|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
| We have no connection, financial or otherwise,
with Google. We have a
long-standing policy
of never taking money or in kind privileges
from any
company that we write about on Groklaw.
So no, Groklaw won't be on the list,
not even
the ones you ask for. Groklaw is clean as a
whistle.
And would you
like to know why? Because I'm
a journalist, and there are ethical rules
about
that:
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest
other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of
associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage
credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special
treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office
and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic
integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and
courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored
treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to
influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for
favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Those are
the Groklaw values, and I live
them because I care about them more than I care
about
money. I lose money because I do Groklaw, actually, and
to tell you the
truth, I could have made a fortune, had
I wished to sell out.
So you have
your answer. Just because some companies
and individuals sell out for mere
money, it doesn't mean
everybody does. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
| Maybe there just isn't anyone else. Sorry Florian, but that's the way it is. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Google basically had two choices:
#1: Was the response that they did give, which listed every organization to whom
it had contributed to, in the last year (or two years);
#2: Give the name and identifying information for everybody has been affiliated
with any organization that Google has contributed to, including Google and its
subsidiary and affiliate organizations;
If the first response is a "cynical dodge of the question", then the
judge asked the wrong question using the wrong phrasing.
Somehow, I doubt that the judge wants to buried under so much data, that it will
take him several months to read, and even longer to assimilate, which would be
the inevitable result of going with option # 2. Then there are privacy issues
that could also be violations of civil, or criminal law, in either North
America, or Europe, or both.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
