CFPB Looks To Place Google Under Federal Supervision 26
Washington Post: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken steps to place Google under formal federal supervision, an extraordinary move that could subject the technology giant to the regular inspections and other rigorous monitoring that the government imposes on major banks.
Google has fiercely resisted the idea over months of highly secretive talks, according to two people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them -- setting up what may ultimately be a major legal clash with vast implications for the CFPB's powers in the digital age.
The exact scope of the CFPB's concerns is not clear, and its order does not appear to be final. The political fate of the bureau's work under Director Rohit Chopra is also in doubt, as the watchdog agency braces for potentially significant changes to its leadership and agenda with the return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House.
Formed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has broad powers to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive or predatory financial practices. That includes the ability to place certain firms under supervision, a status that can afford regulators direct access to the company's internal records to ensure their activities are sound -- and seek fixes if they are not.
Google has fiercely resisted the idea over months of highly secretive talks, according to two people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them -- setting up what may ultimately be a major legal clash with vast implications for the CFPB's powers in the digital age.
The exact scope of the CFPB's concerns is not clear, and its order does not appear to be final. The political fate of the bureau's work under Director Rohit Chopra is also in doubt, as the watchdog agency braces for potentially significant changes to its leadership and agenda with the return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House.
Formed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has broad powers to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive or predatory financial practices. That includes the ability to place certain firms under supervision, a status that can afford regulators direct access to the company's internal records to ensure their activities are sound -- and seek fixes if they are not.
Makes no sense (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2)
The analogy is the phone system. The government retains oversight of it. Google got away with it until now. The rest of the social media providers should get used to this kind of harassment, it's coming.
You didn't think the government ever gave up on control, did you?
Re: Makes no sense (Score:1)
Re: Makes no sense (Score:2)
For now. The government will catch up eventually. WhatsApp is owned by a US corporation.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:0)
Google shut down their social network ages ago.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:3)
Google handles transactions for millions of consumers around the world so the concern is probably something like https://www.consumerfinance.go... [consumerfinance.gov]
For example, if Google Pay on NFC-enabled phones is hackable [hackmag.com] and Google doesn't make some effort to provide security measures or compensation for exploits when they occur in the US, it's a US consumer protection concern.
FTFA the "exact scope of the CFPB's concerns is not clear, and its order does not appear to be final" so better to wait to see if they even move forward and, if so, what is that scope before jumping to any conclusions about Google's relative guilt or innocence. After all, they "do the right thing" for themselves first, everyone else second.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:1)
From the article:
Google, for example, offers financial services including Google Wallet, which stores credit cards digitally and allows users to pay at registers with their mobile phones. (It previously offered another app, called Google Pay, which allowed U.S. users until this June to send each other cash.) Hundreds of customers have complained about Googleâ(TM)s services in comments to the CFPB in recent years, alleging that they experienced trouble with unauthorized charges on their accounts.
I think the CFPB is slowly-but-surely becoming the kind of federal agency which can be used to cudgel any business the 'powers that be' want to control into submission, but in this case, that's the justification for them to get involved.
"You see, consumers are too stupid to protect their own interests, so we must help the" - CFPB, probably
Re:Makes no sense (Score:3)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:1)
Sure, the consumer should have someone on their side.
However, the CFPB should also be subject to the same oversight rules as other government agencies, and this is something which the CFPB has been fighting almost since its inception.
It wasn't until Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [wikipedia.org] that SCOTUS ruled CFPB's structure violated the separation of powers, since its single director could not be removed other than 'for cause' once appointed by the President (which meant the director could never be removed if they decided they didn't want to go).
The old "think of the children!" bs excuse trotted out for to silence any opposition is getting long in the tooth, so the new one is "think of the consumers!" to fight off any criticism of an agency which is basically beyond congressional oversight and acting with seemingly unfettered powers, picking and choosing which portions of the law apply to itself and its (virtually limitless) regulatory powers
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
I think the CFPB is slowly-but-surely becoming the kind of federal agency which can be used to cudgel any business the 'powers that be' want to control into submission, but in this case, that's the justification for them to get involved.
Well...maybe. But I think that's downstream of the fact that Google (read: Alphabet) itself has finagled its way into becoming the Omnibusiness, injecting itself into every layer of interaction and transaction. Altavista didn't warrant this level of oversight, nor did any of the "web portals" of the day, even the ones still hanging on like Yahoo. (Amazon is next, of course.)
The real solution here is structural: divestiture a la Ma Bell into a hundred component parts, and to force competition back into the entire tech industry. I'm hopeful it will happen, and then the smaller tech entities can have their oversight reduced as a result of their smaller scope.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2)
Well...maybe. But I think that's downstream of the fact that Google (read: Alphabet) itself has finagled its way into becoming the Omnibusiness, injecting itself into every layer of interaction and transaction.
I heard that since the Google Alphabet name has such a negative connotation these days, they are considering renaming themselves Weyland Yutani Corporation. Building Better Worlds!
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2)
"Google does not handle people's money."
They don't? [google.com]
Re:Makes no sense (Score:2)
Wallet facilitates payments. Money dopes not go through Google or any Google business, rather they capture your payment information, with your consent and enrollment, share it with merchants or other service providers, banks, and help you purchase goods and services. No money is sent to Google to be sent elsewhere.
I think you all should understand correctly how stuff works before you try to fix it. And understanding how the CFPB works would lead you to want to fix it. But do not trust me. Do some minimal research.
Pointless (Score:1)
Republicans as of January 20 own the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch, and Trump owns the Repubicans.
Trump won't allow any executive agencies to do anything that impacts billionaires in any way except lowering their taxes.
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Yeah, I can't see Trump helping out Google. His Supreme Court might, though; this looks a lot like a an attempt by the agency to greatly expand its own authority, and the current Supreme Court has been skeptical of such things.
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
NOT ENOUGH! (Score:1)
Ephemeral Suggestions and Search Results (Score:1)
Re:Ephemeral Suggestions and Search Results (Score:2)
That's it! The election was stolen! I suggest you all have a nice rally in Washington on January 6th and show those Republicans who matters!
Re:Ephemeral Suggestions and Search Results (Score:2)
They didn't do a good enough job and now they face the consequences.
j/k who uses Google anymore?
Re:Ephemeral Suggestions and Search Results (Score:2)
This particular issue is outside the purview of the CFPB. Your point? Google is influential? They are part of a surprisingly large community of real influencers. Manby of which are, today, without credibility.
And still, flies watch CNN.
not political (Score:2)
This is not political. It's simply because..., er, well, maybe it is political.
Fox News fan-bois (Score:3)
Yep, President Trump is prepared this time ... to do nothing. It is why he has a cabinet of Fox News fan-bois: They do all the work and he poses for photo-ops proving he is the best-est president ever. Those politicians expecting Trump to examine the problems the Republican Party is facing, will become frustrated with his indifference.
Mitch McConell turned the Republican Party into a blood-thirsty mafia, so it will be interesting to see if Trump's minions can follow the Project 2025 manifesto. Doubtless, some (Eg. Vance) will be thinking of the next presidential election. The problem for the pro-corporatism and pro-fascist bloc, is a lack of people just like them: When Trump dismisses one of his screeching monkeys, the rich know they won't be getting an new, improved minion, kicking their dream of a dictator for life, further down the road. I guess, at least one bad habit of the Republican Party, has come home to roost.
Just as we philosophize that 1,000 monkeys will write Shakespeare, a cabinet of screeching monkeys will do horrible things to the government they control. It's a question of which happens first; Trump dying (old-age or assassination), the rise of feudalism, or the 'system' of checks and balances fighting-back.
Re:Fox News fan-bois (Score:2)
The CFPB is probably going to be getting the axe (Score:2)