Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research | Hacker News Reader

Stanford never promised not to use Google money for privacy research

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

34 pointsdoctorshady14 comments

This post was killed by user flags while the URL was http://www.propublica.org/article/stanford-promises-not-to-u..., presumably because that article is inaccurate.

We've switched to the url that appears most accurate. If there's a better article, we can switch it again.

Publicity stunts get in the way of actual progress. Money is fungible so it's impossible to actually hold true to that promise. They could only use google money to buy sandwiches. But then money that used to go towards sandwiches can now be put towards privacy.

Who cares? Depending how it is managed, this is a smart move. Accept money from anti-privacy advocates, put it in demilitarization researches. Then, accept money from anti-demilitarization advocates, put it in privacy research.

But perhaps I'm too optimist.

Stanford I'm not too concerned about. The fact that Google is taking such a negative stance on privacy is quite concerning, though.

It all depend on how one phrases the exchange.

Someone might get the wrong idea if a person went to the university with a briefcase full of money, politely telling them to focus their time on something other than privacy research.

Can we now finally acknowledge that Google has an anti-privacy agenda?

????

When you file amicus/other briefs in federal court, you are often required to state whether or not you have a financial interest in the case or receive funding from the parties/etc.

Stanford filed a proposal in a case that involved Google. In order to fulfill the above requirement, they made a statement that while Google gives them money, they didn't use it for the stuff they are talking about in the brief. They then conclude "For these reasons, we do not believe we have a conflict of interest with either Google or with the Plaintiff class."

That's it.

Blogger then decides this is a request by Google, rather than a fucking statement of financial interest.

The only agenda here is yours :)

“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

But, fair enough about the original article.

I disagree with both your conclusion and how you state it. You should put forth a logical argument that supports your position instead of asking a question that presupposes your conclusion.

Sigh.

No only is that report is wrong: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research...

It also specifically notes that it's a Stanford decision not a Google one.

Apparently that report is inaccurate: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/09/stanford-research...

Edit: not sure exactly why my comment was downvoted, the link I submitted is the response from Stanford CIS (the party who filed the legal document in question) disputing the article.

Odd how the most important comment on the thread, which debunks the source article decisively, can somehow be at the bottom of the thread.

It happens every now and then; that's why I have a habit of scrolling through the entire thread, including skimming the greyed-out posts.

The denial is only that they didn't make any promises to Google. Not that Google's interests weren't considered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com