

Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research - doctorshady
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research-independent

======
dang
This post was killed by user flags while the URL was
[http://www.propublica.org/article/stanford-promises-not-
to-u...](http://www.propublica.org/article/stanford-promises-not-to-use-
google-money-for-privacy-research), presumably because that article is
inaccurate.

We've switched to the url that appears most accurate. If there's a better
article, we can switch it again.

------
nwenzel
Publicity stunts get in the way of actual progress. Money is fungible so it's
impossible to actually hold true to that promise. They could only use google
money to buy sandwiches. But then money that used to go towards sandwiches can
now be put towards privacy.

------
Raphmedia
Who cares? Depending how it is managed, this is a smart move. Accept money
from anti-privacy advocates, put it in demilitarization researches. Then,
accept money from anti-demilitarization advocates, put it in privacy research.

But perhaps I'm too optimist.

~~~
doctorshady
Stanford I'm not too concerned about. The fact that Google is taking such a
negative stance on privacy is quite concerning, though.

------
gress
Can we now finally acknowledge that Google has an anti-privacy agenda?

~~~
DannyBee
????

When you file amicus/other briefs in federal court, you are often _required_
to state whether or not you have a financial interest in the case or receive
funding from the parties/etc.

Stanford filed a proposal in a case that involved Google. In order to fulfill
the above requirement, they made a statement that while Google gives them
money, they didn't use it for the stuff they are talking about in the brief.
They then conclude "For these reasons, we do not believe we have a conflict of
interest with either Google or with the Plaintiff class."

That's it.

Blogger then decides this is a request by Google, rather than a fucking
statement of financial interest.

The only agenda here is yours :)

~~~
gress
“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know
what you’re thinking about.”

But, fair enough about the original article.

------
jimbograss
Apparently that report is inaccurate:
[https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-
research...](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research-
independent)

Edit: not sure exactly why my comment was downvoted, the link I submitted is
the response from Stanford CIS (the party who filed the legal document in
question) disputing the article.

~~~
tptacek
Odd how the most important comment on the thread, which debunks the source
article decisively, can somehow be at the bottom of the thread.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It happens every now and then; that's why I have a habit of scrolling through
the entire thread, including skimming the greyed-out posts.

