Benutzername: Passwort:

Criminal charges in the Causa Google and Adblock Plus

David versus Goliath

In connection with


we have filed criminal charges for a variety of offenses. While the procedure Adblock Plus is essentially fraud offenses, the criminal charges in relation to our competition complaint against Google are far beyond that.
 
According to our current knowledge, we believe that the investigations by the European Commission against Google, including the effected market survey are just a charade, which aims to mislead the public. Moreover, we assume that the ongoing daily law violations by Google, which are among others

 

  • data acquisition and data processing practice
  • manipulation of search results
  • arbitrary binding, redirection and control of internet traffic
  • arbitrary influence of purchase decisions
  • strategy of cross-subsidization from profits of its search engine that dominates the market
  • linking of services to its search engine that dominates the market
  • avoidance of tax payments by transferring profits to accounts of bogus companies in tax havens,

 

for its own financial gain and to the detriment of consumers and competitors would not be possible without a significant degree of government crime, because the economic damage of the "system Google" is enormous, both for consumers as well as for small and medium- sized companies. This is markedly not least from the EU labor market numbers and other indicators such as the ever-increasing suicide rate of affected in many European countries, who feel unjustly like losers.

 

Substantiated complaint document with many proofs

As part of our complaint, we have provided the European Commission with around 80 pages of detailed analyzes of the tracking practices related to the behavioral targeting of about 90 Google services. Furthermore, we have provided evidence that the self-regulatory practice of the German and European advertising industry in the context of behavioral targeting is a deception for consumers.

 

The detailed references to the current legislation have a scope of approximately 60 pages, including the listings of the significant criminal relevance of the market behavior. The complaint was written in the form of an indictment that contains about 1,700 pages of enclosure, including in-depth studies of well-known institutions and experts, numerous proofs of very close references and media releases. Furthermore, well-known witnesses with subpoena-efficient addresses were named. The entire document fully complies with the required form of a competition complaint and may be viewed by interested media up to an appropriate extent (because of expenditures).

 

Nevertheless, the EU-Commission responded to us by e -mail on the 7th of October this year surprisingly,
 
…that we cannot classify your writing... as a formal complaint within the meaning of Article 5 of the regulation (EG) No. 773/2004 of the commission of April 7, 2004 on the implementation of procedures on the basis of Articles 81 and 82 of the EG-Treaty by the Commission (Official Journal No. L 123 of 27/04/2004 S. 0018 - 0024, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriCELEX:32004R0773 :DE:HTML)... (the link in the EU-letter leads characteristically to Nirvana.)

…as offered evidences, your petition includes in many places only blog or website entries which probative value is low because they are hardly distinguishable from pure expressions of opinion. Where you cite statements of individuals as evidence, you must include the name and address of the persons who can testify the shown facts in the complaint. Also, this requirement is not met...
 
Since these statements are demonstrably false or irrelevant for a competition complaint process, we assume that the EU-commission did not read our detailed complaint document or did not process it and left it for more than three months out of purely political reasons in the drawer, that means under pressure from the U.S. administration and its instigators Google & Co. One has to imagine that the indictment of a court case is dismissed because the court is of the opinion that some of the evidence has no high enough probative value. Basically, this is only possible in totalitarian regimes.

The German antitrust authority in Berlin has refused to process our competition complaint without giving us reasons, and referred to the EU-proceedings. On request, staff reasons were given, so a processing would not be possible.

The Swiss competition authority asked us if our complaint document contains trade secrets, if they forward content to Google for a statement. We then informed them that these trade secrets almost do not exist anymore and referred to our relevant observations regarding tracking and data acquisition and the spy program PRISM, of which Google is an important part. After further emails and letters from us, we did not get any response. Then we received a statement per telephone call on September 9 that the matter had a low priority, and therefore nothing further was done, but in the near future - without telling how – they would start to act.

The Austrian competition authority has been working for one week on our complaint. The staff´s capacity is also very high there, and therefore, we were told that it will take some time - not least because the subject matter is very challenging in itself.

 

IT-technologies and tracking is difficult to retrace

In general, we could learn from our discussions with the lawyers of the competition authorities that the subject IT-technologies and tracking is difficult to retrace, partly because there is still a misconception that only the IP address allows the definite personal reference. In our complaint, we have explained substantiated in detail that this is not the case, so for this reason, the behavior of the EU-Commission is a scandal and one has to fear the worst from the formulation of the new EU-privacy policy.

Here, ultimately it is not just about the invasion of privacy, because the practice by Google and others in relation with the behavioral targeting tracking permits conclusions of

 

  • the political opinion
  • ideological conviction
  • racial or ethnic origin
  • trade union membership
  • health
  • sexual preferences
  • personal and professional contacts,

 

but also about betrayal of business and official secrets, and in our opinion also offenses in the fields of espionage and treason are to apply. Moreover, we believe that the role of individual authorities and political representatives is to clarify, not least in the background of

 

  • the recent market behavior of Google and its future business strategies.
  • the recent findings from the spy scandal PRISM/Tempora.
  • the decisions of government officials in connection with the transfer of national powers towards the EU-level.

 

In spite of the enormous (technological) knowledge advantage of Google, why is it - that if one does not really understand something – that in front of the army of lawyers among the policy representatives in the case of doubt, as it is common in all courtrooms for each minor offence, that the on general life experience valid actual presumption is not used? Or Murphy's Law, which is the basis of many technological developments? Or better yet, both together? Everything else is highly negligently.

Since we realized that the results of our analyzes are extremely serious in their economic and political implications, we informed the parties of the German federal parliament, almost all state data protection authorities and the federal data protection authority. The result has shocked us.

  

Although besides the high economical damage also the peaceful coexistence in a free democratic basic order is threatened, not least because the collected data in accordance with the general experience

 

  • enforcement of political and economic interests
  • industrial espionage
  • extortion of political representatives and business managers
  • elimination of an effective competition and thus to the detriment of local businesses and consumers

 

are used, but nobody seems to have to be interested in dealing with the illegal conditions.

Clientele lobbyism according to the U.S. role model already exists in Europe?

On the contrary, we assume that the system of clientele lobbyism according to the patronage lobbyism of the U.S. role model, where with some exorbitant property and cash contributions (Lobbying Fees) openly and bluntly decisions in politics and administration are demanded, and that the system of protection money payments is not dissimilar to organized crime, has now also been introduced to Europe.


Thus, the data protection authority of Hamburg, which has been working for years with the data collection practices of Google, from which an outsider might get the impression that this authority actually takes data protection seriously, has approved highly officially a fictitious order data processing agreement between Google and website operators, so that Google could transfer personal user data to the third country USA where this data was provided to the U.S. administration and U.S. intelligence agencies and this is still done.

This authority did not respond to several emails and letters, and after two months they told us in a telephone inquiry that no emails and letters arrived and the emails have not landed in the spam folder either. As we explained that in that case we want to inform the law enforcement authorities, because someone prevented the delivery, a short time later two emails from two different points of this authority arrived that our letters have arrived. How can this be explained? Is it not embarrassing enough that just a company of the advertising industry provides analysis and information about user tracking that is useful for the data protection?

Besides that we have offered to include our "clean" technologies in partnership with data protection authorities in a cooperative run, meaning a non-profit enterprise, where behavioral targeting and other non-legally compliant tracking methods are prohibited. One gave us to understand that one must remain neutral. But if the Hamburg Data Protection Authority actually wants to stay neutral, why do they then actively make sure that Google may transfer the user data with such a constructed order data agreement to the USA? The behavior of this authority in the Causa Google appears to us like shadow boxing, just like the competitive process of the EU-commission.

Interests of local consumers and companies are more important

Shouldn´t the interests of local  companies and consumers be taken into account, rather than the interests of multi-national corporations and their relevant shareholders and cooperating beneficiaries who use the U.S. administration and its intelligence agencies and subsequently also befriended services for their business interests? The fact that politics and the public both in terms of practices as well as motives and strategies are deceived and often the motive "terrorists" is named as a pretext and – if they even exist – probably would not even exist without those intelligence agencies and their allies and instigators, rounds up everything in a negative way.

These and similar questions employ increasingly also liberal-conservative thinking people, as we are, so an immediate rethinking and action must take place also in the law enforcement agencies, even and especially when high political office holders think that they stand above the law, or simply use their time for the optimization of their income and living conditions.

 

In this regard, we would like to thank for the numerous references and solidarity notes that we have received so far. We ask those for understanding, that hope that we will show more clearly the causal historical context between the data acquisition practices and corporate strategies of Google and the motives of the instigators and their agents in the U.S. administration – unfortunately, this is beyond our capacity and power. Of course, we also have already heard after our about 9 months of intense research that the service Google Earth and Maps were originally founded by a CIA subsidiary and for this reason the proximity of Google to the U.S. intelligence agencies exists already for many years.
 
But others should take care of all this, like politics and justice. We ourselves fight in a dirty competition for survival, and now intend to institute civil proceedings against Google in which a general context can be made public. For this we need as much support as possible, including financial support, because otherwise we can not win this battle of David versus Goliath. Nowadays, the right arguments alone are not enough.


Those in the German federal parties with the exception of the “left” party,  we have informed about the abuses and apparently they did not care, although this would have been an ideal election issue, we would like to remind them of an apt quote of the Roman philosopher Augustine of Hippo:


 Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?

This also applies to the journalists of the mass media. We were told that there is no real freedom of the press anymore. Therefore, everybody turns away scared and only practices streamlined PR coverage. We wish all of you a little more courage, despite the daily struggle for survival, but for which we have great understanding.

Mr. WongFavoritenYiggDiggDel.icio.usSlashdotYahooGoogleTechnorati