
Google: new concerns raised about political influence by ‘revolving door’ jobs - alt_
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-influence-hiring-government-officials
======
phantom_oracle
The most important piece of the article:

> Questions have been raised about who funds the Google Transparency Project.
> The CfA declined to say, and this prompted suspicion that it is bankrolled
> by rival media and internet companies keen to check the company’s power.

If you're going to be a transparency-watchdog, it helps that your own
organization remains transparent as well.

~~~
rpgmaker
This is a very bad attempt at deflecting attention from the the very tight
(and troublesome) relationship Google has with USG and this is very well
documented by now. That this specific company isn't very transparent doesn't
take anything away from this troublesome fact. So no, that's not the most
important piece of the article at all.

------
_audakel
I'm not sure how this is very different than Goldman saches both hiring former
members of the SEC and having many of its employees go on to fill top
financial regulatory positions in government. People are not up in arms about
that. I am sure other top banks in Europe do similar things ie have people
they can influence in top positions or hire them.

It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of
thing, and the first tech company to try it at this extent. People just don't
like change, and the people who used to have that power (large financial
institutions ) don't like that the weird kids from palo alto are moving in
their territory

~~~
hkmurakami
>It is mostly likely google is the nrw kid on the block trying this sort of
thing

Right. Basically the banks have been playing this game for so long and are
quite smart about it so they've learned how to keep things on the down low so
the public won't get up in arms about it. They're also way ahead of tech in
the PR game (or rather, not having undesireable PR pop up). Just look at how
much flak big tech gets vs big banks (imo both have issues) with respect to
gender equality and inclusivity, even though the banks are just as bad if not
worse for women and many minority groups.

~~~
ENGNR
Finance has a pretty bad reputation these days though, saying finance is
corrupt isn't exactly news worthy, which is why Hillary Clinton is copping so
much flak for having a close relationship with Goldman Sachs. If it was Google
instead I don't think it'd be as big an issue

~~~
sharemywin
It's there but like you say no one makes a big deal of it.

[http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-
emails-s...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-show-
state-departments-close-relationship-with-google/)

------
ppod
The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country, but this is one of its
biggest problems. The magazine Private Eye basically every week lists out
multiple cases where well-paid managers have moved between government and
industry and used influence of one to help their friends in the other. Nobody
seems to pay it too much attention. But you build one duck-moat..

~~~
Jerry2
> _The UK is, relatively speaking, not a corrupt country_

You sure about that? Just a week ago, a mafia expert called the UK "most
corrupt country in the world".

Give this a read:

 _UK is most corrupt country in the world, says mafia expert Roberto Saviano_
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-
savia...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-saviano-
britain-corrupt-mafia-hay-festival-a7054851.html)

~~~
xbmcuser
not for UK citizens or laws according to the article it is most corrupt as all
the ill-gotten and corrupt proceed from all over the world are parked in the
Uk

------
bla2
Does anyone here know who funds CfA? Or how these "revolving door" numbers
compare to any other company? Feels like a smear campaign.

------
kneel
Google has collected vasts amount of information and they can recruit skill
and develop almost any type of software they want.

It seems like a no brainer they're going to play an ever growing role in
government.

How big a role do they play? What is the limits?

~~~
_audakel
Is it a bad thing that Google plays a more involved role? They have on
numerous occasions lent their technical expertise to improve horibly broke
aspects of the federal govt (Healthcare.Gov is an example) . If they can
improve the technical aspects (open apis for govt data for example), it might
help bring more light to the parts of govt that are unavailable to ordinary
citizens.

~~~
azakai
It's not good or bad necessarily, but it is incredibly dangerous.

Google is a massive corporation with unprecedented information about ordinary
people. Information that we would never let governments collect on us. As
Google becomes more connected to governments, that separation might break
down.

The Snowden revelations showed us part of the hidden picture here. But the
public picture, as described in this article, is enough to worry about.

------
shkkmo
Perhaps we should requires some sort of "non-compete" like clause to limit
regulators accepting jobs at the companies they were regulating?

~~~
neolefty
In principle yes. It requires some extra support though -- regulation alone
won't lead to a healthy situation:

1\. We need to pay & respect regulators well enough that people will want to
pursue it as a career, because once you start down it you won't be allowed to
work in industry.

2\. Expertise can be difficult to develop, but it's absolutely necessary for
complex industries. Who is best-equipped to regulate, say, fossil fuel
exploration? An experienced expert from that industry, since they know the ins
and outs intimately. But they are also likely to have conflicts of interest.
See Deepwater Horizon for an example of how badly it can go wrong when expert
regulators turn a blind eye.

Occasionally it will go very well, like with Tom Wheeler of the FCC. He is an
expert veteran of the telecom industry, and he seems to have public good in
mind, and he values the regulatory role well enough to put some real effort
into it and take professional risks. But his case is exceptional -- it's rare
to find someone like that, from what I've seen.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

------
fo_rill
The more I see the name "Alphabet" the more crooked and untrustworthy
everything associated with it feels.

It will be a cancerous flaw staining the reputation that Google has thus far
earned, until it goes away.

It feels like a pre-emptive "Altria" or "Xe Services" type rebrand, and it
smells foul and deceptive.

~~~
deprave
Alphabet is basically a name to do things with Google money that people would
have approved of if they immediately knew Google was associated with. It's a
way to fool most people who probably won't bother figuring out where this
"new" multibillion dollar corporation came from.

Hopefully the media keeps reminding everyone what Alphabet really is...

