Tag: Corporations

  • Google Talks Transparency, But Hides Surveillance Stats

    Google likes to trumpet transparency and free expression, especially when it concerns the internet, part of its commitment to the corporate motto, “Don’t Be Evil.”

    But despite the company’s recent online public policy posts espousing unfettered online expression, we aren’t buying it.

    The Mountain View, California, search and advertising giant said Wednesday, for example, that it was a “company that believes deeply in free expression” and that it was “determined to continue to do our part and make new, significant contributions to promote free expression in 2010.”

    But juxtapose those and other recent statements on its public policy blog with the real facts — facts that Google won’t cough up.

    We asked Google some simple questions about how much user data it turns over to the government. These are questions at the heart of free expression, especially with a company that wants you to use its operating system, its browser, its DNS servers, its search service and its e-mail and phonecalling programs.

    Google, however, declined to address the question adequately.

    Here’s Google’s answer, as provided by spokesman Brian Richardson:

    We don’t talk about types or numbers of requests to help protect all our users. Obviously, we follow the law like any other company. When we receive a subpoena or court order, we check to see if it meets both the letter and the spirit of the law before complying. And if it doesn’t we can object or ask that the request is narrowed. We have a track record of advocating on behalf of our users.

    What is Google hiding? Are the numbers so big that Google might be seen as an agent of the government, or that people might rethink the wisdom of filling up 7 GB of free e-mail space?

    These are questions we’ve been asking of Google since 2006, when it launched its five-point plan to deal with censorship in China.

    To be fair, no other tech company and no ISP publishes this data, either.

    But there’s certainly no law against it. Google prides itself on doing brave and innovative things that other companies wouldn’t even consider doing, just because it’s the right thing to do.

    But instead, Google has chosen to side with the rest of the industry and refuse, on principle, to be open with their customers. That makes us think Google agrees with some peers that suggest that the public simply can’t handle the truth.

    Verizon, for example, recently told the government it might “confuse” the public if it released how much it charged the government to assist in collecting user data via pen register/trap-and-trace orders and wiretaps.

    Yahoo said its pricing structure amounted to “confidential commercial information” and would “shock” consumers.

    Verizon made its statements as it objected to a Freedom of Information Act request from graduate student Christopher Sogohian seeking its price sheet, and said the company receives “tens of thousands” of requests annually from law enforcement agencies for customer records and information.

    Verizon did not intend for that number to be made public. It announced the figure in a letter to the government that became public last week through a follow-up FOIA request by Soghoian.

    Sogohian’s intention was to combine the price sheets, with government data on how much it spent on getting phone and net records, to figure out how many requests the feds sent per year.

    We suspect, not unreasonably, that Google also receives “tens of thousands” of law enforcement and other requests each year for data — with most of them being lawful.

    But we don’t have any sense of how often the government or others go on a wide-open fishing expeditions.

    Google knows, but it’s not telling.

    We don’t know how many subpoenas Google turned away; how many sought search records; and how many came in civil cases, such as a divorce where an unhappy husband wanted to see what’s in his soon-to-be ex-wife’s Gmail account.

    Google defends its policy, saying it has a history of fighting for privacy. It uses the example of its successful court fight to keep bulk search records from the feds.

    What’s more, Google has belatedly become a leader in online advertising privacy, giving users the chance to see what the company’s behavioral advertising algorithms think of them, to delete categories and opt out entirely. In fact, Yahoo liked the idea enough to launch its own version just weeks ago.

    And Google on Wednesday deplored that an increasing number of governments are restricting access to information online, such as China blocking sites that could be viewed as anti-government. Google also applauded this week a bill that would force the State Department to include more information in its human rights reports.

    That’s laudable.

    Yet Google retains information, and refuses to share data that could shed a bright light over how much the government and others potentially tread on online privacy.

    Google has the chance to walk its talk, and set a standard — as it has so many times before — for the rest of the internet to follow.

    If it doesn’t, shouldn’t the company think twice about trumpeting transparency, when it won’t come clean with its own users?
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/google-talks-out-its-portal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

  • Government Reconsiders Quick Sale of Citigroup Stake

    You have quite a few creditors and you have very little money.You want to pay your biggest creditor to escape his grip on you.You decide to pay him and announce it publicly.What will happen?
    Other creditors will be peeved and spread the word around.When you look for new creditors(investors), they are not to be found.
    This what us individuals who have credit will think.Not giant finance companies.
    Strange is the observation that Govt. should have started selling its stakes,it is akin to asking your creditor to pass on your credit to him to somebody else .
    Juxtapose this with cooking books in US and Abu Dhabi.

    Just when Vikram S. Pandit thought he was out, Washington is pulling him back in.

    Two days after Mr. Pandit trumpeted news that Citigroup would start untangling itself from the federal government, his bank stumbled — this time, on Wall Street. Badly misreading the financial markets, the company struggled on Wednesday to raise the money it needed to repay its bailout funds.

    While Citigroup managed to raise $20.5 billion in the stock market and will forge ahead with the repayment, the sale went so poorly that anxious Treasury officials reversed course and delayed their plans to start unwinding the government’s stake in the company immediately, according to a person briefed on the matter.

    The turnabout represents a significant setback for Mr. Pandit and his efforts to free Citigroup from government control. It also underscores the lingering worries over Citigroup’s financial health, as well as concerns that federal officials may have let Citigroup exit the bailout program too quickly.

    “There are questions about why the deal didn’t get done the way it was planned,” said Michael Mayo, a banking industry analyst with Calyon Securities. “I am not sure who has the answers.”

    The finger-pointing has already begun. Citigroup officials complained Wednesday that the Treasury should have begun selling its stake in the company months ago, to encourage private investors to buy the new stock. After Citigroup pressed them to sell a small stake alongside its enormous offer, Treasury officials said they warned the bank that there might not be enough investor appetite for a deal.

    Federal officials, meanwhile, argued among themselves over whether Citigroup and another big bank, Wells Fargo, should have been allowed to repay the government and sell new stock at the same time. Wells Fargo, which like Citigroup announced that it would repay the government on Monday, outflanked Citigroup and sold more than $12.25 billion of its stock on Tuesday.

    After the close of trading in New York, Citigroup priced its new shares at $3.15 each, below the $3.25 price at which the government assumed its one-third stake in the company. Before the sale, the share price of Citigroup fell 11 cents to $3.45, as investors braced for the new stock.

    Rather than suffer a loss for taxpayers, the Treasury Department will now hold on to the $5 billion stake it planned to sell alongside Citigroup’s own $17 billion stock offering. After an initial 90-day delay, the government will try to sell its entire stake — about 7.7 billion shares — over the six to 12 months.

    The trouble began on Tuesday, when Citigroup bankers started taking orders from investors for the new shares. Word began to seep out in the markets that the bank was having a hard time finding investors willing to buy the stock at the price at which Citigroup hoped to sell it.

    By Tuesday evening, Treasury officials got word that the stock might be priced below $3.25 a share. By Wednesday morning, they concluded that the government would forgo selling its shares immediately.

    Citigroup executives had hoped that repaying the federal aid that the company had received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program would help Citigroup shed its stigma as the last Wall Street giant still tethered to Washington.

    While Citigroup is continuing with plans for repayment, it now seems certain the government will maintain its entire stake in the bank for many months. That might make the shares less attractive to investors.

    The development came on the same day that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority filed a multibillion-dollar arbitration claim on Wednesday accusing the bank of “fraudulent misrepresentation” after its $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup went south. A Citigroup spokesman said the claims were “entirely without merit” and the bank planned to vigorously defend itself against them.

    Questions also swirled about a waiver that allowed Citigroup to preserve a $38 billion tax deduction — a move that administration officials say was appropriate given that the intent of the tax rule. Still, they spent the day trying to stamp out potential outcry.

    Analysts raised fresh doubts about Citigroup’s ability to nurse itself back to financial health. The bank faces a $10.1 billion accounting charge next quarter tied to the repayment plans, its eighth consecutive quarter without a significant profit. Even after winning some six months of relief, Citigroup’s finances will be strained as it brings billions of dollars of off-balance securities back onto its books.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/global/17citi.html?_r=1&hp

  • U.S. agencies want to ban some kid food ads

    Long over due and welcome move.Please read my blog on Advertising.
    WASHINGTON
    Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:39pm EST
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a bid to tackle rising youth obesity, U.S. companies would be prohibited from advertising to children foods that contain large amounts of sugar or salt, or even low levels of trans fats, under a proposal released on Tuesday by a working group from several U.S. agencies.

    The working group made up of members of the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Centers for Disease Control issued what it called tentative proposed standards for food marketed to children, defined as up to age 17.

    Those foods could not have more than 1 gram of saturated fat per serving, 13 grams of added sugar, 200 milligrams of sodium or 0 trans fats, which they defined as more than half a gram, per normal serving.

    At a related conference to discuss food advertising and any link it might have to obesity among children, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said that if the obesity-related health risks — high blood pressure and diabetes among them — were caused by radiation “alarm bells would be going off across America. There would be a huge outcry.”

    Sebelius, who also admitted to a weakness for Cheetos, said that it was important for any changes in advertising rules to be across the board so that companies that eliminate child-oriented ads for unhealthy foods were not punished for it.

    “We need to start doing a better job of regulating the types of ads our children see,” she added.

    Some food manufacturers have already reformulated some kid favorites to take health concerns into account. Kellogg, which makes Froot Loops, and General Mills, maker of Cocoa Puffs, have both said they would reduce the amount of sugar in some food advertised to children.

    The chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, noted these and other steps forward.

    “These changes have come in small increments,” said Leibowitz. “Put simply, it is time for industry to supersize its efforts.”

    Dan Jaffe, executive vice president for government relations at the Association of National Advertisers, argued that advertisers were not to blame for the growing number of fat children and any restrictions on ads could run afoul of the First Amendment.

    “The advertising community faces a real clear and growing threat of censorship,” he said.

    (Reporting by Diane Bartz, editing by Matthew Lewis)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BE5BO20091215?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100

  • Did Icelandic Bank Swindle UK Customers?

    This is daily phenomenon India.Of course not Banks, all the time, but on a regular basis by Non Banking finance companies(what a name?).
    People have lost millions and continue to invest either in the same company in a new name or a new company offering the same services(?)
    Border line companies are international Banks offering credit cards and facilities with a fine print.Difference is they operate on the thin line between usury and loan sharking; in many a case out right cheating.
    So long as gullible and greedy
    people are around these scamsters will thrive.

    An Icelandic bank that signed up tens of thousands of UK customers before it collapsed in October 2008 is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

    Kaupthing attracted more than 30,000 individuals, companies and organisations in the UK to its Kaupthing Edge account.
    The SFO will examine whether the bank misled savers to encourage deposits and investigate why large sums flooded out of the bank in the days before it failed.
    An SFO spokesman said, “This is a complex investigation which crosses numerous jurisdictions.
    “We have been working closely with the Icelandic Special Prosecutor’s Office to ensure that comprehensive and robust investigations are conducted both in Iceland and the United Kingdom and to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. We will continue to do so.”
    Anyone wishing to share information with the Serious Fraud Office on this case can do so at via this Serious Fraud Office secure survey.
    Kaupthing’s UK savings business and those of Landsbanki were bought by Dutch bank ING at the height of the crisis, when Chancellor Alistair Darling stepped in to guarantee deposits.
    Local authorities lost almost £1 billion investing in Icelandic banks while UK charities took a £120 million hit, MPs on the Treasury Select Committee said this year.
    The Icelandic government had to nationalise three banks after the trio racked up debts equivalent to six times the country’s national output and credit markets froze in the wake of Lehman Brothers’ collapse.
    Landsbanki and another Icelandic bank, Glitnir, were the first to fall, but Mr Darling was blamed by the Icelandic government for bringing about the collapse of Kaupthing after using anti-terrorism laws to seize Landsbanki’s UK assets.
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Serious-Fraud-Office-Probes-Icelandic-Bank-Kaupthing-Under-Investigation/Article/200912315501827?DCMP=EMC-news_OBU

  • Rajaratnam Makes 2nd Request for Smaller Bail

    Audacity on the part of the accused to ask for reduced bail amount.A manipulator and a scamster should be treated severely by first refusing bail.Financial frauds should be treated as criminal offence as many families have been ruined and in India because of Financial scams many have committed suicide.
    Update | 7:43 p.m. Lawyers for Raj Rajaratnam, the billionaire hedge fund manager accused of insider trading, are again seeking to reduce his bail, citing errors in the government’s case against their client and his firm, the Galleon Group.

    Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers requested the court reduce his current $100 million bail arrangement to $20 million in cash and other assets, according to a letter sent on Monday to the federal magistrate judge, Douglas F. Eaton. The lawyers reassured the court that Mr. Rajaratnam has complied with all conditions of his bail and continues to cooperate with requests from investigators.

    The defense lawyers also accuse the government of numerous misrepresentations in its case against Mr. Rajaratnam, including suggestions that prosecutors lied about the involvement of a key cooperating witness in the case. The lawyers also contend the government violated certain statutes by not turning over the wiretap applications prior to using intercepted phone calls to argue for Mr. Rajaratnam’s detention.

    In its complaint, the prosecutors said Roomy Khan, the key cooperating witness in the case, had been working with investigators since November 2007 in the hopes of receiving a reduced sentence for an expected guilty plea. But Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers argued on Monday that Ms. Khan actually cooperated with a government investigation of the hedge fund manager nearly a decade ago and then violated the terms of her prior cooperation by engaging in additional criminal conduct. They cited a recently unsealed case in California, in which Ms. Khan pleaded guilty to wire fraud.

    This is the second time that Mr. Rajaratnam has asked the court to reduce his bail. His lawyers argued that the current bail terms carry the stigma of being the “highest such bail in recent memory, far exceeding the terms of release for Bernard Madoff after Mr. Madoff’s admission of guilt.”

    Last month, another federal magistrate judge lifted restrictions on Mr. Rajaratnam’s ability to travel within the United States, but decided not to reduce his bail at that time.

    Correction: An earlier version of the story incorrectly reported that the government has acknowledged it violated a statute by not turning over the wiretap applications. Prosecutors have not made any such admission.

    – Zachery Kouwe
    http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/rajaratnam-makes-second-request-for-bail-reduction/#comment-344327