The UK, EU & Scotland

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries that include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Surrounded mainly by water, its only land border is between the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
With a population of over 64 million, it is the third largest country in the European Union. And together with France and Germany, they are known as the big 3 of the union.

At the moment, the UK’s position in the union is still very shaky and unclear, as more and more British people have become Eurosceptic and would like to be out of the union. On the other said of the sea, other EU members’ states have become tired of Britain’s constant demand for exceptional treatment – and a majority are now in support of its exit.

While Britain is still dealing with the best way to negotiate its union with the EU, Scotland is on the verge of breaking out of the Kingdom. As such, a referendum has been set up to take place on September 18, 2014.

Scottish Independence Gains Support as Referendum Date Looms

Scottish nationalists seeking to break away from the U.K. gained ground, cutting the lead of those in favor of the union to nine percentage points with two months left before the vote, according to a monthly poll.

Support for staying in the U.K. fell one percentage point to 41 percent while backing for independence gained two points to 32 percent, the survey by TNS published today showed. The proportion of undecided voters slipped one point to 27 percent. The lead of the pro-union campaign has dropped 10 points since the poll began in September, TNS said.

Scotland holds a referendum on Sept. 18, with the main political parties in London united in their opposition to the nationalists led by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Polls have consistently shown the nationalists trailing behind the campaign to preserve the 307-year-old union, though enough people are undecided to cause an upset.

Among those who said they were certain to participate in the referendum, 46 percent plan to say No to independence and 37 percent Yes, TNS said. In the same category, the proportion of undecided voters fell to 18 percent from 22 percent, Tom Costley, head of TNS Scotland, said in an e-mailed statement.

The question of which currency a new Scottish state would use is one of the central points of disagreement. Prime Minister David Cameron has ruled out sharing the pound, while nationalists are threatening to walk away from Scotland’s liabilities unless he changes his mind. That would increase Britain’s debt as a proportion of gross domestic product.

Pound Volatility

The referendum may already be starting to rattle investors, with sterling expected to experience more volatility in the coming months. Three-month implied volatility in sterling versus the dollar — a measure of expected price swings based on options prices — was at 5.32 percent today. It dropped to 4.96 percent on June 9, the lowest since June 2007. Sterling was little changed at $1.7099 today, up 3.3 percent this year.

The pound risks dropping as much as 10 percent on a trade-weighted basis in the event that Scotland votes to break away from the U.K., Morgan Stanley said this week. BNP Paribas SA, rated among the world’s 10 biggest currency traders in a Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc survey this year, predicted increased volatility in the currency before the vote.

An ICM survey for Scotland on Sunday published on July 13 showed backing for independence was 34 percent this month, while support for the status quo was at 45 percent.

TNS said it polled 995 people at least age 16, the minimum to vote in the referendum, between June 25 and July 9

Culled from Businessweek

It Is Over The German’s Are World Cup 2014 Winners

This year’s World Cup has come to an end with Germany taking home the trophy after beating Argentina to 1-0 in a match that lasted 120 minutes. German play Mario Gotze scored the winning goal around 112th minute before the end of the match. Many were suspecting the match would end in a penalty before the 22-year-old Bayern Munich player saved the situation in with a dramatic goal the sealed Germany’s victory over Argentina.

This year’s victory made it the fourth time Germany is going home with the World Cup trophy – and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel was at the stadium where she personally congratulated the boys for making their country proud.

As Argentina’s biggest rival, Brazilians were among the 74,738 fans inside the Maracanã stadium that were in support of Germany winning the cup and hoping their rival neighbours would not lift the ultimate prize on one of their sacred football sites. At the end of the game, the Brazilian dream came through as the German’s snatch home the biggest trophy leaving Argentina looking small and unhappy as the country’s hope of victory was dashed 8 minutes before the end of the game.

“Whether we have the best individual players or whatever does not matter, you have to have the best team,” said Lahm, after the match. “And at the end you stand there as world champions – an unbelievable feeling.”

By Gloria.

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy Arrested & Taken Into Custody

  • Nicolas Sarkozy arrested and taken into custody.
  • His lawyer and two magistrates are under investigation.
  • He is being accused of abusing his power and violating secrecy of legal inquiry.

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been arrested and taken into custody by the French police. The French politician who served as the 23rd President of France from 16 May 2007 until 15 May 2012 has been charged with corruption and influence peddling after 15 hours of questioning in a dramatic move that could jeopardise his 2017 political comeback after his 2012 election defeat by Socialist rival Francois Hollande.

This is the first time in history that a former French President has been arrested and taken into custody by the police.

“Never has a former president been subjected to such treatment, such an outburst of hatred,” says Christian Estrosi, the mayor of Nice and an MP for the UMP party, who rushed to defend Sarkozy on Tuesday.

Sarkozy and the three others being held in police custody are being questioned over allegations of “abuse of power” and “violating the secrecy of a legal inquiry”. They face up to five years in prison and a €500,000 (£400,000) fine if convicted.


Council of the EU: UK and Germany vote against each other most often

Against the background of the debates concerning the nomination of the next European Commission President by the European Council, a study undertaken by VoteWatch Europe shows that among the 28 EU Member States, the United Kingdom and Germany have voted against each other most often in the EU Council of Ministers. Data collected by VoteWatch Europe in the period July 2009 – May 2014 illustrates that these two countries have disagreed on 16% of the formal votes cast in the Council.

The disagreements emerged mainly on issues regarding constitutional affairs, foreign policy, agriculture, budget and employment.

Voting in the Council

In the constitutional affairs field, Germany supported legislative pieces such as aRegulation on the citizens’ initiative or a Regulation on the mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, while the UK abstained from voting on them.

When it comes to budget legislation, the differences were sharper. For example, while Germany voted in favour of the new draft budget of the EU for 2013 in December 2013, the UK voted against (alongside Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands).

On issues regarding the EU’s foreign policy, the two countries voted differently on pieces of legislation such as the Regulation establishing an Instrument contributing to stability and peace as well as on the Regulation establishing a European Neighbourhood Instrument (the UK voted against in both cases, while Germany voted in favour).

These two big EU countries are also the ones who have found themselves in minority most often when voting in the Council. The UK government was in minority by far most frequently, voting differently than the majority on 73 occasions, out of 629 votes it participated in (12%), while the German government did so in 37 out of 663 votes (5.5%).

Election of the President of the Commission in the Council 

The European Council nominates the President of the European Commission by qualified majority (QMV). QMV is reached if a majority of Member States (15) vote in favour and if a minimum of 260 votes, out of the total 352, are cast in favour.

In qualified majority voting, each Member State has a certain number of votes. The weighting of votes is set out in the treaties and reflects the size of population of each Member State. Both Germany and the United Kingdom have 29 votes each. See herethe weighting of votes in the Council.

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, a new element entered the discussion on the election of the European Commission President. The Treaty on European Union states that the European Council, taking into account the elections to the EP, shall propose (by QMV) to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the European Commission. In this context, five European political parties (EPP, PES, ALDE, the Greens and the Party of the European Left) chose their own candidates (Spitzenkandidaten) for the European Commission Presidency. The EPP won the greatest number of seats, which put former Luxembourg’s Primer Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, their lead candidate, in the position to be considered as a candidate for the post.

Jean-Claude Juncker received the backing of the EP’s Conference of Presidents to start negotiations to seek a majority in the European Parliament. However, in spite of the wide support received from the Parliament (all EP groups except ECR and EFD), the European Council, at its informal meeting on 27 May 2014, did not back Juncker to start negotiations.

According to media reports, apart from the backing of the EP groups, Juncker can also count on several EU governments, his most prominent supporter being Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. Moreover, Juncker counts not only on the support of Christian-Democrat governments, but also from the Austrian and Romanian socialist governments.

However, the support received might not be enough to secure a winning majority by QMV in the European Council, as some Member States, led by UK, oppose the idea of nominating one of the Spitzenkandidaten, questioning the legal basis of the EP involvement in the process of selecting the European Commission President. The UK, Sweden and Hungary have publicly stated their opposition to Jean-Claude Juncker and/or the Spitzenkandidaten process. The Netherlands and Italy are thought to be sceptical. Together these countries wield enough votes in Council to block Juncker.

The nominee for European Commission President is likely to be agreed at the 26-27 June 2014 European Council meeting. The European Parliament is expected to approve or reject this proposal at the 14-17 July 2014 Plenary session.

Eurovision 2014 First Semi-final: Photos Of Performers

Here are photos from the Eurovision 2014 song contest first Semi-final that took place last night in Copenhagen, Denmark. See a list of the winners here.

Hosts - Pilou Asbaek, Lise Ronne, Nikolaj Koppel
Hosts – Pilou Asbaek, Lise Ronne, Nikolaj Koppel
San Marino
San Marino





Winners Of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 First Semi-Final

Copenhagen, Denmark –

The first Semi-Final of the 2014 edition of the Eurovision Song Contest took place last night at the B&W Hallerne in Copenhagen. Out of the 16 countries that participated in first Semi-Final contest, 10 of them were voted to perform at the Grand Final that will be taking place on Saturday the 10th of May 2014.

Montengro and San Marino provided the biggest surprises of the night, qualifying for the contest’s final stage for the first time in the song festivals history.

The countries that voted to perform at Saturday’s Grand Final are, Montenegro, Hungary, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, San Marino, Ukraine, Sweden, The Netherlands and Iceland.

Other countries that will be performing at the Saturday’s event are UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and host country Denmark. See photos of all the performers here. See below, a snap shop of the 10 winning countries.


BBM Coming to Windows Phone and Nokia X Platforms

The message below was published on the Blackberry blog to inform the public that BBM will soon be available on Windows phones and Nokia X Platforms. Read it below.

We’ve got exciting news for Windows Phone users this morning – BBM is on its way to you in the coming months!

From the beginning we’ve said that we’re committed to listening to what customers want and you’ve spoken – Windows Phone users want BBM! BBM will also be supported on the newly announced Nokia X platform

In a recent press release John Sims, President, Global Enterprise Solutions at BlackBerry said,

“BBM continues to grow in popularity as millions of people use our mobile platform for chatting and connecting with friends or colleagues, and we are very excited that we will soon welcome Windows Phone and Nokia X users to the BBM community,”

Bryan Biniak, Vice President and GM of Developer Relations, Nokia Corporation added,

“Today marks an exciting moment for Nokia. By bringing BBM to the Windows Phone and Nokia X communities, our customers will be able to experience this popular global messaging app.”

Thanks to everyone who took Twitter, Facebook and our blog to ask for BBM on other platforms like Windows Phone.

The BBM team is hard at workon BBM for Windows Phone and Nokia X as well as lots of great new features for BBM that we can’t wait to tell you about. BBM will be available as a free downloadfor Windows Phone users this summer.

Google AdSense Leak Part 2: Google Robs Adsense Publishers, Ex-Employee Says

I am the former Google employee that had leaked the information regarding AdSense. I am writing this second part as a response to certain misconceptions and confusions my previous leak has generated within articles and websites regarding it.

Firstly, many have asked why I did not approach the leak in a more official capacity and bring my information to the attention of law enforcement. I want to make myself perfectly clear, my employment documents (such as the NDA’s and non-competes) have very strict wording when it comes to releasing internal information in regards to processes and privy information. Google is not just some little company with little means of repercussion. They have gone after other internal leakers and were successful in damaging and ruining their lives on multiple levels. I do not want to be the next one.

I honestly believe very little would have been done if I had brought the information solely to law enforcement, even on the federal level. Google would have simply lawyered up and made it go away (which they have done before). I felt it was better to release the information to the public and let the publishers who suffered the thefts bring forth a civil case against Google. I think a civil action against Google will carry more weight to it, and have a much stronger outcome to the public than a federal case would. The second reason would be that my identity would be front and center if I had approached law enforcement, and if Google were to have squash it immediately I would not have been able to anonymously release the information to the public as a backup plan. The third reason is fear. I do not want to be in the direct identifiable crosshairs of Google’s legal department. I have taken very extreme measures to cover my tracks and identity. I know what they can do, and I know which services and servers do what. I have made sure everything leads to dead ends and that tracking will be virtually impossible. I wasn’t hired by Google for my body. I know, right now, there is a team inside Google working very hard to track me down. They will scour every service and product they have access to in an attempt to find me. But they might as well quit right now, I am an insider and know the inner workings. I know the how’s, the why’s, and who’s. It will be quite futile on their part, but I will still exercise extreme caution.

In regards to my wording of the leaked information. I had planned and carefully thought out every word and every way I had said it. Everything was planned. The timing. The wording. Everything. It is not by accident, nor are there any accidental omissions. Of course I was not going to use terms only employees and former employees would know to explain everything. That would be simply foolish. I kept it informative and only mentioned a few select terms so that Google themselves would know I was who I said I was, because only an employee would have known. So everyone must know that I wrote it for the public, not for Google employees.

Lastly, and more importantly, there has been lots of talk about my information not stating any names and that I did not provide any hard proof. Many individuals have brushed off my information as a falsehood solely due to that and claim that I have nothing substantial. I want you to go a reread my previous information release. Where did I exactly say I did not have proof or hard evidence?

Because I do. I have communications. I have documents, I have files, I have lists, and I have names. I have all of it. Like I said from the beginning, I have carefully waited and carefully planned everything out. I do everything with reason and purpose. I have to be exceptionally careful in every way. So you ask why haven’t I released it? The answer, if I release everything I have now, it will give Google too many possible avenues to discover my identity. Also doing thing such as publicly naming people and giving Google a pre-emptive look at what I have will only make them prepare for the class action lawsuit that will hit them. They won’t be caught off guard and they will have time to come up with excuses and explanations in attempts to rid themselves of this issue. I do not want that to happen. I want the people to win. I want those who had money they earned, that was stolen from them, to get the right to fight for it on equal grounding. That is why I have chosen to only release it to the legal representatives of the class action lawsuit against Google in regards to AdSense. If those representative decide to release it, then it is up to them, but right now as it stands, I will not. I will carefully monitor the situation and wait to see how it forms and pick the right timing for the release of the evidence to the legal representatives. If several months go by and no class action lawsuit manifests, then I will have to selectively release a few key pieces of evidence to the public at large.

The information and evidence I have is extensive and quite detailed, it will also paint a very different picture of what Google is really like to the public.

For those who have a difficult time believing my information I ask you to simply ask Google and their representatives the right questions related to my first release of information. Force them to answer those questions specifically. Ask them “is there a VIP status for publishers”, ask them “why do account bans always seem to occur just before payouts”, ask them “why do you fail to provide reasons and evidence of your allegations against publishers”. Keep asking such questions, keep digging, and you will come to find out by yourselves that everything I have stated is completely true. Like many have said, it will be difficult for them to hide it now.

You can the Google ex-employee first leak here.

Anonymous Google AdSense Leak

I am a former Google employee and I am writing this to leak information to the public of what I witnessed and took part in while being an employee. My position was to deal with AdSense accounts, more specifically the accounts of publishers (not advertisers). I was employed at Google for a period of several years in this capacity.

Having signed many documents such as NDA’s and non-competes, there are many repercussions for me, especially in the form of legal retribution from Google. I have carefully planned this leak to coincide with certain factors in Google such as waiting for the appropriate employee turn around so that my identity could not be discovered.

To sum it up for everyone, I took part in what I (and many others) would consider theft of money from the publishers by Google, and from direct orders of management. There were many AdSense employees involved, and it spanned many years, and I hear it still is happening today except on a much wider scale.

No one on the outside knows it, if they did, the FBI and possibly IRS would immediately launch an investigation, because what they are doing is so inherently illegal and they are flying completely under the radar. It began in 2009. Everything was perfectly fine prior to 2009, and in fact it couldn’t be more perfect from an AdSense employees perspective, but something changed.

Google Bans and Ban Criteria

Before December 2012:

In the first quarter of 2009 there was a “sit-down” from the AdSense division higher ups to talk about new emerging issues and the role we (the employees in the AdSense division needed to play. It was a very long meeting, and it was very detailed and intense. What it boiled down to was that Google had suffered some very serious losses in the financial department several months earlier. They kept saying how we “needed to tighten the belts” and they didn’t want it to come from Google employees pockets.

So they were going to (in their words) “carry out extreme quality control on AdSense publishers”. When one of my fellow co-workers asked what they meant by that. Their response was that AdSense itself hands out too many checks each month to publishers, and that the checks were too large and that needed to end right away. Many of the employees were not pleased about this (like myself). But they were successful in scaring the rest into thinking it would be their jobs and their money that would be on the line if they didn’t participate. The meeting left many confused as to how this was going to happen.

What did they mean by extreme quality control? A few other smaller meetings occur with certain key people in the AdSense division that furthered the idea and procedure they planned on implementing.
There were lots of rumors and quiet talking amongst the employees, there was lots of speculations, some came true and some didn’t. But the word was that they were planning to cut off a large portion of publisher’s payments.

After that point there was a running gag amongst fellow co-workers where we would walk by each other and whisper “Don’t be evil, pft!” and roll our eyes.

What happened afterwards became much worse. Their “quality control” came into full effect. Managers pushed for wide scale account bans, and the first big batch of bans happened in March of 2009. The main reason, the publishers made too much money. But something quite devious happened. We were told to begin banning accounts that were close to their payout period (which is why account bans never occur immediately after a payout). The purpose was to get that money owed to publishers back to Google AdSense, while having already served up the ads to the public. This way the advertiser’s couldn’t claim we did not do our part in delivering their ads and ask for money back. So in a sense, we had thousands upon thousands of publishers deliver ads we knew they were never going to get paid for.

Google reaped both sides of the coin, got money from the advertisers, used the publishers, and didn’t have to pay them a single penny. We were told to go and look into the publishers accounts, and if any publisher had accumulated earnings exceeding $5000 and was near a payout or in the process of a payout, we were to ban the account right away and reverse the earnings back. They kept saying it was needed for the company, and that most of these publishers were ripping Google off anyways, and that their gravy train needed to end. Many employees were not happy about this. A few resigned over it. I did not. I stayed because I had a family to support, and secondly I wanted to see how far they would go.

From 2009 to 2012 there were many more big batches of bans. The biggest of all the banning sessions occurred in April of 2012. The AdSense division had enormous pressure from the company to make up for financial losses, and for Google’s lack of reaching certain internal financial goals for the quarter prior.

So the push was on. The employees felt really uneasy about the whole thing, but we were threatened with job losses if we didn’t enforce the company’s wishes. Those who voiced concerned or issue were basically ridiculed with “not having the company’s best interest in mind” and not being “team players”. Morale in the division was at an all-time low. The mood of the whole place changed quite rapidly. It no longer was a fun place to work.

The bans of April 2012 came fast and furious. Absolutely none of them were investigated, nor were they justified in any way. We were told to get rid of as many of the accounts with the largest
checks/payouts/earnings waiting to happen. No reason, just do it, and don’t question it. It was heart
wrenching seeing all that money people had earned all get stolen from them. And that’s what I saw it as,
it was a robbery of the AdSense publishers. Many launched appeals, complaints, but it was futile
because absolutely no one actually took the time to review the appeals or complaints. Most were simply
erased without even being opened, the rest were deposited into the database, never to be touched

Several publishers launched legal actions which were settled, but Google had come up with a new policy
to deal with situations such as that because it was perceived as a serious problem to be avoided.
So they came up with a new policy.

After December 2012: The New Policy

The new policy; “shelter the possible problem makers, and fuck the rest” (those words were actually
said by a Google AdSense exec) when he spoke about the new procedure and policy for “Account
Quality Control”.

The new policy was officially called AdSense Quality Control Color Codes (commonly called AQ3C by
employees). What it basically was a categorization of publisher accounts. Those publisher’s that could
do the most damage by having their account banned were placed in a VIP group that was to be left
alone. The rest of the publishers would be placed into other groupings accordingly.
The new AQ3C also implemented “quality control” quotas for the account auditors, so if you didn’t meet
the “quality control” target (aka account bans) you would be called in for a performance review.
There were four “groups” publishers could fall into if they reached certain milestones.

They were:

Red Group: Urgent Attention Required
Any AdSense account that reaches the $10,000/month mark is immediately flagged (unless they are part
of the Green Group).
– In the beginning there were many in this category, and most were seen as problematic and were seen
as abusing the system by Google. So every effort was taken to bring their numbers down.
– They are placed in what employees termed “The Eagle Eye”, where the “AdSense Eagle Eye Team”
would actively and constantly audit their accounts and look for any absolute reason for a ban. Even if
the reason was far-fetched, or unsubstantiated, and unprovable, the ban would occur. The “Eagle Eye
Team” referred to a group of internal account auditors whose main role was to constantly monitor
publisher’s accounts and sites.
– A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. The problem was that notifying the
publisher for the reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact
reason must be provided if a legal representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder.
– But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most
amount of money accrued/earned.

Yellow Group: Serious Attention Required
Any AdSense account that reaches the $5,000/month mark is flagged for review (unless they are part of
the Green Group).
– All of the publisher’s site(s)/account will be placed in queue for an audit.
– Most of the time the queue is quite full so most are delayed their audit in a timely fashion.
– The second highest amount of bans occur at this level.
– A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifiying the publisher for the reason is not
a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact reason must be provided if a legal
representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder.
– But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most
amount of money accrued/earned.

Blue Group: Moderate Attention Required
Any AdSense account that reaches the $1,000/month mark is flagged for possible review (unless they
are part of the Green Group).
– Only the main site and account will be place in queue for what is called a quick audit.
– Most bans that occur happen at this level. Main reason is that a reason doesn’t have to be attached to
the ban, so the employees use these bans to fill their monthly quotas. So many are simply a random pick
and click.
– A reason does not have to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifying the publisher for the
reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks.
– But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most
amount of money accrued.

Green Group: VIP Status (what employees refer to as the “untouchables”)
Any AdSense account associated with an incorporated entity or individual that can inflict serious
damage onto Google by negative media information, rallying large amounts of anti-AdSense support, or
cause mass loss of AdSense publisher support.
– Google employees wanting to use AdSense on their websites were automatically placed in the Green
group. So the database contained many Google insiders and their family members. If you work or
worked for Google and were placed in the category, you stayed in it, even if you left Google. So it
included many former employees. Employees simply had to submit a form with site specific details and
their account info.
– Sites in the Green Group were basically given “carte blanche” to do anything they wanted, even if they
flagrantly went against the AdSense TOS and Policies. That is why you will encounter sites with AdSense,
but yet have and do things completely against AdSense rules.
– Extra care is taken not to interrupt or disrupt these accounts.
– If an employee makes a mistake with a Green Level account they can lose their job. Since it seen as
very grievous mistake.

New Policy 2012 Part 2:

Internal changes to the policy were constant. They wanted to make it more efficient and streamlined.
They saw its current process as having too much human involvement and oversight. They wanted it
more automated and less involved.

So the other part of the new policy change was to incorporate other Google services into assisting the
“quality control” program. What they came up with will anger many users when they find out. It
involved skewing data in Google Analytics. They decided it was a good idea to alter the statistical data
shown for websites. It first began with just altering data reports for Analytics account holders that also
had an AdSense account, but they ran into too many issues and decided it would be simpler just to skew
the report data across the board to remain consistent and implement features globally.
So what this means is that the statistical data for a website using Google Analytics is not even close to
being accurate. The numbers are incredibly deflated. The reasoning behind their decision is that if an
individual links their AdSense account and their Analytics account, the Analytics account can be used to
deflate the earnings automatically without any human intervention. They discovered that if an individual
had an AdSense account then they were also likely to use Google Analytics. So Google used it to their

This led to many publishers to actively display ads, without earning any money at all (even to this day).
Even if their actual website traffic was high, and had high click-throughs the data would be automatically
skewed in favor of Google, and at a total loss of publishers. This successfully made it almost impossible
for anyone to earn amounts even remotely close what individuals with similar sites were earning prior
to 2012, and most definitely nowhere near pre-2009 earnings.
Other policy changes also included how to deal with appeals, which still to this day, the large majority
are completely ignored, and why you will rarely get an actual answer as to why your account was
banned and absolutely no way to resolve it.


The BIG Problem (which Google is aware of)
There is an enormous problem that existed for a long time in Google’s AdSense accounts. Many of the
upper management are aware of this problem but do not want to acknowledge or attempt to come up
with a solution to the problem.

It is regarding false clicks on ads. Many accounts get banned for “invalid clicks” on ads. In the past this
was caused by a publisher trying to self inflate click-throughs by clicking on the ads featured on their
website. The servers automatically detect self-clicking with comparison to IP addresses and other such
information, and the persons account would get banned for invalid clicking.

But there was something forming under the surface. A competitor or malicious person would actively go to their competitor’s website(s) or pick a random website running AdSense and begin multiple-clicking and overclicking ads, which they would do over and over again. Of course this would trigger an invalid clicking related ban, mainly because it could not be proven if the publisher was actually behind the clicking.

This was internally referred to as “Click-Bombing”. Many innocent publishers would get caught
up in bans for invalid clicks which they were not involved in and were never told about.

This issue has been in the awareness of Google for a very long time but nothing was done to rectify the issue and probably never will be. Thus if someone wants to ruin a Google AdSense publishers account, all you would have to do is go to their website, and start click-bombing their Google Ads over and over again, it will lead the servers to detect invalid clicks and poof, they get banned. The publisher would be completely innocent and unaware of the occurrence but be blamed for it anyways.

Their BIG Fear
The biggest fear that Google has about these AdSense procedures and policies is that it will be publicly
discovered by their former publishers who were banned, and that those publishers unite together and
launch an class-action lawsuit.

They also fear those whose primary monthly earnings are from AdSense, because in many countries if a
person claims the monthly amount to their tax agency and they state the monthly amount and that they
are earning money from Google on a monthly basis, in certain nations technically Google can be seen as
an employer. Thus, an employer who withholds payment of earnings, can be heavily fined by
government bodies dealing with labor and employment. And if these government bodies dealing with
labor and employment decide to go after Google, then it would get very ugly, very quickly ….. that is on
top of a class-action lawsuit.

The the part two here.