Stanford Uni: Google cash leaves us entirely impartial and unbiased

We just coincidentally didn't want to do privacy with it

A court document drafted by a recipient of Google's generosity appears to show that the latter comes with strings attached, prohibiting university researchers from investigating its controversial data slurping practices.

The donation went to the Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, which drafted the filing. The part that has raised everyone's eyebrows?

"Since 2013, Google funding is specifically designated not be used for CIS’s privacy work.”

The university has since denied having promised not to use Google money for privacy research, telling public interest group ProPublica, which unearthed the document, that the filing was simply "unartfully drafted".

The details emerged in a filing attached to an unrelated suit, one of the notorious "cy pres" class action settlements, which have seen privacy actions killed by tech giants Google and Facebook - with large sums distributed not to individuals affected, but academic departments, think tanks and activists like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

A judge rejected another of these recently, commenting that it "doesn’t pass the smell test".

Where does the money go?

Google's core business is consumer data-processing, and it is has shown it is prepared to spend billions underwriting projects like the Android mobile platform to gather ever more private consumer data in your home, or while you're on the move.

The data-slurping Wonkas have been a significant donor to several "cyberlaw" departments, including Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, created in 2005. But, judging by the "unartfully drafted filing", funding to the department by Google cannot be used for privacy research. This runs counter to Stanford's own rules on corporate donations - which say that donors give their funds as "unrestricted gifts" - with no strings attached.

Google's funding of The Incorruptible Academy isn't completely unselfish.

Its donations help fund a network of "attack dogs", who rally to the data-processor's cause when it finds itself accused of breaking the law. Which, given that there are still some legacy laws intended to protect the dignity of the individual, happens quite frequently. In France, Google has created a Google Professorship. It's part of what the FT describes as Google's "soft power" initiatives, such as hyping London's Shoreditch internet "startup miracle". These ventures are designed to win influence behind the scenes. And it has been doing it for years.

Stanford's "cyberlaw" centre was founded years before, in 2005, with the star signing of Professor Lawrence Lessig. In 2006, Google assured the department's future with a $2m donation. Shortly after that donation was made, Google found itself in a legal battle with Viacom over copyright infringement. Lessig wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times newspaper defending the Chocolate Factory.

Lessig in Deep Thort

Deep Thought: Lawrence Lessig's iCommons initiative
accepted money from the online gambling industry
he re-invented himself as an Ethics Professor*

The Stanford/Lessig connection was widely noted and ridiculed. In March 2007, parody blogger "Fake Steve" imagined a conversation with Google's then CEO, Eric Schmidt:



Stanford responds

The lawyer who drafted the filing, the director of civil liberties at CIS, has since written a blog claiming she had been referring to an "internal SLS/CIS budgeting matter".

In a non-denial denial, Jennifer Granick, the head of Stanford's cyberlaw centre, wrote:

"The designation to which we were referring is an internal SLS/CIS budgeting matter, not a policy change, and we very well may decide to ask the company for a gift for privacy research in the future. But in 2013, we had other funding sources for our consumer privacy work, and so we asked for, got, and designated Google money to be used for different projects."

So there you go.

Granick was an attorney at the EFF, which received $1m from the cy pres slush fund, more than half of its entire income that year, and was also counsel for Aaron Swartz. When the EFF conducted "a privacy audit" of major Silicon Valley data slurpers this year, entitled "Who Has Your Back?", guess who came out top, with six out of six star ratings? You've guessed it - Google and Facebook.

It's a small world. ®


Lessig, whose iCommons charity accepted huge donations from the shady online gambling industry, has now re-invented himself as a "Ethics Professor" at Harvard, from where he gives lectures on "institutional corruption". And they say irony is dead. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Google's first report on Privacy Sandbox hits UK watchdog's inbox
    No 'reportable concerns' yet plenty of concerned feedback

    As Google's self-imposed "late 2023" deadline to kill all third party cookies in its Chrome browser looms, the giant has handed in its first quarterly Privacy Sandbox report to the UK's competition regulator.

    As a reminder, the Competition Market's Authority (CMA) took exception to Google's Privacy Sandbox cookie cull amid worries on several fronts that the project might shut out competing ad companies in favor of the search giant.

    Against a backdrop of added scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators in the US, Europe, and the UK at a time when Google faces broad antitrust scrutiny and litigation, the search giant made a number of commitments to the UK's CMA, one of which was a regular report on progress with its Privacy Sandbox proposals.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022