Reply to post: Cooler heads called for

Cooler heads called for

There may be a reason for the gentleman to recuse himself from investigating Google and Apple. I wrote "may" because I think it is customary to take into consideration whether or not there actually is a conflict of interest. For instance, he worked for Apple and Google in 2006-2007. It's 2019 now, last time I checked. That's quite a "cooling period". Nevertheless, I completely agree that the question should be raised, and quite possibly he would do well to announce that he won't take any active part in investigating Google and Apple even if just to keep the appearance of propriety.

Having said that, I have clicked on the link and read the speech he made in Israel, and I don't see anything improper there. It is hardly a "blueprint of attack" as The Reg alleges. It is very general and discusses some historical cases. I saw nothing there that would cause me to think, "Oh, hell, now Google and Apple will be much better prepared - there was no way they would be aware of this were it not for this speech!"

On top of that, the whole premise that an antitrust investigation is a kind of military campaign where the D-Day plans must be kept absolutely secret from the enemy is, I believe, false. We are talking about a government department enforcing the law and official regulations. It is incumbent on the government to make the regulations and the associated criteria as clear and transparent and widely known as possible. So I would actually expect the government to tell the public - and any company that is a potential target of a regulatory check - what is going to happen. Keeping that information vague or under a veil in order to increase the chances that an investigation would find something is no way to govern. Among other things, it is also a conflict of interest, given that the people running such an investigation stand to get a lot of positive publicity if they are actually seen as successful guardians of public interest against evil corporations that are not supposed to do evil.

So I found the rather sarcastic "No, he won't do that" tone of the article quite unwarranted, even as the point about the Assistant AG recusing himself is valid.