Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by somestuff 5250 days ago
No its rather apt in my opinion.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405297020462420...

"Google acknowledged in the settlement that it had improperly and knowingly assisted online pharmacy advertisers allegedly based in Canada to run advertisements for illicit pharmacy sales targeting U.S. customers."

Oh hello whats this? Google execs knowingly assisting illegal operations peddling illicit drugs from manufactures unknown? Since when does their 'lets not be evil overlords' policy include knowingly taking cash to help peddle drugs coming from illicit sources.

"By the end of the operation in mid-2009, agents were buying Google ads for sites purportedly selling such prescription-only narcotics as oxycodone and hydrocodone. Agents also got Google's sales office in China to approve a site selling Prozac and Valium to U.S. customers without a prescription.

"Google's employees were instrumental in bypassing policy regarding pharmacy verification," Mr. Whitaker told the Journal. "The websites were blatantly illegal."

At the agents' direction, Mr. Whitaker said he signaled his illegal intent to Google ad executives, including Google's top manager in Mexico. As a tape recorder ran, he walked Google executives through the illegal parts of the websites. He said he told ad executives that U.S. Customs had seized shipments, for example, and that one client wanted to be "the biggest steroid dealer in the United States.""

Seriously what the fuck? The anti-google sentiment is nonsense?

"The government's case also contained potentially embarrassing allegations that top Google executives, including co-founder Larry Page, were told about legal problems with the drug ads.

Mr. Page, now Google's chief executive, knew about the illicit conduct, said Mr. Neronha, the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island who led the multiagency federal task force that conducted the sting. "We simply know from the documents we reviewed and witnesses we interviewed that Larry Page knew what was going on," he said in an interview after the August settlement.

Mr. Neronha declined to detail the evidence, which was presented in secret to a federal grand jury. Other people familiar with the case said internal emails showed Sheryl Sandberg, a former top Google executive who left in 2008 for Facebook Inc., had raised concerns about the ads."

I'm sure it was just a rogue employee of one of their far off subsids, oh wait nevermind I guess it went to the top, lulz. Sorry for posting so much of the article but your simple ignorant line deserves all the filth contained in the url, I'd rather not depend on you clicking to read it.

The actions listed in that article even at their most innocent leaves me with such a foul feeling that it can be nothing else but Evil.

2 comments

I agree with the sentiment, but "Google execs knowingly assisting illegal operations peddling illicit drugs from manufactures unknown?"

I think it's more like Google knowingly helping people bypass the pharmaceutical equivalent of DVD Region-coding.

The drugs people were buying were the same stuff you guys get down there in the states, they were just available for cheaper because Canadians pay less for drugs. It's also my understanding that Canada has stricter regulations on drug safety than the US, so your portrayal seems a bit FUD-y.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy#Internet_pharmacy)

"Canada is home to dozens of licensed internet pharmacies, many of which sell their lower-cost prescription drugs to U.S. consumers, who pay one of the world's highest drug prices.[11] In recent years, many consumers in the US and in other countries with high drug costs, have turned to licensed internet pharmacies in India, Israel and the UK, which often have even lower prices than in Canada. In the United States, there has been a push to legalize importation of medications from Canada and other countries, in order to reduce consumer costs. While in most cases importation of prescription medications violates Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and federal laws, enforcement is generally targeted at international drug suppliers, rather than consumers. There is no known case of any U.S. citizens buying Canadian drugs for personal use with a prescription, who has ever been charged by authorities."

When medication does not go through legit supply channels you cannot trust the product, accountability is gone. Trusting illicit pharma spammers to source legit medication is laughable.

Edit: Not laughable, horrific and sad.

I don't want to conflate the whole Canadian pharmacy thing with criminal activities related to buying drugs online. The fact is there are Canadian pharmacies that are licensed by the gov., and only sell legit products, and they do it online. As a Canadian, if I buy them it's basically the same as popping down to the Pharmaprix and shopping there.

If an American buys from one of them they are making a safe purchase IMO, but breaking drug importation laws put in place more to protect the bottom lines of drug companies then to protect the consumer.

Now if a canadian or an american buys drugs online without reasonable assurances they're dealing with a reputable company... well that is stupid/sad/dangerous as you said.

That is where Google crossed the line into being evil, bypassing their own internal checks and regulations accepting cash for ads to sites that never were associated with any real pharmacy or any product at all. Judging by Glavmed's success and shadier sites with shop fronts calling themselves "Canadian" this is totally not isolated to one paid snitch.

These rogue pharmas source from India for generics, wherever they can to buy branded narcotics, and lord knows where for counterfeit opiates/benzos. Real Canadian pharmacies used to be more directly involved selling to the US, including narcotics, but that was years ago. The dirty bit is not at the pharmacy selling to people with prescriptions but those knowingly diverting to unscripted use, or the mules who use doctors to fill out scripts that then get sold. Then at the pharma affiliate networks paying spammers for traffic. Spammers paying google for adverts pointing to shop fronts. GOOGLE ACCEPTING CASH AND BYPASSING THEIR CHECKS THAT SEE IF ALL THE ACTORS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ARE LEGIT who then post the adverts to the shop fronts who may or may not be listed as Canadian who may or may not be sourcing via legal means from what may or may not be a Canadian pharmacy.

Krebsonsecurity.com has multiple write-ups on these types of operations which use advertisers like Google for traffic. In this case though Google employees at multiple levels went beyond just being a provider of traffic to being an co-partner in the conspiracy.

The term "illicit drugs" is a little disingenuous. Google wasn't posting ads for heroine. They were posting ads for pharmacies that sold Claritin a few dollars cheaper than US sellers.
Apparently you have a hard time reading since I posted the link to the story I am refering to along with the quote in the comment you replied to that is totally contrary to what you stated. So here we go for a second time:

"By the end of the operation in mid-2009, agents were buying Google ads for sites purportedly selling such prescription-only narcotics as oxycodone and hydrocodone. Agents also got Google's sales office in China to approve a site selling Prozac and Valium to U.S. customers without a prescription."

Google wasn't posting ads for 'heroine' alright, they were posting ads for what they thought were suppliers of opiates who were selling without prescription. Illicit pharma opiates are in the same catagory as illicit black market opiates or, heroin as its called. If you cared to actually read before responding you would know that this was all included in the article.