An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
thebignewsletter.com
An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
1–10 of 173 posts
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#2I love the irony of sealing the majority of a trial (2 3/4 of 5 days) about anti-trust. :)
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#3Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials.
There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to try him, but it was also deemed a risk to national security for any part of it to be public. He was evidently acquitted, or perhaps proceedings still drag on, with him wagering on a visit from the reaper before judgement is passed - oh irony.
There was a rather incredible turn of events where one of the parties who had been asked/told to be involved tried to go to the press (not owned by said mogul), and was promptly ratted out to the government, and the prime minister of the day then went on the ten o’clock news to denounce them, bringing their rather comfortable cosy-to-the-establishment life to a crashing end. They became a national hate figure overnight.
Really, we don’t even know what we don’t know — at least in this case we know that antitrust proceedings are underway.
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#4How is this even allowed?
Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#5How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
[dead]
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#6Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#7How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
40-plus years of a legal philosophy that bows to corporate power will do this. I'm sure even if the judge made it public, Google's lawyers can appeal to a higher court and get it sealed
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#8Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul...
This is how democracy dies in the darkness
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#9Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
I assume it is that:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rupert-m...
"after last week’s emergence of secretly recorded comments he made about bribes in the British newspaper industry and the phone-hacking probes."
I remember this happening at the time. I don't follow 'media news' much, but I do remember the scandal due to the 'recording' and how they were going about recording calls, SMS, etc.
Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
I remember throughout my years that London had a (negatively) impressive amount of cameras (https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by...)
I don't know how it started, but their own "war on terror" must have helped to hit that top spot.
Monitoring internet is just the same. "Eyes everywhere". The technology changed (people walking on the street vs people browsing the internet), but the practice remains.
And to show where the focus is (and it's not to serve and protect) the amount of corruption in the UK police (even rapists & murderers) are only caught after years and years, and only after the victims go through hell and high water to get justice. (that last paragraph is a bit provocative - but true)