Top Google Executives Approved Illegal Drug Ads 287
Hugh Pickens writes "PC Magazine reports that the U.S. government used convicted con artist David Whitaker, owner of an online business selling steroids and human growth hormone to U.S. consumers, to help federal agents in a sting operation against Google when he began advertising with Google with advertisements that included the statement 'no prescription needed,' clearly violating U.S. laws. Google's settlement with the U.S. government for $500 million blamed AdWords sales by Canadian pharmacies, who allegedly were selling drugs to U.S. consumers. 'We banned the advertising of prescription drugs in the U.S. by Canadian pharmacies some time ago,' Google said then. 'However, it's obvious with hindsight that we shouldn't have allowed these ads on Google in the first place.' Peter Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting, claims that chief executive Larry Page had personal knowledge of the operation, as did Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive who now is the chief operating officer for Facebook. In 2009 Google started requiring online pharmacy advertisers to be certified by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's Verified Internet Pharmacy Practices Sites program and hired an outside company to detect pharmacy advertisers exploiting flaws in the Google's screening systems."
Once you go public... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's when the American business school ethic takes over. No right or wrong, legal or illegal, no such thing as pride in workmanship or quality; just whatever it takes to make the books look good for the next quarter. And, if it's illegal hope you're not the sorry sucker holding the bag before you get a chance to cash out.
Re: (Score:3)
hope you're not the sorry sucker holding the bag before you get a chance to cash out.
New RIM "CEO" comes to mind.
Re:Once you go public... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong.
is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar.
So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
Re:Once you go public... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong. is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar. So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
Mod parent up. The whole thing COULD be true, but it's interesting how quick people can be to believe anything that backs up their preconceived notions (e.g. rich executives are evil) and then pile on with "yes, we all know that" sort of comments without even reading, much less questioning, the story.
Re:Once you go public... (Score:5, Informative)
Read the actual article, in the Wall St Journal, not the crappy pcmag article that was based on it.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204624204577176964003660658-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html [wsj.com]
They cite numerous credible sources, including the US Attorney who led the investigation. Oh, and there's also the fact that Google admitted to wrongdoing as part of their settlement. Feel free to keep your head in the sand though.
Re:Once you go public... (Score:5, Informative)
The wall Street Journal (who wrote the original article) is a pretty reputable source as these things go. So when they write all the same facts and then follow up with : [wsj.com]
"Mr. Whitaker, who pleaded guilty and faced a maximum 65-year prison term, was sentenced in December to six years, following what federal prosecutors called "rather extraordinary" cooperation. He is due for release in two years."
I tend to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
And by the prosecutor : "Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting."
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you believe the word of a convicted criminal who is being rewarded for his "cooperation"? You don't think this reward might bias his information some?
Re: (Score:2)
It is also what you get when you provide incentives to your sales reps that ONLY look at how much money they brought in.Was there a bonus for denying shady deals? Was there an allowance to do due diligence on shady-looking companies? Or was it "your base salary is $5 an hour. Your commission is 50%. Don't slack."?
If it was the latter, don't be surprised by your sales reps turning a blind eye to shady set ups. And by the way, execs are not immune to this. If you reward them for turning a blind eye, they will
Re:Once you go public... (Score:5, Funny)
Won't somebody please think of the Big Pharma CEOs??
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said about banning the re-importation of US-branded drugs from Canada at a lower price. It's nuts that branded pills sent to Canada at a lower price become impotent when shipped back to the US.
However, the story covers more than this. They were (pretending to) ship RU-486, the abortion drug, along with steroids and human growth hormone into the US, which is illegal. Moreover, it's not the word of a con man. There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of th
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like the most bullshit part of the article. Larry Page does not micromanage every single ad on Google, there's not enough time in the day for that. This was not some major advertising deal that would have gotten executives involved. Instead some lower level sales person screwed it up.
Re: (Score:2)
They were (pretending to) ship RU-486, the abortion drug, along with steroids and human growth hormone into the US, which is illegal.
Illegal, but not immoral or unethical. Laws that conflict with our natural right to biochemical self-determination are unjust.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, lets allow everyone to sell drugs over the internet without any oversight or checks whatsoever. What's the worst that could happen, right ?
Re: (Score:3)
What is the worst that could happen? Let's see...
"Children might buy drugs!" Their parents should really have talked to them about this.
"People might get high off drugs they buy online!" So what? They can do what they will with their bodies.
"People will get high from these drugs and commit crimes to fund their drug habit/because they're high and belligerent!" People who harm others should be prosecuted, regardless of whether they're on drugs or not.
"People will sell low-quality drugs online, advertising the
Re: (Score:2)
"People will sell low-quality drugs online, advertising them as even something else entirely!" If you buy drugs online and you don't do a thorough check to make sure the seller is reputable or you're getting what you asked for, then you kind of have it coming to you.
Yes, it would require people to take more responsibility for their actions. But the benefit is that you wouldn't have the government-enforced pharmaceutical monopoly, which I think would benefit consumers far more than these other effects would hurt them.
It doesn't have to because of a scam, it could just be an exotic allergy someone has and the pills could work great for the other 99% of the population. People cannot check this for themselves, that's why in most (all?) developed countries the government has an agency that does it for them and practitioners that can be held accountable to dispense advice. When there's no verification that what's in the box actually corresponds to what's claimed on the box people will get killed. When people can just decide
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because it's not like we let people sell climbing rope, brake parts, or anything else that could cause people to get seriously hurt on the internet without any oversight or checks whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using a climbing rope or installing a brake part you probably have the expertise to check its quality. Who can test drugs at home ? Most of us aren't chemists. Even if you take the drug and it performs the function you bought it for it still could contain some cheaper active ingredient, or some binding agent, that some people could be allergic to. Drugs are dangerous, even the ones most people would consider harmless, when improperly used.
Re: (Score:2)
You can come up with all the bullshit excuses you want, but the fact is the war on drugs is far more harmful than you could ever reasonably expect drugs to be. Even if you don't use drugs, you've lost civil liberties because of it.
Re:Once you go public... (Score:4, Funny)
That's when the American business school ethic takes over. No right or wrong, legal or illegal, no such thing as pride in workmanship or quality;
I can think of endless private companies that could be described the same. Heck, just look at your local strip club.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, they keep importing Russian girls instead of hiring the locals!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you think it's when the company goes public that its executives decide to throw morals out the window?
Sure it's true that some sociopaths use the "fiduciary duty to shareholders" aspect of a public company to justify their pre-existing lack of ethics and morals (despite the lack of shareholder lawsuits against companies that don't behave unethically). Just how much have you bought into that narrative that you think that's when the problem actually starts?
Like, if Google was just as big but privately o
Truer than you know (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid margin calculation. They should have calculated the margin over product shipped to the store, not product sold. That would have ended that practice right there.
Measure the wrong KPI's, get the wrong outcomes.
And I don't blame the executives for responding to this the way they did. If you were measured based on lines of code produced, for say 50% of your income, YOU would find a way to pad the crap out of the code real fast too (and leave asap too, likely) - leaving your replacement with a maintenance
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is immoral about helping your fellow citizens fill a need? The only immoral action here is the US government enforcing anti-competetive, and frankly oppressive laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just business school ethic. It's legal ethic is anything. Every for-profit business is now incorporated with a mission/objective that is something to the effect of "have the purpose of engaging in and may engage in any lawful business activity". This is actually suggested by the individual states in their paperwork to incorporate.
So every employee is part of a team whose primary objective to seek profit in any manner that is technically legal. Every board member, exec, officer, manager, and grunt o
Re: (Score:2)
Business doesn't hesitate to play that game in reverse by claiming that actions were ethical because they didn't break the law. They do it all the time. Every time they break a contract for instance because it makes more economical sense to break their word.
Re: (Score:2)
So your ethical code is OK with breaking the legal code whenever you feel like it ? I could see the point when talking about individuals and civil disobedience but anyone who thinks it's OK for corporations to ignore the law should have their head examined. It's enough that corporations as an entity are psychopathic [commondreams.org] and that some actively recruit psychopaths [independent.co.uk], let's not give them a license to break the law too.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with morality. They're "prescription drugs". This is about protecting the US drug companies.
Oh noes the evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya because Americans being able to get decently priced drugs, is such a crime.
I agree on this, but as I recall, a lot of these shady "pharmacies" were selling unlimited quantities oxycontin and xanax to anyone who said "I have a toothache" or "I'm a little stressed" for grossly inflated prices. In other words, drug dealing.
Re:Oh noes the evil (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
try costco for drugs
the way the canadian pharmacies work is the government buys up the drugs and they sell it to americans subsidized by the canadian government because the social health system is always short of money
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Canadian government said to the drug companies 'sell us the drugs at cost or we will invalidate your patents!'
The drug company caved, thinking they had a captive market in the USA. Now the drug companies are learning the true cost of not fighting the Canadian government extortionists.
I bet Canada will soon be paying market prices for its drugs. These contracts don't last forever.
Re:Oh noes the evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the drug companies are learning the true cost of not fighting the Canadian government extortionists.
When did _not_ giving companies a government-granted monopoly become 'extortion'?
I bet Canada will soon be paying market prices for its drugs.
How can a price be a 'market price' when it's the result of a government-granted monopoly? If you want people to pay a market price for a drug, then eliminate drug patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully next election we'll boot out the Harper Party and get a government interested in bulk purchases and economies of scale. :)
Harper had a minority government until the left committed suicide by forcing an election. That has to be one of the biggest own goals in political history, and I don't see why you'd expect him to do worse in the next election after that debacle.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the bigger question. Why shouldn't people be able to drug themselves into oblivion if they want? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all...what if they find happiness in a pill bottle? Oh right, we're only supposed to do "good drugs" prescribed to us by drug peddlers^W^Wdoctors. Oh and take our "happy pills" like SSRIs/ADHD meds and that's okay as long as you don't get "high". How are some of these doctors and pharmaceutical companies any different than drug dealers and narco-terrorists?
In general, I agree, but some drugs as so addictive or harmful that they present an unfair medical or welfare burden on society. Though legalization of some "safe" drugs may keep people from moving to more harmful drugs of unknown quality and purity (like Bath Salts [wikipedia.org])
Your proposal to let people drug themselves into oblivion only makes sense if the drug user could sign away his rights to governmental financial support or medical treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes the evil (Score:5, Informative)
Things that require a prescription in this country can't be bought in unknown quantities from places that don't require prescriptions.
I assure you that they can...
$500 million settlement? (Score:2)
And now we have proof that (Score:5, Informative)
the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
Everything in the story comes from either a Con Artists claiming it's true, or known events that do not contridict the original story.
I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
And then end?
" allegedly from Jason Corriente's brother, saying the online entrepreneur died in a car crash."
So, they got all the evidences and did nothing?
Sorry, not buying it. Lets have the feds come forward to confirm this story.
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
Which begs the question: Where's Bonch?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, people on slashdot won't bother to consider the source, they'll just pounce on the headline to 'prove' their ideological belief about Google or business.
Which begs the question: Where's Bonch?
ah HAH! That's not begging the question! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I was ready to rail against this, but after reading the article, it's all shit.
I can see 500 million reasons to believe it's all true.
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent page-one story today on how federal agents caught Google deliberately breaking the law so it could make money off sites selling drugs online. That case ended with a settlement in which Google avoided criminal prosecution by paying the feds more than half a billion dollars.
The Journal Takes Us Inside the Google Drugs Sting [cjr.org]
Re:And now we have proof that (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't trust the con man, how about Google itself :
"Google acknowledged in the settlement that it had improperly and knowingly assisted online pharmacy advertisers allegedly based in Canada to run advertisements for illicit pharmacy sales targeting U.S. customers."
Or the prosecutor :
"Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting."
"But the company's ad executives worked with Mr. Whitaker to find a way around Google rules, according to prosecutors and Mr. Whitaker's account."
"The federal task force, which also included the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, was preparing criminal charges against the company and its executives for aiding and abetting criminal activity online, prosecutors said."
"Suffice to say this was not two or three rogue employees at the customer service level doing this on their own," said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney. "This was corporate decision to engage in this conduct."
No ? How about the shareholders :
"Six private shareholder lawsuits have so far been filed against Google's executives and board members, alleging they damaged the company by not taking earlier action against the illegal pharmacy ads."
Re: (Score:2)
the Wall Street Journal has fallen far under murdochs ownership.
Depending on how you word that, I'd agree. It's very obviously under Murdoch's direct influence. The decision to publish this story (as opposed to any other) is almost certainly in retaliation to Google's public opposition to SOPA/PIPA, about which Murdoch has already vociferously expressed his (ahem) disapproval.
Why is this against the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
I should preface this by saying that I am no Google fan. I think they have made many poor decisions over the past few years, and the GPYW initiative has caused me to switch over to DuckDuckGo full time.
Having said that...
Why is it illegal for Canadian drug companies to advertise their goods in the United States? The US has insanely high drug prices, and Canadian imports of those same products are (or could be) beneficial to the lives, health, and finances of who knows how many people. This is an unjust law, and am having an incredibly difficult time finding a justification for it.
This seems like yet another instance of the pharmaceutical lobby protecting their vast profits from competition.
Re: (Score:2)
The same reason it's illegal to import DVDs from Africa to sell in the US. The drug companies find they can sell drugs in the US for a LOT more than they can almost anywhere else, so they do. Allowing imports from other countries would defeat that.
Re:Why is this against the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same reason it's illegal to import DVDs from Africa to sell in the US. The drug companies find they can sell drugs in the US for a LOT more than they can almost anywhere else, so they do. Allowing imports from other countries would defeat that.
You see, when they say "globalism" and "global economy" what they mean is that corporations can off-shore to get the cheapest prices available for human labor.
When humans want to do things the other way around by making an "off-shore" international purchase to get the cheapest prices available for goods, that's a crime and suddenly the government wants to enforce a brand of protectionism.
It's standard hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason drugs are so expensive in the US is that drug companies need to have somebody pay for R&D.
Giggle.
Snort.
ROTFL [sciencedaily.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, not that I'm disagreeing with the conclusions in that study, but I can't understand how the Pharma companies are blowing $57B on advertising. That seems absurdly large to me, but maybe I'm just not calibrated to costs of advertising.
They also mention that 13.4% of sales revenue is being used for R&D. Is there any way that they're using non-sales revenue for this? I'm thinking investment returns, patent royalties, and maybe government grants could be used to support the R&D, and they're using
Re: (Score:2)
The reason DVDs in Africa are so cheap is that Africans can't afford to pay a month's salary for a DVD. The reason DVDs in the US are so much more expensive is that the movie companies need to have somebody pay for the making of the movies.
"You see, the exploitation is for your own good, really!" Not buying it.
The reason drugs in Canada are so cheap is that Canada has a single-payer system (the government) and they refuse to pay very much to get drugs. Since drug companies still want to get some money from Canada, they sell to Canada above cost but well below what it would take to recoup the R&D costs on the drugs. The reason drugs are so expensive in the US is that drug companies need to have somebody pay for R&D.
US pharmaceutical companies spend a LOT more on advertising than they spend on R&D. Which makes no damned sense whatsoever, considering you are supposed to go to a medical professional who selects and prescribes a drug to you based on its proven medical effectiveness. Advertising to the public should have no place here, only merit and fitness for purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's why (Score:3)
This has been covered every this story comes up on Slashdot. Unregulated, unlicensed pharmacies are dangerous--not only do people get drugs without a doctor's prescription, but there's no guarantee that the drugs are even the right drugs or that they've been handled properly. Counterfeit drugs, outdated drugs, contaminated drugs, mislabeled drugs--anything goes. And there are other problems, like the fact they can sell to minors or that there is nothing legally enforcing confidentiality like with a legitima
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has civilized regulation, as far as I know. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Re: (Score:2)
Some drugs like OxyContin are only supposed to be available with a prescription, since they could be abused for recreational use.
OK folks, has anyone out there actually purchased what they thought was a narcotic or benzo or other US DEA controlled substance through one of these 'pharmacies'? I'm actually curious. None of the people so inclined that I deal with on a daily basis have ever admitted to getting anything in the mail - it all comes from Fred, the local dealer.
You would be setting yourself up for a bust by the Postal Service inspectors - the fact that it came through a dodgy address in Canada would be an easy tip off for t
no prescription required? (Score:2)
How is "no prescription required" an obvious violation? This would have to be specific to each drug, and the person who is looking at it would have to know what drugs require a prescription. The average person depends on the pharmacist, drug retailer, or doctor, to know what requires a prescription. if it's on the shelf (even virtual), people assume it must be legal. If the government wants people to quit buying drugs from Canada, then it needs to mandate "fair and balanced" drug pricing.
Why would you buy drugs on the internet? (Score:3)
And why would you want to buy them without a prescription? That seems pretty silly, really.
Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why would you buy drugs on the internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue is not whether you have a prescription or not, but whether you need them. You can know you need drugs without having a prescription.
In my own case, I am on some pricey immuno-suppressive drugs. One is Prograf, which is a brand name for Tacrolimus. I know I will need this in some quantity for the rest of my life. I am currently well insured, so it's not an issue. However, I would still need Tac if I was unemployed, and I would certainly consider getting it from a reputable non-US pharmacy. The prescription I have for this is issued annually - 90 days + 3 refills, or 30 days +11 refills, typically. Now, if i wanted to get really cheap, i'd stop seeing the doctor, get the lab work done on my own dime (i'd have to pay for it anyhow) and do my own analysis of the results (not rocket science, desired tac-levels for post-transplant are well established, and printed on the lab report. Then I'd buy drugs to fill the need at the lowest cost available internationally.
Really, once you know your getting accurate dosing and purity, the government doesn't have much additional to offer.
The idea that pharmacies should be forced to provide drugs cheaply outside the US, and Americans can fund R&D and profit margins is unfair. Those costs should be spread equally amongst all the developed nations of the world, not just the US. So, I am in favor of opening the borders, or imposing some stiff taxes on cost differentials between the US and other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would you want to buy them without a prescription? That seems pretty silly, really.
That question is not relevant. The relevant question is, "if consenting adults want to do this with their own bodies and their own finances, why would you want to send men with guns after them to stop them by force or threat of force?" That's what needs justification.
Illegal != Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another example highlighting the fact that "illegal" does not necessarily equate to "wrong".
How about we instead turn our rightful indignation (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we instead turn our rightful indignation against Big Pharma and ask why the fuck is it not legal to buy the same drugs from Canada for less? When I moved to the US, I was shocked by how badly US residents are being gouged when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Nowhere else in the world do drugs cost as much as they do in the US. In some places the same exact drugs by the same exact companies are sold at 1/5th to 1/10th the price.
Re: (Score:2)
How about we instead turn our rightful indignation against Big Pharma and ask why the fuck is it not legal to buy the same drugs from Canada for less?
If it's not legal, then the US government must have pased a law banning it. So how about you instead turn your rightful indignation against them?
Google was guilty, and they admitted it (Score:2)
Read the original article. Read Google's non-prosecution agreement with DOJ [googlemonitor.com], in which Google admits to felonies and agrees to pay $500 million to avoid criminal prosecution. All this has been out in the public record for months.
This was not about "Canadian pharmacies". DOJ was led to investigate Google because they were investigating some Mexican drug dealer who had an "online pharmacy" as a side business. DOJ set up a blatantly illegal web site, "www.SportsDrugs.net, designed to look "as if a Mexican
Let the Free Market decide! (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on all you Ron Paul supporters, let's hear it. We *should* be able to buy Canadian drugs at 1/10 the price of what we're being ripped off in the USA for the same crap.
And before you bring up safety/prescriptions/handling/lifethreating issues as a factor, consider this: We buy food from China, which has far less controls regarding safety than Canada does.
That Apple Juice you're buying in Walmart? Madde from Chinese grown Apples. Who knows what those apples were exposed to, what toxins are in the ground the were grown in, how they were handled/processed and what else the factory that makes this juice also makes?
The Apple Juice you buy in Walmart could be as deadly, or even more deadly than any Canadian Pharmacy or drug "internet purchase".
The *ONLY* reason that drugs are as heavily regulated as they are in this country is to protect Corporate interests (aka BigPharma). There is NO OTHER reason. Any other excuse you've been given by the talking heads on TV is window dressing.
And if we had a real free market economy, sure, some people would die, but that's the way free market economies work. Frankly, that's the way this economy works as well, regulated or not.
Think about how many people die because they are denied health care due to insurance rates, or they can't afford the medication they've been prescribed.
No matter which way you go, people are going to die, that's just a reality. But to say that you're saving lives by not allowing Canadian Pharmacies to sell in the USA is a complete lie.
Rationalization (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether it SHOULD be illegal has no bearing on the issue.
consider this (Score:4, Informative)
Number of Google employees that the government considered sending to prison: 0
Number of people selling less than 1 ounce of marijuana sentenced to federal prison: 5,452
Number of drug arrests per minute in the USA: 25
Re:500 million?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
500 million is petty chump change for the US federal government. You could define the Planck time in terms of how long 500 million dollars would keep the US government in operation.
The whole thing is stupid anyway. Good drug dealers don't deliver ads to your browser. They use networks of trust.
Like all such restrictions on what consenting adults do, these laws are a sort of IQ test -- the dumb ones get caught. The smart ones? Unless you participate you never even know they are there. This overuse of police power and regulatory authority breeds smarter dealers who are harder to catch just like what overuse of antibiotics does to staph.
Seriously some of you really think all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? Every day you get in your car and drive to work I guarantee you, other drivers around you are high on something, carrying something, transporting something, about to sell something. This foolishness just makes them hide it, that's all.
Re:500 million?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
500 million is petty chump change for the US federal government. You could define the Planck time in terms of how long 500 million dollars would keep the US government in operation.
500 million is a huge windfall for the small agency that conducted the sting. Unfortunately it gives them the resources to setup and entrap other large companies. This happens all the time. Another example is the Michigan State agency that figured out how to go after people buying cigarettes over the internet and not paying state taxes - they got enough cash from the first round of lawsuits to triple the number of people working in that dept.
If you read the article, it details just how much effort the govt put into convincing and tricking Google execs into accepting the ads. It's important to note that Google initially refused the ads entirely until they changed the website so that you had to contact the company directly (which makes the website an advertisement for services and not a store, btw). Then the feds had to keep nagging and begging to get the ads released in the US. This is a classic case of entrapment.
I think Google just paid the $500 million because it's chump change to them and they want this to quietly go away as a long trial could have cost more in lawyers fees and damage to their reputation..
Is the next target going to be eBay because they knowingly allow counterfeit items to be sold? They've already tried zinging them for this before.
Re: (Score:3)
500 million is a huge windfall for the small agency that conducted the sting. Unfortunately it gives them the resources to setup and entrap other large companies.
I think this should be "Fortunately". When I was in chemotherapy, my capecitabene tablets cost $1600 for a 2 week supply, or I could buy them from an on-line pharmacy for $650. It was tempting to save a bunch of money but I didn't because that medication was too important for me to trust an unknown supplier. One of other patients at my clinic told me that he ordered some from an online pharmacy in the US (or so he thought) and they arrived in an anonymous envelope from Guyana and with a size, shape and c
Re: (Score:3)
If they were made in India, they might differ in size, shape, or color because India doesn't recognize pharmaceutical patents for uses or chemicals -- it only recognizes patents for manufacturing processes. So, when somebody like Pfizer patents a drug in India, they get a patent on the specific process they use to manufacture the drug. If somebody comes up with a different way to make the same drug, they can patent it and sell the drug in India with complete legality. Cipla is notorious (among American/Euro
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't go "directly in their pockets," but what happens is that the extra money is brought to the attention of the people who allocate budgets. Those people then allocate more to whoever brought in the money in the hope that there is more where that came from and extra staff will better be able suck that cash out of the economy and into the government budget without anything so politically unacceptable as "tax increases."
Re: (Score:2)
" all this regulation of some things and straight up prohibition of other things is changing anything? "
of course it doesn't. It has been shown over and over again.
The effect and impact varies depending on implementation
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good cash grab for the government.
I wonder whether government computers will continue to get quality search results from Google, seeing as Google has now lost some money to operate their very demanding data centers... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be a lot more worried about google saying they've had enough and taking their business off shore, but hopefully we're still a ways from that happening...
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we worry about google leaving if we fine it for breaking laws; citizens don't get the same luxury. We should in no way treat corporations better than people just because we're afraid of them leaving.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder whether government computers will continue to get quality search results from Google, seeing as Google has now lost some money to operate their very demanding data centers... ;)
All the government operated computers I use already redirect www.google.com to www.baidu.com and www.yandex.com.
Ever since we install that Symantec suite, things just haven't been the same ...
Re:500 million?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have to agree. Sting? Google? They could have just told them. If the government wants to steal there money and ours, I would prefer plain old taxes. No speed traps, crazy fines in some cities that will get everyone about once a year, etc. Sometimes things get past the Mexican border too. Why should Google do their job anyhow?
I know Google has a lot of money, but a $500,000 fine is plain theft. Has the government stopped drugs coming in thru Mexico? Maybe they should be fined for that. It's all silly.
Re:500 million?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed, no fees for drivers licenses and plates and marriage licenses. No tolls or other charges. All this crap is just a way to avoid using the tax system to pay for government services.
Its made to SOUND fair, the people using the service pay the fee, but if you are pulling in a few billion a year its far more preferable to pay a $50 fee for your license plate* than to pay your fair share of the cost to provide everyone with plates under the progressive tax system. Who pays the difference between your million dollar fair share of that cost and the $50 you paid instead? The single mother of four whose kids went hungry last night, she works in a factory owned by the billionaire.
Because nobody's time is worth billions. Those billions represent the labor of millions of fellow citizens and those citizens needed millions of license plates in order to produce those billions. The guy who ends up with the billions should pay for the license plates it represents, not the fellow citizens who did the work.
*Analogy is slightly flawed since license plates exist primarily for the purpose of systematically charging fees and really should be gotten rid of.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to define "fair share"?
Re:500 million?? (Score:4, Informative)
Currently that would be the IRS and congress.
Re: (Score:2)
I do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually if you look at our history the times of the highest growth was when the top tax rate was 70% or above which makes perfect sense if you think about it.
Actually if you look at our history, the times of the highest growth was in the *1800s* when there was ZERO income tax, for ANYONE.
The massive growth in the 1950s was due to our country being practically the only industrial power on the earth left standing after World War II. The growth was *in spite of* incredibly high taxation, not because of.
Re: (Score:2)
Google wasn't actually smuggling drugs.
Re:500 million?? (Score:5, Insightful)
they were linking to it!
and if you're been breathing at all during the last few years, you know that if you LINK to things, its the same as DOING those things.
you know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Correction: one of their users linked to it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's happening here, though. They're mostly protecting the business of US drug companies. Remember these are 'prescription drugs', not banned drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
But it only takes a few in business to do the wrong thing to make the whole business look wrong, as in the case here. Certainly most Google employees knew nothing of this, right?
Of course, since Google is in fact an Actual Person, and Actual People who aren't schizophrenic can't both know and not know something, then we should legally assume that if any one Google employee knew about this, then they all knew about this, and therefore every Google executive should go to prison. Sounds fair to me, them bein
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny you say that, have you ever actually ben in an American Business school? I have, and we were required to take several ethics courses as well as weighing the ethical impacts of any decisions we made in case studies.
Just curious - did the ethics courses try to teach you how to differentiate between one decision that makes a lot of money from one that makes slightly more money or did they have any lessons on how to decide between A, which breaks some laws and involves some lies but makes the company a nice profit, and B, which obeys the law but costs the company huge losses and your job.
Re:American business school ethics... (Score:5, Funny)
Is it true the marks from those courses get deducted from your overall score?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard of any business schools where they teach that a business should behave in the same manner that would be considered ethical for a human being. Mostly I hear more along the lines of ethics in terms of consequences for action. For example, it is commonly taught that breaking a contract is a business decision and it is fair to make if you are willing to accept the consequences but when an individual does this it is considered lying, breaking your word, failing to uphold your obligation, etc.
The
Re:Sudden influx of Google is Evil Stories (Score:4, Funny)
Bavarian illuminati, freemasons, elders of zion, the psyops corps of the PLA and the shade of Osama bin Laden.
Re: (Score:2)
Shattering of an illusion that scroogle.org has tried to tell us about for so long: Google is evil, like all the rest of them.
http://www.scroogle.org/gifs/gscrew.gif [scroogle.org]
Some alternatives to searching, which I think is the most dangerous tool to lose your privacy on: https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com] https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com] and of course http://scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org] that has many SSL-solutions, depending on your OS.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
reality is triggering this (Score:2)
power corrupts
it is only a matter of time before google goes from nerd darling to abusive apparatus
it is the inevitable arc of all human enterprise
until another google rises, be prepared for the betrayals
Re: (Score:2)
They're not illegal drugs. The headline was misleading.
They're prescription drugs, and selling them without a prescription is illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Very confused here. I thought corporations were now people so where are their 1st amendment protections?
That thinking only applies when you are a corporate entity looking to publish negative, often completely untrue ads about politicians without revealing who you are or who gave you money... If you are looking to do something like making money off of the promotion of the availability of prescription-like substances on the international market, you bet your ass that it's not about rights any more...