That's the question that Declan ("Iconoclast") McCullagh asks privacy activist "concerns" with the Googe/DoubleClick dealio. And, while it may ruin my rep to openly agree with Declan twice in in two weeks, the man has a point:
...(privacy advocates) are trying to convince government regulators to, essentially, make up new laws as they go along. If federal merger law needs to be rewritten to include reviews of data collection and use practices, that's a job for our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. Congress seems highly engaged in the topic; there's no danger of it going neglected. If a review of merging firms' data use practices is useful, let's have that debate in the open instead of behind closed doors at the FTC.
I'm not alone in thinking that trying to push new data-use regulations though the backdoor may not be entirely wise (or even, perhaps, legal). FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, said earlier this month that "our analysis of the merger has got to be about competition and potential competition. It can't be about privacy per se."
Now, it would be pretty easy to dismiss activist opposition as a timely opportunistic chance to get some press, raise some funds and point out their real concerns with the deal (however flawed from a antitrust perspective).
However, that doesn't really explain why leading members of Congress like the chair and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights are raising the privacy flag. Says a press release from Senators Herb Kohl and Orrin Hatch:
On a related matter, the Senators raise another concern about this proposed merger that many have voiced regarding consumer privacy. Given the enormous quantity of information that Google and DoubleClick collect regarding web users’ preferences, “this deal raises fundamental consumer privacy concerns worth of serious scrutiny.”
In an earlier column, Declan wondered why some Republicans, who are generally merger friendly, are popping out of the woodwork to take shots at the Google/DoubleClick bid. He gave two reasons. One, is that Republicans are given many donations by telecom firms and Google has done the bad deed of being a leader in the Net Neutrality fight. The other reason is that Googlers give waaay more to Democrats than Republicans.
Maybe. Perhaps.
But, doesn't anyone else also see a straight line from Microsoft success ---> Microsoft antitrust lawsuit ---> Microsoft hires 30 million lobbyists, pays them a lot and develops extremely good relationships with Republicans while they are in power ---> Google success ---> Google dabbles in DC and hires mostly Democrats ---> Google buys the company that Microsoft wants to buy ---> Microsoft hits button and activates campaign against Google deal ---> select Republican congressional members begin getting concerned about Internet privacy?
I don't know. I'm probably totally missing something here. DC is way too subtle for me.
Comments