It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds Loot Google For Half a Billion Dollars

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Feds Loot Google For Half a Billion Dollars


www.cnbc.com

Regulators will announce Wednesday that Google will pay $500 million to settle government charges that it has illegally shown ads for online pharmacies that operate outside the law, according to two people briefed on the investigation…Web sites are liable for ads on their sites from advertisers that break federal criminal law.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I have to question why in the hell web site operators are responsible for what their advertisers chose to advertise. This is like holding a gun shop owner liable for guns that he ends up selling to murderers. But it is even worse than that, because there are no victims if a legitimate foreign pharmacy issues drugs to willing consumers.

Why shouldn’t people be able to buy the prescription drugs they feel they need from an online pharmacy without having to bother with a doctor’s prescription?

How many people would run out and buy toxic chemo-therapy drugs if they didn’t truly need them? How many people would run out and buy penis-pills if they didn’t feel they truly needed them? How many people would run out and buy painkillers if they didn’t feel they needed them? Why should a doctor and the State stand in the way of personal medical choice?

Isn’t it the patient who should decide what drugs they need and when they should take them? Isn’t the doctor’s job to simply provide a medical opinion that a patient can then chose to act upon or ignore? Isn’t the role of the medical profession to guide patients into making correct medical decisions, not to make those decisions for the patient?

The State does not have any legitimate right to stand in the way of individuals making their own medical choices. And certainly the State has no right to loot Google for half a billion dollars for simply allowing foreign pharmacies to advertise through them. Google should have told the Feds to shove it. They should have gone to a jury trial.

For you Google users out there, half a billion could easily pay for something as exciting and useful as Google Maps, Google Sky, or Gmail. Had that money been left in Google’s hands, I’m sure we all would have benefited from some new project that Google would have provided to us for free. Instead, that money will now be used to fund war and the welfare state.

www.cnbc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
They've been doing it to other companies all the time. There's a reason why companies are fleeing the U.S. at breakneck speed. Why should Google be special?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Google can afford it, besides they are not welcome in China, so what are they gonna do?

The feds should set up numerous fake businesses doing things like this outside of the law, then buy google ad spaces... Then go after them for even more, hey maybe they could fix some of that deficit problem?

Call it a super-sting operation!

Google can easily afford a few billion more.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lots of people who don't medically NEED those things use them. Even chemo. But I do agree with you, it should be the decision of the consumer as long as all is within legal bounds.
edit on 8/24/2011 by GoldenObserver because: Addition



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This article explains the FDA/US government's position. FDA quotes are in "headline type"



...The FDA responded by claiming a number of things, including the absurd idea that the FTCLDF has no standing to file the case! That is, they're claiming that the organization that represents the people who have been harmed by the FDA's actions does not actually represent them. They claim that no harm has been shown, in spite of the fact that the FDA's actions have prevented farmers from producing and selling raw milk and their customers have lost the ability to obtain it.


The FDA's Response and Claims

The FDA makes several statements in response to the lawsuit. The implications for personal freedoms are frightening.

No Fundamental Right to Raw Milk



The FDA claims that "...plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." This implies that no rights exist unless they have been specifically granted. This concept runs completely counter to the basic concepts of the nation. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

A basic notion in the founding of the nation is that rights do not have to be delineated. The rights identified in the Declaration of Independence clearly stated that they are merely "among" the obvious rights of people. How could anyone suggest that obtaining one's food of choice is not an inherent right?


FDA Has the Right to Set the Rules for How They May Be Controlled

The FDA claims that, before filing a lawsuit, the FTCLDF should have filed a petition with the FDA. In other words, they're claiming that they have the right to set the rules by which they may be accessed and controlled. If the FDA has such a right, then it is unaccountable to the people.

No Historical Tradition of Access to Food of Choice



The FDA states that "there is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds." This implies that one does not have the right to a vegetable garden containing one's choice of foods, or that choosing organic over petroleum-based fertilizer is not a right, or that one has no right to choose to eat a vegetarian diet.

"There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health."



This title quotes the title of a section of the FDA's response to the lawsuit. If that doesn't terrify you, then nothing can. The FDA is, literally, claiming that they have the right to take a person's health if it suits them. The section uses specious logic, claiming that there is no right to bodily and physical health because, according to them, there is no right to food choice, which is a claim that only the FDA could make.

It's interesting that the FDA is implicitly acknowledging that there is a connection between food and health, though they deny that one has a right to either freedom of food or pursuance of bodily and physical health.

"There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract."



Another section of the FDA's response is the above title claiming that individuals do not have the right to engage in contracts as they choose. This flies in the face of the basic right implied in the Constitution and strengthened by the 5th and 14th amendments. Limitations have been placed when contractual rights conflict with personal rights.

However, the inherent right to freedom of contract has not been abrogated, in spite of the FDA's claims. Their reference to it as "anachronistic" says more about the FDA's attitude towards the people than it does about the intent of the law.

"FDA's Regulations Rationally Advance the Agency’s Public Health Mission."


This statement by the FDA—again, the title of a section of its response—is made without a shred of documentation in support. It is nothing more than a self-congratulatory statement of opinion, one that a large section of the American public does not accept. Indeed, the illogic and arrogance of the FDA's entire response to the FTCLDF lawsuit tends to deny their claim to rationality.....

www.gaia-health.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Answers to your questions....



Originally posted by mnemeth1
I have to question why in the hell web site operators are responsible for what their advertisers chose to advertise. This is like holding a gun shop owner liable for guns that he ends up selling to murderers.

Apparently you didn't follow the Columbine incident very closely. The gun dealer who sold the guns LEGALLY to someone who wound up being a straw buyer was prosecuted.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
But it is even worse than that, because there are no victims if a legitimate foreign pharmacy issues drugs to willing consumers.

Here's where you're wrong. There ARE victims. The victims are the CEO's and executives of the pharmaseutical companies. If Americans aren't subsidizing foreign natioal healt costs, then their glass houses will crumble.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Why shouldn’t people be able to buy the prescription drugs they feel they need from an online pharmacy without having to bother with a doctor’s prescription?

Because, we've been taught that "regulation is good". Regulate oil companies, regulate manufacturing companies, etc. Save the environment. Welcome to the unintended consequences of "regulation".


Originally posted by mnemeth1
How many people would run out and buy toxic chemo-therapy drugs if they didn’t truly need them?

If they could be used to make meth, I'm sure the meth cookers would.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
How many people would run out and buy penis-pills if they didn’t feel they truly needed them?

Colleg kids maybe. I don't know...LOL.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
How many people would run out and buy painkillers if they didn’t feel they needed them?

Rush Limbaugh! Oh, and anyone else that wanted them, or was addicted to them.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Why should a doctor and the State stand in the way of personal medical choice?

They always have, and always will. See, there are probably things that YOU are okay with being regulated. Once you give them that, they want more, and more and more, until they regulate something YOU care about. Remember the Brady Bill? How many people supported that, but are against this?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Isn’t it the patient who should decide what drugs they need and when they should take them? Isn’t the doctor’s job to simply provide a medical opinion that a patient can then chose to act upon or ignore? Isn’t the role of the medical profession to guide patients into making correct medical decisions, not to make those decisions for the patient?

Personally, I think the patient should be able to decide, based off of information provided by the doctor. I take synthroid, and I still have to see my doc once a year, whether I'm healthy or not. If I don't go, I don't get my perscription. I think it's been well established I'm hypo-thyroid.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The State does not have any legitimate right to stand in the way of individuals making their own medical choices. And certainly the State has no right to loot Google for half a billion dollars for simply allowing foreign pharmacies to advertise through them. Google should have told the Feds to shove it. They should have gone to a jury trial.

Google will simply move their headquarters to another country, where the tax rate is between 5% and 15%, and the regulation is low. Thank a Democrat when this happens...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
For you Google users out there, half a billion could easily pay for something as exciting and useful as Google Maps, Google Sky, or Gmail. Had that money been left in Google’s hands, I’m sure we all would have benefited from some new project that Google would have provided to us for free.

Or, they could have given it to the companies who they've stolen technology from (Java), and squared up their debts.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Instead, that money will now be used to fund war and the welfare state.

The "gubment" wants welfare. Don't you get it? It's about control. We will NEVER have cheap meds here. The social medicine countries (England/Canada/etc) buy at a discount. This discount is given on the premise that WE, the U.S. citizen, will pay a premium and subsidize the lower costs of those meds to other countries. If we were able to offset that balance, people in England, Canada, et-al, would have to pay more, causing MORE riots. Like I said, they want the welfare state. It's good business, and it helps with income redistrobution from the middle class to the poor and rich.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Commerce is the aim of the politically-appointed regulators and policy-makers who will likely end up working for the companies which insist their revenue stream needs to be protected by force of law.

By securing political currency via donations, influence, and other intangible support, our political leaders become beholden to the industry.

In the end, they take the policies established (and usually authored) by the industry insiders who work under the party's' patronage, and create the controls that allow the industry to use government resources to secure increasingly higher levels of protections and support.... Apparently they have a "right" to obscene profit from the American consumers; even if it is not justified or explained that way... that is how it works out in the end....

As for the justification for availing oneself of medication at lower prices, it seems that the next to be coming under the doctrine of prosecution for commercial control will be the people who actually buy the products.... You have to wonder about the country when clearly the government serves corporations as a matter of course, while considering the needs of the common citizenry as 'a drain.'



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Is interesting to note that Google's PR is much better than the American governments.

I've seen plenty of threads on ATS complaining about American government ignoring drug problems etc in Afghanistan, or allowing organised crime to sell drugs, and various other medical style conspiracies ... Google allowing promotion of buy-as-you-want drugs is okay though?

Am not saying that anyone who has posted here so far is hypocritical and, to be honest, I haven't read up enough on the issue to really have a firm opinion. I just wonder if the American Government would be crucified for allowing people to buy dangerous drugs off the shelf, whilst google has a level of sympathy for allowing it to happen.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The more I read of this type of crap the more I think it is time to do a reset of government and wipe out a couple hunderd years of law and worthless bureaucracy.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You said you dont agree. Well I agree, even if it is not a just cause. 500million taken away from google is a good thing no matter how its done.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
It made a whole lot of sense that they went after google instead of the illegal online pharmacies. The places that sell you opioids, benzodiazepines, etc... without a prescription don't need to be bothered. After all, they don't have $500 million. Google has plenty of money, so let's go after them instead, and actually do nothing to stop the online drug dealers...

Now, I'm not exactly a fan of Google and all the shady stuff they do, but this is in no way their fault. Don't try to make the online pharmacies sound legit though. I don't care if people want to buy prescription drugs without having a prescription, but I would never trust any synthetic drugs that may just be made in somebody's basement and sold online. It's just another problem with the war on drugs: people end up making their own drugs, often not doing a very good job, and then selling dangerous homemade bs to other people.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This is a weird topic. I keep thinking two things (a) there is no honor among thieves and (b) this is all show because how can the Feds win a judgment against themselves?

There is obviously some internal bickering over the finances going on.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Is interesting to note that Google's PR is much better than the American governments.

I've seen plenty of threads on ATS complaining about American government ignoring drug problems etc in Afghanistan, or allowing organised crime to sell drugs, and various other medical style conspiracies ... Google allowing promotion of buy-as-you-want drugs is okay though?

Am not saying that anyone who has posted here so far is hypocritical and, to be honest, I haven't read up enough on the issue to really have a firm opinion. I just wonder if the American Government would be crucified for allowing people to buy dangerous drugs off the shelf, whilst google has a level of sympathy for allowing it to happen.



I think the drug laws are idiotic. Humans are supposed to be adults not children. I for one am sick and tired of being treated as more of a child by the government now that I am sixty then my parents treated me when I was ten.

But then I also happen to like the Darwin Awards



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
This is a weird topic. I keep thinking two things (a) there is no honor among thieves and (b) this is all show because how can the Feds win a judgment against themselves?


Wrong, perceptions that Google is in bed with the feds cannot be supported following a $500 MILLION settlement like this, no matter how you look at it.

Reeks of desperation on the part of the federal government, and as fiscal problems mount, you can expect more corporate looting like this in the future... It's true, America is not a business friendly environment... As more and more corporations, businesses and manufacturing leave the country we all will eventually suffer from it in a perpetual declining and even collapsing economy.

Every policy the government has pushed forward in recent times has only made things worse.

Good luck, Google if you decide to stay here.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 




Reeks of desperation on the part of the federal government, and as fiscal problems mount, you can expect more corporate looting like this in the future...


We are already seeing it.

$100000 fine for your yard sale

A Lemonade Stand With No Permit = a $500 Fine

Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies


$200 and $5,000 for no premises ID, Amish gentleman, Emanuel J. Miller and R-CALF USA members, Pat and Melissa Monchilovic taken to court for not registering farms with the government

$183 000 Fine for Selling Raw Milk

Pennsylvania Pie Fight: State Cracks Down on Baked Goods: Inspector Nabs Homemade Desserts At St. Cecilia Church's Lenten Fish Fry

This is what Pennsylvania has to say about the actual fines for selling homemade Apple Pie

What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Retail Food Facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department could have the following penalties imposed: filing of a prosecution with the local District Justice which may result in a summary offense for the first or second offense and a fine of not less than $100 or more than $300 and if a third offense within two years a misdemeanor for the third degree. The Department also has legal ability to assess a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per offense against a non-compliant business or individual. www.eatsafepa.com...



It is getting pretty darn disgusting when the Frecken' government goes after Grandma for selling you a slice of home made Apple pie at the Church bake good charity sale.

"As American As Apple Pie" has suddenly taken on a whole new meaning!






posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


I have to question why in the hell web site operators are responsible for what their advertisers chose to advertise. This is like holding a gun shop owner liable for guns that he ends up selling to murderers. But it is even worse than that, because there are no victims if a legitimate foreign pharmacy issues drugs to willing consumers.

Why shouldn’t people be able to buy the prescription drugs they feel they need from an online pharmacy without having to bother with a doctor’s prescription?

How many people would run out and buy toxic chemo-therapy drugs if they didn’t truly need them? How many people would run out and buy penis-pills if they didn’t feel they truly needed them? How many people would run out and buy painkillers if they didn’t feel they needed them? Why should a doctor and the State stand in the way of personal medical choice?

Isn’t it the patient who should decide what drugs they need and when they should take them? Isn’t the doctor’s job to simply provide a medical opinion that a patient can then chose to act upon or ignore? Isn’t the role of the medical profession to guide patients into making correct medical decisions, not to make those decisions for the patient?

The State does not have any legitimate right to stand in the way of individuals making their own medical choices. And certainly the State has no right to loot Google for half a billion dollars for simply allowing foreign pharmacies to advertise through them. Google should have told the Feds to shove it. They should have gone to a jury trial.

For you Google users out there, half a billion could easily pay for something as exciting and useful as Google Maps, Google Sky, or Gmail. Had that money been left in Google’s hands, I’m sure we all would have benefited from some new project that Google would have provided to us for free. Instead, that money will now be used to fund war and the welfare state.

www.cnbc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


nice
2nd



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Feds Loot Google For Half a Billion Dollars


www.cnbc.com

Regulators will announce Wednesday that Google will pay $500 million to settle government charges that it has illegally shown ads for online pharmacies that operate outside the law, according to two people briefed on the investigation…Web sites are liable for ads on their sites from advertisers that break federal criminal law.
(visit the link for the full news article)



This is like Al Capone. See...You pay us your FED theft insurance..See...Myeah!

The elites are so disloyal they canabalize themselves with random robberies.

Look out this might be a trend.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 





This is like Al Capone. See...You pay us your FED theft insurance..See...Myeah!

The elites are so disloyal they canabalize themselves with random robberies.

Look out this might be a trend.


I am very much afraid it is going to be a trend. A very frightening one.

The new "Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010" just added farmers (and perhaps home gardeners) to the group of people "regulated" this now gives the government a "Full House"

In other words the government can now pick out any random individual or business and shake them down for $100 to a million or more. With the local, state or federal governments hunger for more and more revenue this is a very very dangerous situation.

It is much safer to go hunting for cash from little old ladies selling pie or PTA Moms holding yard sales than it is from pimps or drug lords and this I am afraid may become the governments new target for extortion.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I've got a theory on this. I'm willing to be the pharmacies are operated out of country, so the American government can't go after them. But Google is providing them advertising in the US for an illegal product. So they make Google remove the ads and fine them for hosting them in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join