Resistance, as they say, is futile. According to the Google Transparency Project, and reported by watchdog.org "More than 250 people have moved from Google and related firms to the federal government or vice versa since President Barack Obama took office."
22 former White House officials went to work for Google and 31 executives from Google and related firms went to work at the White House or were appointed to federal advisory boards by Obama. Those boards include the President's Council on Science and Technology and the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Of additional interest, besides revolving doors between Google and the FCC, 25 officials in national security, intelligence or the Department of Defense joined Google, and three Google executives went to work for the DOD.
I think ordinary discussion of market forces, laissez-faire and the role of Government is irrelevant in regards to a system in which this is normal and institutionalized practice.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:58AM
I really fail to see anything abnormal in people changing workplaces in general.
The only thing stinking of conflict of interest in the second FA:
For the other 240, someone please explain what's wrong (other that a possible "revolving door" mislabeling) - seems that I'm quite thick today, I don't get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @10:42AM
Suppose this wasn't about Google but Apple, and during the whole encryption fiasco they oh so reluctantly passed on the keys.
Would say there might be a conflict on interest?
What do you make of Qwest's refusal of NSA surveillance requests and the prosecution of Joseph Nacchio shortly there afterwards for insider trading?
One of the givens with power is to absolutely avoid any inference of abuse or favoritism (well, at least for the peons).
It does seem the further up the food chain you go, that type of discretion gets malleable.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:08PM
Are you suggesting that oh, the mighty Apple's employees have higher moral rectitude [opensecrets.org] than Google's [opensecrets.org], this is why they aren't engaged in anything resembling "revolving door"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:10PM
I've seen similar stories in the UK at least, and i'm sure there are others elsewhere.
It works both for the employees, going from exec mega-corp to government adviser position is about as good job security as you can get moving forward, you have high level experience in public and private sector from the most important organizations. Probably live of making speeches and writing articles for MSM after a reasonable stint in both.
It also works for Gov and the companies involved, they get the benefit of the experience from the other side, and future meetings, you can be discussing policy moves and consequences with former colleagues, or from common perspectives, rather than an desk jockey jobsworth employee/bureaucrat.
Beyond that, I think Google has seen it's opportunity, it can be the next Goldman Sachs or McKinsey & Co... There won't be a sovereign state in the world without one of their alumni in an important but unelected and unaccountable position, shaping policy where it matters.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @12:03AM
Underlying assumption: once a googler, always a googler.
Have indeed the ex-Google employees sworn allegiance to Google's interest forever and they'll explode if they breach their oath?
Is the idea of "just good professionals changing jobs" so remote it has to be dismissed as totally improbable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:18AM
Is the idea of "we have enough information to ruin you" so remote it has to be dismissed as totally improbable?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 12 2016, @08:46AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @09:42AM
So, to you, it's more likely that is revolving door than just professional changing jobs.
You may be right, WTH do I know about US politics. If it is so, then US is doomed - if good professionals to work for govt are corrupt and others can't be found, no wonder the governance is chaotic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday August 12 2016, @02:56PM
I don't doubt there are many people in there who are just professionals changing their jobs.
The concern is that only takes a handful out of that 250 in positions across the DoD, NSA, FCC etc for Google faithful to have a tangible effect on government policy direction. And even if they are just good professionals doing their jobs, what is their job description/position now and then, how are they going to implement their goals and what public benefit will it have beyond enhanced cooperation between Google, other corporations and various important unaccountable government departments?
There's also the possibility they're good professionals switching jobs but are also just willing fools who will not look past their very narrow mandate in a compartmentalized intelligence/defense industry.
I don't mean to tar everyone with the same brush -- people are just trying to pay the mortgage/student loans -- but the frequency of the revolving door is something to watch very closely, especially when it's between a small handful of international corporations and the key government departments overseeing those corporation's industries and size (DoD budget) that use it the door the most, and international corporations never seem to suffer too bad (at all?) from their top talent moving into government positions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 12 2016, @10:39PM
So you'd better "kill" (figuratively speaking) `250-a handful` of them rather then let `a handful` escape, and this for the better good of the american society?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday August 12 2016, @11:38PM
I said it's "something to watch closely" and nothing more than that. The individuals should be judged on their actions, but it's not like we'll peronsally get to see those actions or input for the most part.
I am more familiar with the UK situation... Private Eye has a story on the revolving door every issue.
Here's some google specific stuff from elsewhere
http://economia.icaew.com/news/june-2016/google-hired-at-least-26-uk-government-officials-in-since-2005 [icaew.com]
I have no doubt they are the best people for the job though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 13 2016, @12:23AM
Agree: the problem stays not with the professionals themselves, but with the lack of transparency in govt dealing (revolving doors is just a consequence of the lack of transparency, we are left to infer possible facts from outside manifestations).
Other info on the same line: Google's lobbying expenditures [opensecrets.org] (up to 2014, the moment Google restructured) and Alphabet Inc's ones [opensecrets.org] (post 2014).
And that's for US jurisdiction only.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:47PM
All of a sudden it's bad that the government is hiring people who actually know what they are talking about as advisors?
We wail that regulators don't know what they are doing when it comes to tech. Then we gnash our teeth where they hire people that do.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:22PM
I would say the teeth gnashing is about the disproportionate number of people coming from a single company. There are experts all over with much broader experience than the rather focused people at Google. This entire topic is something to be covered by an investigative committee or somesuch.
~Tilting at windmills~