FairSearch.org | What to Know About the European Commission Investigation

For the last 18 months, the European Commission has been investigating serious and credible formal complaints that Google is abusing its dominant position in online search and search advertising in violation of EU competition and consumer protection laws. The European Commission launched its formal antitrust investigation in November 2010 and reports indicate 16 or more companies have filed complaints, including FairSearch members Foundem, Microsoft, Twenga, Expedia and TripAdvisor.

What happened Monday?

On Monday, Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Competition Policy, acknowledged that Google is engaged in four potential abuses of dominance, validating the concerns of FairSearch members, other businesses and consumer advocates.

What’s the Commission looking at?

The Commission has outlined four areas of concern, in its own words:

1. Deceptive display: “In its general search results, Google displays links to its own vertical search services differently than it does for links to competitors. We are concerned that this may result in preferential treatment compared to those of competing services.”
2. Unauthorized content scraping: “Our second concern relates to the way Google copies content from competing vertical search services and uses it in its own offerings. […] We are worried that this could reduce competitors’ incentives to invest in the creation of original content for the benefit of internet users.”
3. Exclusivity in advertising agreements: “Our third concern relates to agreements between Google and partners on the websites of which Google delivers search advertisements. […] The agreements result in de facto exclusivity requiring them to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers of search advertising intermediation services.”
4. Portability of ad campaign data: “Our fourth concern relates to restrictions that Google puts to the portability of online search advertising campaigns from its platform AdWords to the platforms of competitors. […]We are concerned that Google imposes contractual restrictions on software developers which prevent them from offering tools that allow the seamless transfer of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other platforms for search advertising.”

Apart from the concerns mentioned above, Commissioner Almunia disclosed that his office is separately investigating other Google business practices for potential violations of antitrust and consumer protection laws.  Commissioner Almunia said, “We continue the investigations on other issues, on other complaints we received recently, for instance all those complaints referring to Android or some complaints referring for instance to the way travel agencies are dealt by the Google search engine.”

How did Google react?

Google said that “we’ve only just started to look through the Commission’s arguments.” (Worth noting that Google said two years ago, at the launch of the investigation when the Commission outlined the specific allegations it was probing, that Google would be “working with the Commission to address any concerns.”)

What is expected over the next few weeks?

According to Politico, “Almunia’s move Monday spares Google — for now — from a statement of objections, the preliminary document that would have started the EU’s formal antitrust process. Yet Almunia made clear Google must ‘come up in a matter of weeks with first proposals of remedies to address each of these points.’ Those solutions would have to be market-tested, Almunia said. And he explained it would ultimately lead to a commitment decision, rather than a formal antitrust proceeding that could end with steep fines.”

Market testing refers to a process where the Commission presents the proposed remedies to the public and invites interested stakeholders to provide comments on the potential for effectiveness and possible improvements. A Statement of Objections (SO) is a formal written step in Commission antitrust investigations in which the Commission would inform Google of evidence supporting potential findings that Google has violated the law.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120804160739/http://www.fairsearch.org/content-scraping/what-to-know-about-the-european-commission-investigation/#.UA88qmia2CI.blogger

Nursing Medical Care: Cancer Fighting Foods, Herbs and Spices...

Nursing Medical Care: Cancer Fighting Foods, Herbs and Spices...: Avocados are rich in glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that attacks free radicals in the body by blocking intestinal absorptio...

Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal

Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal

Well, now it is official. Mark Zuckerberg was not so smart after all, but just fronting for the CIA in one of the biggest Intelligence coups of all times.

But there remains one small problem, the CIA is not supposed to monitor Americans. I guess we will hear more on that soon from the lawyers once the litigation gets cranked up.

Personally I will be more interested in how this is going to effect the stock offering and shares as all Americans should own the entity that has been spying on them.

And then there are the SEC full disclosure regulations and penalties. It’s bonanza time for the lawyers.

Could the loophole the CIA used be that, ‘you aren’t being spied on if you are willingly posting everything a repressive regime would love to have on your Facebook account, with no threats, no family hostages, no dirty movies or photos that could be released?

But enough with the lead in. Let’s take you directly to our source where you can get it straight from the source’s mouth, including seeing Zuckerberg getting his award.

We really need your comments on this below so we can speak to power with one voice…something that can rarely be done around here.

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I am not stupid…all of my Facebook material is all made up, including all of my friends. I am in the safe zone. My momma didn’t raise no fool. But how about you?

 

YouTube - Veterans Today - – CIA and Zuckerberg

Hope you enjoyed the spoof folks. I thought it was great. And congrats to the Onion News Network gang  on getting those 3.7 million YouTube views !!!

 https://web.archive.org/web/20120712105751/https://veteranstoday.com/2012/07/10/mark-zuckerberg-awarded-cia-surveillance-award/#.T_8OYjBF6I4.blogger

Brown Moses Blog: Operation Motorman - Leveson Hearings In August?

Brown Moses Blog: Operation Motorman - Leveson Hearings In August?: 

The latest piece from a regular contributor.

Lord Justice Leveson delivered a new Ruling this morning regarding Operation Motorman and Associated Newspapers.  In this new Ruling, Leveson gives a glimpse of representations made in private on how the inquiry should interpret the Motorman Files - the Ruling itself gives a good background summary of the Motorman investigation and Steve Whittamore's documentation in relation to his business of 'enquiries' undertaken for national newspapers via named journalists.  Many of these commissions include criminal records checks, Police National Computer checks - on the face of it, data procurement which was illegal. No journalists were arrested, charged or prosecuted.

In order to address concerns on the level of detail that the Inquiry might make public, Leveson held private hearings to receive Core Participant views.  He understood from those private meetings that there was a general acceptance that breaches of data protection laws by some journalists were acknowledged. Given that understanding, Leveson ruled that he did not intend tp make public any or all information in the Motorman Files.  This decision drew criticism from those wanting all the information released into the public domain and, presumably, some relief was felt by the named journalists and the national newspapers who had employed them.

Then Paul Dacre decided to take umbrage at Lord Justice Leveson's understanding of the private hearings' consensus on Motorman.

Dacre's titles came top of Motorman league of journalists commissioning of Steve Whittamore so, arguably, Dacre has most to fear from any release or leak of the Motorman Files. For an analysis of Dacre's dilemma, see here.

During Paul Dacre's evidence to the Inquiry, he appeared to accept (prompted by Leveson's prompting to consult with Associted Newspapers counsel) that there was prima facie evidence in the Motorman Files that journalists in his employ had commissioned data procurement, obtained illegally by Whittamore.  This grudging and graceless acceptance was given by Dacre amid his defensive opinions on the accuracy and validity of the Motorman evidence.

However, Dacre now seems to be challenging Leveson's understanding of prima facie acknowledgement of illegality by Associated Newspaper journalists.  Associated Newspapers defensive actions may have been, in part, prompted by Core Participant victims' counsel, Mr Sherborne, making successful argument to Lord Justice Leveson for partial and redacted release of some Motorman Files evidence - that which relates to journalists still continuously employed by relevant newspapers. Even in redacted form - letter ciphers standing in for journalists' names - this represents the first Motoman evidence released which relates to non-News International titles.  (Whittamore's 'Blue Book' detailing named News International journalists commissions has been leaked by GuidoFawkes.)

Associated Newspapers representations to Leveson firstly take issue with his assumption that Dacre accepted strong prima facie evidence of illegality. Counsel have complained about Leveson's characterisation as "strong" prima facie evidence. Lord Justice Leveson's opening remarks this morning included an apology to Associated for mis-representing their understanding through his use of the word "strong".

Notwithstanding, should Associated Newspapers additionally be back-pedalling on any acknowledgement of bad practice, Lord Justice Leveson IS now prepared to address the Motorman Files (as they relate to Associated titles) - IN PUBLIC and over the summer:

If necessary I shall sit during August to deal with it

His intention seems to be to make public as many examples of illegal data requests as it takes for Associated Newspapers to finally and unequivocably accept prima facie evidence of wrong-doing, "strong" or otherwise.

Say goodbye to your summer.....

The Night Before...

It will be eight years tomorrow since my ex died. Eight short, long years. Our daughter is in the uk 12 miles down the road. With no wish to see me. Two broken hearts. Would you have done things differently if you'd lived, siabreen ?

Never Post Pissed.

I am. But eh ? Me - Reread this in the future and get bit into your head. 'People are crazy, do crazy things and rarely make sense.' Grace may fairclough, though your real name is nelson, (look at your birth certificate) you appear to have inherited your mothers brains and her heart. I now let you go completely - and i am free. For those who have supported the mother ? May God grant you all you deserve. r - let it go... no comments please - just prayers and positive thought.

MURDOCH: Leveson: Matt Sprake ex -met - part of his agency’...

MURDOCH: Leveson: Matt Sprake ex -met - part of his agency’...: 

 Police and other public officials are still being offered thousands of pounds for information about the private lives of celebrities, The Independent can reveal.

An investigation by Exaro, the investigative website, www.exaronews.com, found that officials such as probation and prison officers are being targeted by a former Metropolitan Police forensics and surveillance officer now running a news agency selling pictures and stories to newspapers.

This is despite the current police investigation into the alleged bribing of public officials by journalists, and the Leveson inquiry into media ethics.

Today a prison officer and two other people were arrested in connection with the police probe into corrupt payments to officials by journalists.

So far a total of 37 people have been arrested in connection with Operation Elveden, the investigation into suspected corrupt payments to public officials.

But despite this Newspics, a press agency based in Shenfield, Essex, still appears to be offering four-figure sums for ‘scoops’ through its website.

The agency claims endorsements from the picture desk of The People, the red-top Sunday tabloid, OK magazine, the celebrity title, and the Press Association, the national news agency. The Independent has published legitimate photographs taken by Newspics photographers.

On a page of its website headed ‘news exclusives' it says:

“Do you know of a story, a scandal, something that made you interested, chances are that a newspaper will pay for that information.  Do you know where a prominent person is living or what they get up to, is a celebrity having an affair that you know of, do you know anyone who’s on reality TV?  You can earn yourself good cash now by calling.

It then adds: “All sorts of people have been paid thousands of pounds by us for giving information that leads to a picture being sold or a story being written, are you a doorman, police worker, civil servant, probation officer, prison officer, nurse? Make some extra money without anyone ever knowing…”

Newspics is run by Matt Sprake a former forensics and surveillance officer for Scotland Yard who carried out anti-terrorism duties during his 10-year police career.

Sprake runs the agency with his wife, Marion, a banker who has been working for Barclays. He claims to have a network of 35 photographers, and a discreet studio “just 20 minutes from the City of London” for celebrity client portraits.

Part of his agency’s website is devoted to its “surveillance photography”, offering a menu of services, including “covert foot follows”, “covert vehicle follows” and ”remote technical surveillance”.

“You can utilise the very same skills that are used by the security services and the police,” clients are promised.  

“Our surveillance team has worked for and been trained by various police and government surveillance agencies within the UK. If you need it photographed without being seen, we are your experts.”

When contacted by Exaro, Sprake defended himself, saying that he had never paid a police officer or “anyone in authority” for information.

He said that he had wanted to remove the wording discovered by Exaro, but he was unable to do so because the website was “broken”.

“I wish I could change this website,” he said. “It was by three different companies and when one of them went bust, we could not change the website. It was a pain.”

But he told Exaro that he exercised caution with tip-offs: “I would not touch anything that is operational or compromising. We had people contact us on stories like the royal family, for example. My first question was, ‘How do you know that?’

“‘Well, I have heard it in a briefing.’

“‘Sorry, can’t touch it.’”

Sprake said that the wording on his agency’s website was “just advertising” aimed at the “general public”.

On the social-media website, Myspace, he puts his income at between £100,000 and £150,000 a year.

Sprake continued: “I used to work for a specialist department at the Met in Scotland Yard looking, basically, at terrorism work. The level I was working at involved very covert stuff.

“I got out after 10 years. You are limited on the number of years you are allowed to do, so I am now doing other work. But I have still got all that training that is very handy to have.”

He says that police officers contact him to “moan” about their conditions.

He also claims that his agency is “monitored by some departments in the Met for where some of our stories have come from.”

“You have got to be very careful whenever you get information from a police officer.

They are not going to be paid because it is obviously illegal.

The story will only be put forward if they have obtained that information through something that would be general information.

“If they ring up and say I have seen this bit of paper and this story is going on, well, we do not touch that because that would be highly illegal. So we are very careful.”

He said that most of the agency’s press work came directly from newspapers rather than information given by sources.

Mr Sprake said that he “adhered” to the code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which is a claim made by his agency on its website in relation to its surveillance work.

However, a PCC spokesman said that the code did not apply to picture agencies or freelance photographers. “This highlights the same issue that Lord Leveson has already raised: whether agency photographers or the paparazzi, as well as editors, should be covered by the code.”

Exaro's full report of the investigation can be found by clicking here.

Big Banks Have Criminally Conspired Since 2005 to Rig $800 Trillion Dollar Market

But Receive Only a Light Slap on the Wrist

We noted Friday:

Barclays and other large banks – including Citigroup, HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase, Lloyds, Bank of America, UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland– manipulated the world’s primary interest rate (Libor) which virtually every adjustable-rate investment globally is pegged to.

***

That means they manipulated a good chunk of the world economy.

We actually understated the impact of the Libor scandal.

Specifically, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, the global economy – as measured by the world’s gross domestic product – is less than $80 trillion.

In contrast, over $800 trillion dollars worth of investments are pegged to the Libor rate.   In other words, a market more than 10 times the size of the entire real world economy is effected by Libor.

As the Wall Street Journal reports today:

More than $800 trillion in securities and loans are linked to the Libor, including $350 trillion in swaps and $10 trillion in loans.

(Click here if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal).

Remember, the derivatives market is approximately $1,200 trillion dollars.  Interest rate derivatives comprise the lion’s share of all derivatives, and could blow up and take down the entire financial system.

The largest interest rate derivatives sellers include Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and JP Morgan … many of which are being exposed for manipulating Libor.

They have been manipulating Libor on virtually a daily basis since 2005.

They are still part of the group of banks which sets Libor every day, and none have been criminally prosecuted.

They have received a light slap on the wrist from regulators, which – as nobel economist Joe Stiglitz points out – is just the cost of doing business when fraud is the business model.

Indeed – as Bloomberg notes – they’re probably still manipulating the rate:

The U.K. bankers and regulators charged with reviewing Libor in the wake of regulatory probes are resisting calls to overhaul the rate because structural changes risk invalidating trillions of dollars of contracts.

The group, established by the British Bankers’ Association in March after probes into allegations that traders rigged the London interbank offered rate … won’t propose structural changes such as basing the rate on actual trades or taking away oversight of the benchmark from the BBA, the people said.

Libor is determined by a daily poll that asks banks to estimate how much it would cost them to borrow from each other for different timeframes and in different currencies. Because banks’ submissions aren’t based on real trades, academics and lawyers say they are open to manipulation by traders. At least a dozen firms are being probed by regulators worldwide for colluding to rig the rate, the benchmark for $350 trillion of securities.

“I don’t see a significant enhancement to the reputation of Libor without basing it on actual transactions,” said Rosa Abrantes-Metz, an economist with Global Economics Group, a New York-based consultancy, an associate professor with New York University’s Stern School of Business and the co-author of a 2008 paper entitled “Libor Manipulation?” [the manipulation was well-known in England in 2007,  Shah Gilani  warned of Libor manipulation in 2008, and Tyler Durden, Max Keiser and others started sounding the alarm at or around the same time.]

“It would only be disruptive if current quotes are inaccurate,” so resistance “is suspicious,” she said.

***

Traders interviewed by Bloomberg in March at three firms said they were given no guidance on how Libor should be set and there were no so-called Chinese walls preventing contact between the treasury staff charged with submitting the rate and traders who stood to profit on where Libor was set each day. They regularly discussed where Libor would be set with their colleagues and their counterparts at other firms, they said.

“Sadly the response looks to be very consistent with the response of policy makers to the banking disasters we’ve seen over the last four years — cosmetic changes, but nothing substantial happens,” said Richard Werner, a finance professor at the University of Southampton. “It’s insufficient and doesn’t really go to the heart of the problem.”