Consumer 'Watchdog' Anti-Google Video Just Part Of A Stunt To Sell Books?

from the who's-watching-those-consumers dept

There was all sorts of news coverage recently about the group Consumer Watchdog creating a video that mocked Google’s Eric Schmidt for not caring about your privacy — though, which did so by getting all sorts of basic facts wrong and while relying on the “evil” Google Analytics for its own site (though, the group claims it’s been trying to get rid of it, and has tried to spin the story into a claim that shows “how hard it is to escape Google on the Internet.” Actually, it’s not that hard at all. The whole thing seemed pretty silly, and clearly a stupid promotional stunt.

It seems that folks associated with Consumer Watchdog’s Jamie Court are perfectly willing to admit that the whole thing is a crass stunt to help Jamie sell more of his new book. They’ve sent over a letter to us, hyping up Court’s book, offering to send us a copy, and linking the recently released book to the “stunt” in Times Square, which they blatantly admit was a stunt. So, now, who’s going to watch over Consumer Watchdog to make sure it’s not engaged in questionable motives in its own activities? I’m all for people actually looking out for consumer rights, but sometimes I wonder who appointed these folks as our “watchdogs?”

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: consumer watchdog, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Consumer 'Watchdog' Anti-Google Video Just Part Of A Stunt To Sell Books?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jon says:

They are no consumer group and not a non-profit, they are hired astroturfers from ‘Grassroots Enterprises’.
There are some rumors that they are indirectly funded by Microsoft maybe also AT&T.
They have no other initiatives that making Google look bad, they were the same group asking for a Google split-up back in April, and the same group that collected WiFi payload data near politician’s residence to “highlight” the street view incident.

Mark says:

Re: Re:

You are lying through your teeth, “Jon”! Consumer Watchdog is most definitely a non-profit, not hired by anyone, not funded by Microsoft or AT&T, and we have plenty of other initiatives, like taking on unscrupulous health insurance corporations, auto/home insurance corporations, and corrupt politicians. Do some research that isn’t biased by your pro-Google views, you hack!

Forge says:

Re: Re: Re:

“we have plenty of other initiatives”!

We also troll Slashdot and Techdirt, watching for people slandering our good name! We then jump on with lots of near ad hominem attacks and vague information about other campaigns!

If you want trust, give trust. If you expect us to believe you are motivated solely by what is right, and that you are watchdogs and not attack dogs, OPEN YOUR FINANCIAL RECORDS. Show us who pays the bills. Show us how your decisions on what campaigns to pursue are divorced fully from your financial matters. Won’t do that? Gosh, color me surprised.


nonanonymous says:

Re: Re: Re:

we have plenty of other initiatives, like taking on unscrupulous health insurance corporations, auto/home insurance corporations, and corrupt politicians. Do some research that isn’t biased by your pro-Google views, you hack!

Nice “defense”, too bad that you might be just a tiny bit biased since you are part of the company yourself. What’s your cut of the book sales?

TacoSlurpeeDoubleCheese says:

Consumer Watch Dog

They are a semi-decent organization. One of their lawyers represented me during a deposition for a Class action lawsuit against Directv. Funded by Microsoft? me thinks not. AT&T me thinks not. Looking out for consumers rights. You Bet! Doing some bone headed things along the way to drum up consumer knowledge about their organization and sell some books. Absolutely!

out_of_the_blue says:

Wired piece worth reading.

“They hold onto search and other profile data for too long, and their ?anonymization? of the data after 18 months could be easily reversed. They still turn on the creepy ?Web History? by default for all account holders, which is an egregious privacy choice (however, this ?feature? only records your searches and the places you visit from a search result page, unless you use the Google Toolbar in your browser, which records everything when ?Web History? is enabled.).

The WiFi sniffing snafu was an embarrassment, even if experts agree there wasn?t anything useful to be snared in a quick-drive-by-packet-sniff. I agree with the EFF?s analysis by the wickedly smart attorney Jennifer Granick, which boiled down to ?This was too stupid a move to be repeated by Google?.

Allowing its venture capital arm to pair investments with the CIA?s VC group was bone headed, while turning to the NSA for help when it got hacked is a PR nightmare. Likewise, its drive to land big, secretive search contracts with the feds is also short-sighted ? the revenue will be tiny compared to AdWords.”

Those who deny it’s a spy agency please note the last paragraph.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...