Sgt_Kickaxe - 3:49 pm on Jan 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

In fairness they knew they were displaying ads for illegal narcotics as the sting demonstrates, and turned a blind eye. Why doesn't matter, the crime was commited and they were LUCKY to be allowed to forfeit $500 million instead of face prosecution.

I don't think the Google name will merrit that kind of forgiveness moving forward, unless of course they have deep government secrets to keep hidden. All that personal data they collect from various services, and what they just take (think wifi networks of unsuspecting people's homes etc), is in the hands of a company who would do this kind of thing and that's a real danger, to all of us imo.

I'm sorry but I do not trust a company who does this kind of thing with my personal information any more than I would ever hand it over to a typical drug cartel, I'm not alone. I do see what you're suggesting Brett and it is hard to fathom but...

In an important shift, the settlement "signals that, where evidence can be developed that a search engine knowingly and actively assisted advertisers to promote improper conduct, the search engine can be held accountable as an accomplice," according to Peter Neronha, the lead prosecutor.

The prosecutor had them dead bang. (emphasis in quote mine)