In the Federal Communications Law Journal, From Ship-to-Shore Telegraphs to Wi-Fi

Packets: Using Section 705(a) to Protect Wireless Communications, Amy McCann Roller, who

practices law and is a member of the Network Advertising Initiative, argues Section 705(a), a

legislation that Prohibits the unauthorized interception and disclosure of Americans radio

communications (527) is outdated. This law, that was passed in 1912, only applies to what

existed back then, which was radio communications. Because this ruling is archaic, and Wi-Fi

did not exist at the time, technology companies like Google, can perform immoral behavior like

collecting users personal information without their consent:

In early 2010, Google admitted that its Google Maps Street View cars had been capturing

more than just street-level images of American communities. For the past few years, the

cars had also been collecting the contents of individuals Internet activity from every Wi-

Fi network they encountered. The collected data included e-mails, text messages, Internet

browsing history, and other highly sensitive personal information. (527)

Roller gives this example that supports her claim and demonstrates that Google not only took

advantage of the dated law, but more importantly, of its own users by gathering information that

they can potentially use in the future for their own benefit. This law journal, written in November

2016, asserts that this is still an ongoing issue and is something I think should not be ignored in

fear of Google operating another unethical activity in the near future.

 Quinones 4

Because Amy McCann Roller makes a persuasive argument that involves a situation

where the outdated legislation allowing Google to complete the dishonest business as they do,

does not mean that it only happened one time. Similar occurrences are interpreted in the article,

Why Google Should Be Regulated, where Dr. Robert Epstein, a research psychologist, claims

that Google is the company named after an astronomically large number (1 with a hundred

zeros after it) that controls access to most of the information on earth and that finds innovative

ways to get in trouble several times a year (1). Epstein elaborates on many indecent offenses by

Google and what disciplinary actions took place. I think these offenses include the Google Maps

Street View situation addressed by Roller, as well as another data gathering incident that violates

terms between the Federal Trade Commission and Google where there was a change in its

privacy policy:

It [Google] began aggregating data obtained from more than 60 different Google products

and services, including its Chrome browser and Android operating system. The maneuver

allows the company to create comprehensive profiles of the likes, dislikes, tastes,

preferences, and activities of hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide, collecting

sensitive information including... Sexual orientation, sexual habits, relationship status,

religion, political views, health concerns, employment status, and more. (2)

Additionally, illegal marketing of foreign prescription medication to United States users:

Google agreed to pay a whopping $500 million fine to the federal government for

illegally marketing Canadian prescription medication to U.S. citizens through its

AdWords program a ubiquitous advertising system that allows Google ads to appear

on just about any website, just about anywhere even smack in the middle of an article

on Mitt Romney or the Mars landing. (2)

 Quinones 5

Epstein affirms that Google is fundamentally out of control through these horrendous acts.

Google is transitioning from a free and simple service company, to a very dangerous business

involving its own users to make a profit out of them. Moreover, to elaborate on how dangerous

Google can be when they are yearning to make even more money than they already do, a court

case that happened overseas in Spain clarifies another offense, and more importantly, a better

portrayal of their dishonest methods.

In the Modern Law Review journal of a court case by Orla Lynskey, a professor of Law

at the London School of Economics, Control over Personal Data in a Digital Age: Google Spain

v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez, Mr. Mario Costeja Gonzalez was involved in inadequacy

proceedings regarding to social security debts in the late 1990s. Gonzalez did eventually solve

his debts as the case was ruled no longer of relevance, but it was too late as his story was a

headline in a local newspaper. Additionally, with more controversy, the newspaper article was

also connected to Google as being a top search result when his name was searched for in the

search engine. Mr. Costeja Gonzalez asked Google Spain to remove links to the newspaper in

its search results when his name was entered as a search term in the Google Search engine:

Google Spain sent this request to Google Incorporated in the United States (523). The problem

significantly became worse when Google denied his request. Google United States argued that

Knowledge of the data - in particular, whether specific data are personal or not was required

for operations to be classified as processing, an argument which was rejected by the Court

(524). Lynskey asserts that Google was trying to find an alibi to get by and keep the data that

was already stored in their database because of its potential to be profitable for public interest in

the future. The court did not buy into their excuse as they suspected unethical methods that

Google was hiding, but was not completely biased due to a reasoning that Google may be just a
 Quinones 6

data controller. A data controller is simply An entity which alone or jointly with others

determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data (524). I think Google

does fall under the category of being a data controller since there is nobody above regulating

them and how they process data, and in this case, Gonzalezs personal data that cumulatively

ruins his image the longer the results are present for Googles users to view. After many efforts

of not giving up from the AEPD (Agencia Espaola de Proteccin de Datos, or the Spanish Data

Protection Agency) and Gonzalez, the Court reached a verdict that ordered Google to remove

Gonzalezs search results and information from the database and the search engine itself. This

court case ultimately showed how desperate Google can be when it comes to gathering and

keeping data that can benefit them. I think they are willing to go far in a court case, lose money

in the process, all for the fight to keep the notion that being regulated is not the correct way to

go. Google needed to make sure that the European Union as well as the United States

Government knew how hard it was to control them.

Google was not only committing offenses that led to court case controversial issues due

to dated laws and loopholes that they took advantage of its users to gain profit. There is a whole

other spectrum where they were doing contentious practices. While Googles exploitation of the

free market may be nefarious when limited to its own business practice, even its most ardent

supporters of industry may be concerned by a combination of profit motivation and political

influence. The supporters of industry being those that are business capitalists that may not be in

favor for political influence.

Politicians rely on advertisements of all sorts to gain ground in winning votes and

elections from the American people. Up until about a decade ago, television and the press

purpose for advertisements were utilized the most until online advertisements came along. The
 Quinones 7

key difference between television and the press versus online advertisements is that television

and the press are fully transparent, but there are no rules for online advertisements. The meaning

of transparency in this case is that people can gain access to what methods are used to present

those political ads, and informs the users of those methods so that they can decide whether they

want to participate, or see, a certain advertisement.

In The Guardian article, DC Eyes Tighter Regulations on Facebook and Google as

Concern Grows, Ben Jacobs, a political reporter based in Washington, DC, argues that political

advertisement buyers online are getting out of control as transparency does not exist and

politicians are taking advantage of it. Jacobs asserts that Online, political ad buyers are under no

such obligations [transparency rules] and so the public are flying blind. The result is a

landscape that one operative compared to the wild west (2). This is where Google plays a

huge role because Online advertising is expected to become even more important in the 2018

midterms and, more importantly, the 2020 election. Google gains so much of its revenue because

of its advertising. They benefit off advertising to bring you the currently outstanding service. The

government is having growing concern in this case since no transparency rules means that

anyone can spend money on political advertisements that can influence the outcomes of an

election. The most infamous case of this situation, taking place was from a foreign country,

Russia, spending money on the 2016 presidential election, which resulted in many unhappy

citizens finding out that a United States-based company like Google allowed for this to happen,

just to again, make a profit. As the 2020 presidential election comes up soon, I think little is

being done to address transparency for online advertising. As a result, not much will change at

the slow-rate the FEC (Federal Election Commission) is going as they only recently reopened an

investigation on political advertising:

 Quinones 8

The FEC has reopened a comment period on its rule on disclaimers for online political

advertising. However, its unclear whether this will lead to any change in its rules, which

currently grants most online advertising an exception from regulations that require

disclaimers, the small print stating who paid for a particular advertisement, on

electioneering communications. (3)

Politicians just being politicians, there is a lot of lobbying that takes place while being a public

official. As they try to gain as much support as they can, as long as they know of ways to find

and take advantage of loopholes, much like what Google did with the outdated legislation,

Section 705(a), even means of radical methods like gaining support from foreign groups, theyll

do anything just to get ahead of the game, much like what Google does as well.

Googles trust should be dwindling after acknowledging and analyzing the very few out

of the many immoral offenses that they have committed that takes advantage of its users. Roller,

Epstein, Lynskey, and Jacobs are all from different realms of profession conferring in analogous

means that Google substantially out of control. Because these writers make a persuasive article

that Google should be regulated, that is not to say that there is no other side to this argument. As

simplistic that it may sound, Google may be just too good to change.

There are attempts to regulate Google by former White House Strategist Steve Bannon.

In a Breitbart article by Lucas Nolan, a conservative journalist, Steve Bannon wants Google,

Facebook to be Regulated like utilities, Bannon claims That companies such as Google and

Facebook have become so essential to the Internet and to the everyday life of many U.S. citizens

that they should be regulated as a natural monopoly, or a utility (2). Bannon, at the time the

article was written, had dominant and agreeable position that became increasingly popular

among tech experts that Google has become too big and may need to be broken up. If Google
 Quinones 9

does not get regulated soon, and they continue to abuse the collected personal information of its

users for their own prosperity (recognized in Why Google Should be Regulated), a huge

monopolistic problem can result which will be even more arduous to address if not focused on

now.

A different attempt to regulate Google, also by a well-known figure, Senator John

McCain, he is one out of many politicians that supports a new bill that is a step closer to specific

governing on advertisement transparency online. In a Washington Post article, Facebook and

Google might be One Step Closer to New Regulations on Advertisement Transparency, Hamza

Shaban and Karoun Demirjian, both reporters for the Washington Post, proclaim that there is

progress in a specific area of regulation that applies to Google. As a new bill was recently

proposed, as of late October 2017:

With support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar

(Minn.) and Mark R. Warner (Va.) unveiled a bill Thursday that would mandate greater

disclosure of political advertisements that run on large Internet platforms. (1)

This bill was primarily to counter what the Russian committed that was explained in the article,

DC Eyes Tighter Regulations on Facebook and Google as Concern Grows:

The proposed legislation was crafted as a response to a Russian-financed propaganda

campaign that ran on an array of Web Platforms to spread disinformation and discord

during the 2016 election (1).

The proposal would create a reporting system that is comparable to what the television stations

use by the Federal Communications Commission, where it requires the disclosure of the

advertisements themselves, and not just the amount of money spent on them. This ultimately
 Quinones 10

deters violations and is a type of regulation that is acted upon Google, which is ultimately the

step in the right direction of progress. It is important to note that there are many co-sponsors that

support this proposed legislation as well as a companion bill introduced as a failsafe if the

original bill fails. The amount of support for Google to be regulated in the political advertisement

field is huge and is essentially a miniature movement for Google to be regulated.

There will be a moment of rejoice once Google is officially regulated, but this does not

mean that Google will give up completely on their business practices. They would most likely

find alternate methods that are legal under new regulation that will let them continue their

dishonest behavior without any violations. A similar situation where this occurred was the

bailout of major firms, such as General Motors, Ford, and AIG to name a few, on Wall Street.

Officially known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, many companies on

Wall Street was bailed out by the United States Government because they were in a financial

crisis due their nefarious practices finally catching up to them. The companies were required to

compensate for their illegal business, but simply did not have enough money to do so. In the

journal, Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing

Wall Street, by Dwight D. Murphey, an experienced author in business and economics, argues

that the bailout is not all good and promising. Bailout is both profoundly discouraging and

exhilarating. The exhilaration is that that comes from confronting truth, and is experienced by

those (such as, we might hope, the readers of this journal) who hold truth in high esteem. The

discouragement lies in the reality that Barofsky has described: The crisis is not just that of a

passing economic downturn, but of a society in which hubris and character flaws are destroying

the economic, political and social fabric (5). The U.S. Government ultimately bailed these

companies out, but by doing so created that huge flaw in character. They did not let those
 Quinones 11

businesses face any true consequences which lets many return to their old dishonest ways, and

even worse, are more dependent on the Government and taxpayers money. The efficacy of

regulation among these firms is not sufficient and may result in more bailout money wasted in

the future, a matter that can be reflected upon if Google, which would find a workaround over

legislation, if it were to be regulated by the government.

I believe that those who value their privacy, which also includes me, should dispute that

Google be regulated. Even though Google provides an incredible service for its users, it puts the

privacy of its own users at risk. Naturally a monopolistic company, Google neglecting privacy

laws of its users through dishonest acts is taking advantage of its users for their own benefit

without their consent. My knowledge of Google and the idea of regulation has developed from

reading articles about Googles offenses. In the business of Google collecting users personal

data, it is a very important issue due to the amount of Google is frequently used, an astonishing

More than 54,000 times per second (1). That bewildering number always increasing, as well as

increasing the chance of Google collecting data. Politicians having attention to Googles

immoral behavior have been notably known to make changes for the better which can be an

action that increases the possibility of success. Google should be closely monitored with up-to-

date research on how they are evolving. Though, it is very tough to avoid using Google,

additionally shown in the court case, Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez, the

easiest answer to solve the problems that Google has committed is not the best for society

because Google is very stubborn and will not give up easily when they know that a potential to

benefit off its users is at risk. The easiest solution is just not practical for society to compromise

with. I still maintain my stance on this very important issue because only God knows what could

happen next if Google does not be governed properly in the future.

 Quinones 12

Works Cited

1. Singhal, Amit, et al. Google Search Statistics. Google Search Statistics - Internet Live Stats,

16 Sept. 2014, www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/.

2. Lake, Chris. 10 Reasons Why Google and SEO Should NOT Be Regulated. Econsultancy,

13 July 2009, econsultancy.com/blog/4204-10-reasons-why-google-and-seo-should-not-

be-regulated.

3. Roller, Amy M. "From Ship-to-Shore Telegraphs to Wi-Fi Packets: Using Section 705(a) to

Protect Wireless Communications." Federal Communications Law Journal, vol. 68, no.

3, 2016, pp. 525-IX, Research Library,

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/1868251965?accountid=14925.

4. Lynskey, Orla. "Control Over Personal Data in a Digital Age: Google Spain v AEPD and

Mario Costeja Gonzalez." The Modern Law Review, vol. 78, no. 3, 2015, pp. 522-534,

Research Library,

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/1677299047?accountid=14925,

doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/10.1111/1468-2230.12126.

5. Epstein, Dr. Robert. Why Google Should Be Regulated (Part 1). The Huffington Post,

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Oct. 2012, www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-

epstein/google-privacy_b_1962827.html.

6. Jacobs, Ben. DC Eyes Tighter Regulations on Facebook and Google as Concern Grows.

The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Sept. 2017,

www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/17/dc-eyes-tighter-regulations-on-facebook-

and-google-as-concern-grows.
 Quinones 13

7. Murphey, Dwight D. "Bailout: An Inside Account of how Washington Abandoned Main

Street while Rescuing Wall Street." The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic

Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, 2012, pp. 367-375, Research Library,

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/1243036198?accountid=14925.

8. Nolan, Lucas. Report: Steve Bannon Wants Google, Facebook to Be Regulated Like

Utilities. Breitbart, Breitbart News Network, 28 July 2017,

www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/07/28/report-steve-bannon-wants-google-facebook-to-be-

regulated-like-utilities/.

9. Shaban, Hamza, and Karoun Demirjian. Facebook and Google Might Be One Step Closer to

New Regulations on Ad Transparency. The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 Oct.

2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/19/facebook-and-google-

might-be-one-step-closer-to-new-regulations-on-ad-

transparency/?utm_term=.3c1e1c4cc1cf.

10. Liberatore, Stacy. What Happens in an Internet Second: 54,907 Google Searches, 7,252

Tweets, 125,406 YouTube Video Views and 2,501,018 Emails Sent. Daily Mail Online,

Associated Newspapers, 28 June 2016, www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-

3662925/What-happens-internet-second-54-907-Google-searches-7-252-tweets-125-406-

YouTube-video-views-2-501-018-emails-sent.html.