Re:Google employees have enjoyed revolving door during Obama...
by ocdtrekkie on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:31PM
(#12264249)
We're talking about people who directly move in and out of Google or Google contractors, and places which have a immediate and direct conflict of interest with Google. Which inexplicably, almost without other justification, seems to avoid any sort of legal action against it. And this isn't a one-off case of one employee moving around. It's a significant, recurring process.
And in the case of Joshua Wright, long before he revolved his way into an FTC position, he was already receiving money under the table to fabricate "academic studies" supporting Google's antitrust position, which they then used as expert references to their claims. We already have a corrupt individual who's engaged in unethical practices on Google's behalf, which then also moved into a government position where he had an extreme ability to protect Google from government action.
We've long understood that transparency in government in terms of where money changes hands, where people are employed, and similar factors are key in preventing corruption. People may not be the places they work for, but they are representatives of their employers. If this wasn't understood, political donations wouldn't require the disclosure of a donor's employer.
You seem to be suggesting we should dismiss our entire understanding of how corruption occurs, because the evidence points very clearly that corruption is happening between our government and Google. Honest people, unfortunately, are not involved here.
Note for other readers: DannyBee is a Googler and claims in his profile to be a lawyer, so presumably has worked with the Google, FTC, and WSG&R people discussed here.
And in the case of Joshua Wright, long before he revolved his way into an FTC position, he was already receiving money under the table to fabricate "academic studies" supporting Google's antitrust position, which they then used as expert references to their claims. We already have a corrupt individual who's engaged in unethical practices on Google's behalf, which then also moved into a government position where he had an extreme ability to protect Google from government action.
We've long understood that transparency in government in terms of where money changes hands, where people are employed, and similar factors are key in preventing corruption. People may not be the places they work for, but they are representatives of their employers. If this wasn't understood, political donations wouldn't require the disclosure of a donor's employer.
You seem to be suggesting we should dismiss our entire understanding of how corruption occurs, because the evidence points very clearly that corruption is happening between our government and Google. Honest people, unfortunately, are not involved here.
Note for other readers: DannyBee is a Googler and claims in his profile to be a lawyer, so presumably has worked with the Google, FTC, and WSG&R people discussed here.