Google looks to cut funds to illegal sites

Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, Mastercard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ogle-looks-to-cut-funds-to-illegal-sites.html

 

Hmmmm ... this is The Telegraph though, so I would take take anything it says with a pinch of salt.

 

There is an aspect that is not very clearly stated in the article: how exactly is Google going to "cut funds to illegal sites"?

 

I am very skeptical of the motivation behind this story.

This may be paranoia but if i were running an illegal site I would write this article to flush out the enforcement methods via this fourm and other posts elsewhere. Then I could improve my MO.

If the telegraph knows of illegal site or google they should turn over the list to the police in the UK or USA and let them act.

If I was google and had this list of bad guys I would simply block access for my users in order to practice good governence.

 

Companies like Google should not interfere with law enforcement matters

I think it is about getting the payment companies to block the accounts of the sites like Paypal did with Wikileaks.

 

And kick them off Google search results.
Hey Davesky, you a News of the World reader?

 

I thought the same, but how will GOOGLE do this?

 

One other option would be if Google simply refuses to accept their pay-per-click ads. I don't know how much revenue is involved, but I've heard it could be fairly substantial. And of course pruning them from search results wouldn't hurt either.

 

Interfering with police is a chargable offence.


But if you are aware of a list of criminals or witness a crime and you believe in the rule of law then you should come forward just as google should.


But as I said this is about finding out about enforcement for reasons unknown. The OP asked this "how" why does he/she care "how" they would do it?

 

These kinds of ideas that we deem "moral" or "ethical" are always backed by people seeking to exploit the situation. Big time prohibition supporters made money on the demand for alcohol in dry counties. The music/movie industries make profit on the demand for media when they shut down harmless media sites like YouTube from hosting small "clips" of movies, etc. So we need to ask ourselves who is going to benefit from this? How do they plan to deal with the backlash when these individual move to services outside the control of goole and it's partners?

 

Once I found this comment under an interview to Mr. Brin (I think it was on the Guardian)

"Google is Skynet. Once it becomes self-aware, mankind is ****ed".

 

Probably illegally.

 

This is the same mindset that is used for not enforcing the law "here" because well you know they will just move to another "there".

Result? No laws enforced here. Is that the goal?

Illegal sites should be reported and shut down whenever possible.

 

These generalized witch hunts may be great for taking down sites that perform clearly illegal operations. That may be torrent sites, phishing sites, etc. But it also targets sites that at least in my opinion should be protected. Your welcome to disagree, and I'm not arguing that you should agree. But federal regulation always over steps its authority on such matters. I'm not opposed to enforcing sensible laws, but when you've got corporate lobbyist blackballing the justice/legal system then I say no. I visit a number of sites that provide technically illegal services. So if I want to strip the DRM on my e-books and access them on other devices I will. I'm not reselling or sharing that media, and I'm the only one accessing it. Calm down, your not losing money. By the way, no matter what you call it (intellectual property) it is still property. This is equivalent to suing someone for removing the logo from their clothing before reselling them. Would that seem like a sensible issue to regulate? This is almost as bad as requiring a working license to sell lemonade. Now we have corporations trying to enforce such regulation.

 

I see.

You now have decided which laws make sense and don't stop you from doing things you WANT to do illegal or not. These you will follow.

The laws that get in your way you will break because of lobbyist?

I have added you to my block list, that is legal?

 

I stand by my decisions, and I believe they are justified. Your welcome to disagree.

I do not support legislation that violates my privacy and enters into my home. The circumstances that justify coming onto my property, let alone entering my home are few. Unless you are seeking to prevent me from harming another individual (with exclusion to myself) or providing me assistance (medical, helping me move furniture by request) then you do not have a justifiable/sensible reason to enter my home.

I do not support corporations that dictate usage following the barter/sale of property, but I do support the regulation of services. For example, you can regulate the resale of e-books or software. You can regulate the uses of a services (applications). But DRM protection that restricts access to products across other devices is unacceptable. You may call it by any name you wish, but purchased property transfers ownership. That book is mine to do with as I please within my home. I can not share the content, but like any other piece of property that I own. I can certainly lease it others to access, sell it like I would a used automobile, etc. If you disagree, so be it. That's your opinion and this is mine.

I do not support the corporate lobbying of elected officials. Power of authority comes from the people. This has been true for over two hundred years. Kings ruled under fear of being dethroned and punished (executed usually). We may not continue this tradition of execution, but we do hold these individuals accountable. We also hold corporations accountable for actions when we decide on which products/services to purchase. Corporate lobbying is a means for politicians to accept bribes and to blindly reject the will of their constituents. This I will not tolerate, and neither should anyone else that believes in democratic representation.

I hardly known you, so whatever you decide is your choice. I have very little control over your opinions, just as you have little control over mine. At the end of the day we vote how we please and we shop where we choose. I choose to service services you deem illegal because corporations violate what I perceive as illegal. A difference of opinion is just that ... a difference of opinion. This is not a debate, but I will stand by my beliefs when they are questioned.

 

did not read further when i read the above.

crappy.

 

I agree with the idea, but I believe that the questions that need to be asked more and more today are "what is illegal?" and "who decides?".

Case in point: the title of the article discussed here is "Google looks to cut funds to illegal sites", which implies that Google decides what site is illegal or not. Why would a corporation decide that, and on what basis? Their moral compass? I think that this kind of decisions must be made by the courts of law, and not corporations or other private entities.
The second issue is the fact that not every country has the same laws, and a decision made by a US company (i.e. Google) might punish a site that operates legally in other country just because that kind of activity is illegal (or deemed illegal by that company) is US.

 

Agreed, corporations like Google have no place in making these decisions, but I would also stress caution when allowing any government entity to regulate communication. There is a really fine line between the surveillance state of china and that established by democratic entities like the FCC, NSA, etc.