Regulatory Watchdogs


Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

Greenpeace International
Public Citizen
Sierra Club

Center for Auto Safety
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Clean Air Trust
Earthjustice
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Environmental Defense
ETC Group
FM Watch
Friends of the Earth
PR Watch
State Public Interest Research Groups
U.S. Public Interest Research Groups

Archives
 


Winston's Column


EPIC Twittering About Google
The latest pseudo-outrage in search engine competition is over an internet search engine that...searches the internet. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a cyber-privacy watchdog, has filed a complaint with the FTC over Google's latest tweak to their search function.

The cause of EPIC's concern is "Search Plus Your World" which "blends information such as photos, comments and news posted on its Google+ social network into users' search results." Users who log into Google or Google+ "will have the option of seeing search results that are customized to their interests and connections, say, a photo of the family dog or a friend's recommendation for a restaurant."

EPIC considers as undesirable Google making their search results more relevant to the people who want that option. Moreover, EPIC apparently seeks to have the FTC to prohibit Google from providing consumers with an additional search option. The cause of opposition is not clear, particularly since, as the L.A. Times noted, "Google is not the first search engine to do this. Microsoft's Bing, which has an alliance with Facebook, has been tapping some information shared on Facebook since May."

On one hand, Google is more popular than Bing. According to Experian Hitwise, Google is about twice as popular as Bing and Yahoo (which is powered by Bing) combined. On the other hand, Facebook, Bing's social networking partner, is over 150 times more popular than Google+.

What, if any, actions the FTC will take with respect to Google+ is unknown. Twitter's objections to the enhanced search feature, however, points to the proper response. Twitter stated that the Google search feature is "bad" for internet users and will make finding Twitter-based information "much harder for everyone."

If Twitter is correct, then there is no need for federal intervention in the market. If people feel that "Search Plus Your World" is not helpful, they won't use it. A regulatory agency shouldn't speculate as to whether a search engine option is beneficial to consumers when they can decide for themselves. And that's a message that can be delivered in less than 140 characters.

See, OIRA Watch - The Need for OIRA Review of Independent Agency Regulations


Recent Regulatory Developments

  • Federal Regulators Compromise on Cod Crackdown
    Federal fish regulators found a middle ground Wednesday that they hoped would avert a complete shutdown of fishing in the Gulf of Maine and keep as many fishermen in business as possible this year.
  • Landowners Fight Eminent Domain in Pa. Gas Field
    A pipeline operator assured federal regulators it would minimize using eminent domain against private landowners if given approval to lay a 39-mile natural gas pipeline in northern Pennsylvania's pristine Endless Mountains.
  • Federal Regulators Expected to Approve New Reactors in Georgia Within Weeks
    A newspaper is reporting that regulators are expected to approve a $14 billion nuclear power project near Augusta within weeks.
  • Federal Regulators Have Failed to Act on Toxic Chemical
    Despite growing fears over the health effects of a chemical found in many baby bottles and a host of other products, federal regulators have done little to protect the public, according to a new report from a nonprofit research group.
  • Additional News (updated daily)


  • Updated Tuesday, Friday, Sunday

    Time to Defund Campus PIRGs
    Americans choose to support watchdog organizations covering every imaginable issue from every conceivable viewpoint. Various state/local/provincial PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups), however, are outside of even those broad boundaries because much of their funding is not by choice. Students at various universities are required to support campus-based PIRGs irrespective of whether or not they support the groups' agenda.

    An article in The Desert Lamp, an independent student publication at the University of Arizona, noted that "PIRG uses the money it gets from students - usually from mandatory fees muscled into place through nefarious means - to pay the salaries of professional, off-campus staff who lobby for more money for more professional staff."

    Campus PIRGs may appeal most to students who major in irony. The Desert Lamp article notes that the supposedly progressive organization "settled a $2.15 million class-action suit for underpaying its workers." Arizona PIRG, which describes itself as "Standing Up To Powerful Interests," apparently neglected to mention that they do so by bullying the powerless.

    It's not only in Arizona that PIRGs operate a de facto shakedown of students. The Varsity, a student newspaper at the University of Toronto, in an article titled "Just say NO-PIRG!" noted that the Graduate Student Union "cited OPIRG's failure to adhere to their contractual obligation to properly advertise the 'opt-out' window, during which students can reclaim the portion of their student fees taken by OPIRG."

    The Canadian article also noted that while "some of the issues OPIRG raises are valid...the solutions and methods they suggest are simply too radical...." For example, OPIRG "was also one of the organizations behind the hateful anti-Israel week in March - a campaign which creates a toxic atmosphere on campus and has been condemned across party lines in the Ontario Legislature. It is also involved in bringing in speakers like Ward Churchill who referred to the victims of 9/11 as 'little Eichmanns' and preaches 'direct' read violent action and supports working groups like the Communist Research Group."

    If students or anyone else chooses to support a local PIRG or US PIRG, they are free to do so. Mandatory student dues to campus PIRGs, however, are unacceptable irrespective of any clawback mechanism that may allow students to reclaim their funds. It's time to stop requiring students to finance PIRGs.


    disclaimer
    Copyright Notice The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness [Copyright © 2007]. All right reserved.
     
     
     
     
     
    CRE Homepage