View Single Post
  #23   Report Post  
Old October 27th 11, 11:14 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.sport.golf,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy
D. Peter Maus[_2_] D. Peter Maus[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 665
Default Stunning crime by government authorities, right out in the open,attack on free speech ...

On 10/27/11 15:55 , SaPeIsMa wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 10/27/11 06:14 , SaPeIsMa wrote:




Google has a transparency report where requests for removal are
explained
http://www.google.com/transparencyre...nmentrequests/


"Google" and "transparency" are mutually exclusive terms.


Google is NOT the Government
It's a BUSINESS
It has NO NEED or DUTY to be ANYTHING..



While you may argue the point of need, or duty, that Google offers
a report claiming transparency, while being the second most
deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet would be
laughable if it weren't so tragic.


ANd who declared Google to be
"second most deceptive and disingenuous corporation on the planet "
And by what standard was this defintion made ??



By observation, experience, incomparison to other companies
operating in the US. That declaration was made by a number of
privacy advocate, and corporate watchdogs.

Google's track record in matters of integrity and transparency is
only marginally better than that of the Ethyl Corporation. Read the
TOS for Google. The privacy policies for Google. Then read the
privacy policy for one of their products like GMail. The
contradictions and obfuscations are quite striking.

And while many users read the TOS associated with a product, few
bother to delve into the policies of Google, itself. It takes some
pretty determined digging, to find the real intent of the policies
and product TOS for Google.

The mantra "Don't be evil," is laughable on its face.



If they're going to offer a 'transparency report,' they DO ideed
have a need and a duty to be transparent.


You seem to have a real issue with putting the cart before the horse.
Why is that ?


And requiring actual transparency of a company issuing a
transparency report is putting the cart before the horse?

You must have been a dream student in your debate class.