> Google said in a statement “we understand the concerns” and that it had “fallen short of our own high standards”.<p>But it wasn't their own high standards, it was a legal obligation that they neglected?<p>I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel...
This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. Assuming that Google has some basic competence, it selected locations where it's ultimately possible to build data centers while complying with all legal requirements.<p>My guess is that the government will eventually find that all requirements have been satisfied and let the projects move on. But because this is now a controversial issue, someone with the standing will very likely file a complaint. Then the projects will be stuck in administrative courts for a year or two.
> are able to punish them<p>They will not.
The punishment will almost certainly fall on the subcontractor they contracted this work to who cut corners and should know better about local law.
> Google said in a statement “we understand the concerns” and that it had “fallen short of our own high standards”.<p>Apple said the same rhetorical non-apology apologetically, recently... about something??
I think it was their Siri. Apple Intelligence lags a lot behind competitors, and back during WWDC last year Craig made an announcement about how "Siri had fallen short of expectations".
> Apple said the same rhetorical non-apology apologetically, recently... about something??<p>Entirely possible they were advised by the same crisis management firm like FGS Global or Brunswick Group.<p>There is a whole giant industry around pretending to be sorry effectively.
Google’s web page about the Muhos data center referenced in the article: <a href="https://datacenters.google/locations/muhos/" rel="nofollow">https://datacenters.google/locations/muhos/</a>
Seems this is becoming a frequent thing, all over:<p>"One of America’s Last Chestnut Groves Is About to Be Destroyed for a Data Center"<p><a href="https://www.gadgetreview.com/one-of-americas-last-chestnut-groves-is-about-to-be-destroyed-for-a-data-center" rel="nofollow">https://www.gadgetreview.com/one-of-americas-last-chestnut-g...</a>
As someone who's seen how this sausage is made in another jurisdction I assume what's going on here is Google or the builder got some sort of statement from some board to the tune of "oh well because you checked whatever boxes we will exercise our discretionary authority to waive this for you, the exact opposite of what how we'd behave if you were some uppity peasant seeking to develop some petty land". Naturally there are some who don't like this have probably complained to the next authority up who's putting some scrutiny on the situation and whatever approval they were given has been rescinded and now they gotta do it the hard expensive way.<p>Or it might be one of those cases where the discretionary BS you can be put through is so onerous and capricious that the cheapest way to get it done is to bulldoze first, let the threats fly and use whatever legal maneuvering that gets you to wind up with a more favorable venue (the higher up you go the more friendly to industry permitting authorities tend to become).
> it would consider enforcement proceedings and a fine<p>Oh man they are going to <i>consider</i> a fine, that would probably be barely an inconvenience to google.
There is Ecosia, apparently. I don't recall which trackers (crawlers) it uses
Do no evil, right?
When should we expect our corporate overlords to block out the sun just to fuck with us? [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/L3LbxDZRgA4" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/L3LbxDZRgA4</a>
> Google said in a statement "Whadd'ya gonna do about it, little worm? Gonna vote for someone who will stop us? HAHAHAHA"