Google White list of White Nationalists and the law: issues

September 17, 2010

The following are issues not assertions.

1. Is Google covered by the antitrust laws as a dominant player?

2. Does this require them not to discriminate in providing their service?

3. Are content providers customers of Google?

4. Are they vendors or suppliers?

5. What about FCC regulations?

6. The phone company can’t have a list of bigots and turn off their phone service. If Google is a monopolist or dominant player, doesn’t it have the same restriction? Or from FCC regulations.

7. Google by now has signed agreements with feds that it won’t discriminate? Does hiring H-1b’s make you sign onto that?

8. Some cities and states have very restrictive laws on discrimination in business in buying or selling on the basis of race, etc. White Nationalists are by definition White. So if Google discriminates against them as a class, that is discrimination by race.

9. Access to the political marketplace is essential.

10. Google searches are used to indicate value, relevance, importance, reliability, significance, etc. Does Google itself promote to the world to use its searches as indicators of importance, reliability, etc?

11. Is it a sort of defamation for Google to artificially take out a site from a search in that it makes it look like that webpage is not as important as Google’s algorithms would otherwise say?

11b SAT Score analogy. Google holds out its algorithms the same way as
the SAT board holds out SAT scores, as the premier way to rank a group. If the SAT went into a person’s test and changed answers or just scored them lower, then that would be fraud in the view of many. If SAT told a college that a person had never taken the SAT when the in fact had, SAT would be harming that person greatly.

Google holds out its algorithms to the public as being as reliable and beneficial as the SAT score. This is an attitude by the public that Google is aware of and has fostered. Google has issued equity and maybe debt securities based on this and has fostered this view of the reliability and universality of its algorithms.

Google holds itself out as indexing human knowledge and is scanning in old books and even new copyright books to foster this image in the public mind, that Google indexes all of human knowledge and does it accurately and better than anyone else.

Google sends the message to the public that they can rely on Google rankings to determine what is fit to read and worth their time to read. When they artificially delist or change the ranking of blogs without the public knowing this, then this raises the same issues as if SAT changed someone’s score to lower it or even said that they had no score.

12. In essence, Google says it has the best algorithms to identify what is important or relevant or liked by people. It makes this statement itself? It doesn’t deny it? It then artificially takes out some sites from where its algorithms would rank them. So it then casts those sites in a false light? This is a form of defamation? Or of unfair dealings?

13. Fraud issues?

14. What does Google say in its security underwritings about its algorithms, methods, principles, etc?

15. Google says Don’t Do Evil. Isn’t changing the results of its algorithms artificially doing evil? Its false witness. Isn’t false witness evil? So when Google sold securities, it used its slogan, Don’t Do Evil. That was on 60 Minutes that this was their slogan. So they are held to that by the security laws as something they held out to purchases of securities.

16. NYC is a place with restrictive laws on discrimination against vendors based on the race of their owners, officers or employees. Google does business in NYC, it doesn’t have to be with NYC to be subject to that law. So an injunction against these artificial tinkerings with White Nationalist sites could be brought in NYC to seek equitable relief. Also a class action on the other parts of it under the antitrust laws, etc.

17. Does Google join with others to do this? This raises the issue of conspiracy.

18. Some candidates like Schumer, Gillibrand, McCain are criticized by White Nationalists. Is Google expending resources to cull its searches acting as a form of campaign contribution to these candidates? Is this an unreported activity?

19. Some blogs uncover information relating to activities of foreign governments in or against the United States. Old Atlantic tracks the activities of the Russian intelligence service to use possible plagiarism by American profs to pressure them as employees of the US government, IMF and World Bank. Is Google acting as an unregistered foreign agent by culling out this information? Is Google acting as a co-conspirator?

20. United States Department of Justice employees access the Old Atlantic Lighthouse WordPress blogs to get information on these methods by Russian intelligence against the government of the United States using Google searches. Is Google hindering that activity? Is that acting as a co-conspirator with the Russian intelligence service against the United States?

21. Old Atlantic Lighthouse has revealed information relating to Russia’s use of such methods to gain atomic know-how. This includes possible ongoing coverups of this by private universities which as legal entities are subject to prosecution. This includes Stanford University as a possibility. US DOJ employees access this blog to learn about these possibilities. Is Google acting as a co-conspirator with Stanford University and Russian intelligence to cover up atomic espionage as an accessory after the fact?

22. The American Institute of Physics has linked to the Old Atlantic blog on this subject in an article written by a former Secretary of the Air Force and nuclear weaponeer on these matters. US weapons labs employees have looked at this blog to gain information on this matter. Is Google blocking or hindering US weapons labs from assisting the FBI or US counter intelligence from dealing with Russia’s activities in or against the United States by using pressure from academic kompromat including plagiarism?

23. Quote from Thomas C. Reed at American Institute of Physics linking to this blog.

One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see

http://www.oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs.

) During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_9/47_1.shtml

Above article by Thomas Reed former Secretary of the Air Force (1976–77) and scientist at Lawrence Livermore.

24. It isn’t just Russia using these methods. China, India, and Pakistan among others use them. Google has dealings with some of these countries from time to time.

25. Other types of crime including targeting Whites for their race are discussed by Nicholas Stix and other Whitelisted blogs. Is there a civil rights issue here? Damage to the White public by concealing that they are targets of this type of racial violence? Is Google liable for harm for concealing this as an intentional act, not as an oversight? Particularly if its a monopolist or has some sort of common carrier obligation?

“A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator’s quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public’s interest) for the “public convenience and necessity”. ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

26. Nominees to high office including those from Stanford, Berkeley, etc that Google and its inside investors have relations with have had issues raised at this blog. For example, for Ben Bernanke, Elena Kagan, Lawrence Summers, etc. During background checks this blog may have been accessed for this purpose for these or other nominees. Is Google hindering this process? Hindering the Senate or the public? Is this done to help Google stakeholders including Stanford and others? This often includes information only available here and often that only Google was showing in its searches sufficiently well or timely to assist what that work.

27. Isn’t Russian intelligence doing this evil? Didn’t Google hold out it didn’t Do Evil on 60 Minutes and in its securities underwritings? That it does not discriminate by race? Assist foreign countries acting in or against the United States? Does Google have additional information on these matters? Its officers or stakeholders including Stanford?

28. DOJ, FBI, weapons labs, counter-intelligence, and retired employees of those, the military, etc. can access this website to see what information is public. Any information here they can talk about as in the public domain. Other information they are restricted to share. This blog gives them one of the few places to find information that is public that they can share. Other search engines don’t offer a close substitute as what Google did when it was indexing this blog in its normal manner. Thus the counter-intelligence work of the government and others is harmed.

29. Re US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay. Harvard may have concealed information from Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom on these matters. This blog revealed that publicly for the first time. Is Google hindering this process in this case? Does Google have links to Harvard or its emploees or do its stakeholders? Did Stanford have information on this that it and Harvard both kept from the USAO including on nominee profs from Stanford who got FBI background checks while US v. Harvard was pending from 1997 to 2005?

30. After Google stopped indexing this blog, information relating to these matters of Russian intelligence using these methods was not posted as a consequence of Google not indexing. The same for other countries using these methods including China.

31. Aside from new raw information, analysis in this area is valuable. There is no other public analysis of Russia using plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism to help get diplomatic recognition in the 1920’s by getting scientific collaborations with Dirac and others, of expanding its Kapitza network with Max Born, its use of this to gain atomic know-how, getting Nobel Prize nominations in physics and in economics, pressuring IMF loans and piggybacking on this by China, India and Pakistan. The expertise needed to comment on this information and put it in context is rare and valuable. Thus government employees, private business, or even universities that care are hindered in their counter-intelligence efforts. Counter-intelligence against Russia, China, India and Pakistan takes a village.

Private companies and universities also don’t get classified information to any great extent to help them in this area or to build up a knowledge base for internal analysis in context. But they are targets and are the front line of defense against these efforts. Government can’t do this by itself. Non-government can’t do this without information and analysis in context. By limiting this information and discouraging its production or posting, is not Google doing evil? Is Google accountable for what Russia, China, India, Pakistan and others are able to do with these methods because of Google’s not indexing this information by deliberate choice and intentional activity to delist?

32. Even if not a crime, is there a public interest issue here that arises under the antitrust laws, FCC, federal election laws, state or local laws that applies?

Other discussion of Google White listing

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/jihad-mechanicsapplied-to-cordoba-house-le-mosque-de-triomphe/#comment-24922

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2007/12/jewish-influence-and-censorship-at.html

The above are issues not assertions. This is draft and preliminary. No assertion of wrongdoing by Google or any other is asserted. Comments and corrections welcome.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: