{"items": [{"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118156077148469167305", "anchor": "gp-1316195566188", "service": "gp", "text": "If you're making billions legally, making millions illegally is a mistake", "timestamp": 1316195566}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1316197110482", "service": "gp", "text": "Is it illegal?", "timestamp": 1316197110}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1316198566580", "service": "gp", "text": "@Nathan\n Reading your article, it looks like the relevant law is this: \nhttp://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec9.html\n section (a).\n
\n
\nMy non-lawyer reading is that preferentially displaying or especially hiding this information would not be a violation. I think the closest is 9.a.3, but that requires a statement that is \"false or misleading with respect to any material fact\". Is the placement of a web page in search rankings a statement about a material fact?", "timestamp": 1316198566}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1316199236910", "service": "gp", "text": "You're right; I meant 9.a.4. Sorry.\n
\n
\nTheir computer algorithm can take all sorts of things into account. Do they tell users that there is no hash somewhere in their code:\n
\n
\nDESIRED_STOCK_PRICES = {\n
\n \"AAPL\" : 350.0,\n
\n \"GM\": 25.0,\n
\n \"NYT\": 8.0, ... }\n
\n
\n?", "timestamp": 1316199236}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1316199633028", "service": "gp", "text": "Maybe it's just as interesting to think about Google's potential trading advantages even without manipulating the market?", "timestamp": 1316199633}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1316199749834", "service": "gp", "text": "@Nathan\n They list \"key ingredients\" but they don't say they have an exhaustive list of them.", "timestamp": 1316199749}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/220596204664171?comment_id=220849121305546", "anchor": "fb-220849121305546", "service": "fb", "text": "Couldn't google employees who notice bugs or odd trends in how search results get displayed exploit that as well? What if a google employee has knowledge that a search bug will get fixed and go live at a certain time and will affect certain companies.", "timestamp": "1316243936"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/220596204664171?comment_id=220910584632733", "anchor": "fb-220910584632733", "service": "fb", "text": "@George: if that's illegal it's probably insider trading. But I don't think it is, because why would a google employee have a duty to some random company's shareholders?", "timestamp": "1316260321"}, {"author": "bill", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/108868258716671055146", "anchor": "gp-1316479487383", "service": "gp", "text": "I have worked for companies that are regulated by the SEC or CFTC for over 20 years, and I would think that they are quite likely to pursue anyone who attempts to manipulate markets in any creative or not-so-creative way. Not that they are perfect. Nor that they have infinite resources. But I have seen them go after many types of egregious actions, particularly if someone has made significant money with those actions. I have seen cases where people were investigated due to bugs in their trading algorithms, and for releasing misleading information to a news \u201csource\u201d (including the news media as well as blogs, message boards, etc). \n
\nBut is your question just an academic discussion of whether or not it would be legal? Because a more important question is whether it would make money. I have a hard time believing that it would work. \n
\nMost securities trading today is conducted by professional money managers and proprietary traders who have multiple, overlapping, redundant sources of information, and who generally don\u2019t follow google search results trends. There has been a recent move toward using that type of information as input to trading algorithms. One recent example is a mutual fund that is based on an algorithm that watches and analyzes the volume and sentiment of tweets about various companies. \n
\nSo perhaps, now or in the future, some sort of google statistics are or will be included in a trading system. But the people who design those systems are pretty smart, pretty thorough, and very aware that there are plenty of people out there who might try to distort the information that they depend on. \n
\nSo if it were to work at all, it would probably only be on a small (low-capitalization, thinly traded) issue, which limits the profit potential.", "timestamp": 1316479487}]}