Slashdot Mirror
Google's Software Principles
Nick writes "Google has just posted a new set of "Software Principles" at their site on how they feel about spyware and the like. It is interesting to see the company whose motto is "Do no evil" trying to get the rest of the internet world to follow, with proposed principles dealing with upfront installation, clear behavior, simple removal, and keeping good company. The question is, though - why would a company who makes spyware (whose very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?"
That's what I love about the Google Deskbar should I ever decide to remove it. Making it disappear will be three clicks away.
To be successful?
Let's be honest. It's not googles principles that made them successful. THey came along, took a week internet tool (the search) and did it better than anyone else. It's the fact that they did it better than everyone else and got the press for that which caused them to be the big name.
Not, their great principles against spyware.
Evolution or ID?
Funny.. Nowhere in my google toolbar are the words "Advanced Features" showing up anywhere. And if I turn on the PageRank display, a popup warns me that that particular feature has privacy implications and even provides a link to explain them to me.
I think it's possibly the most non-spyware tool that I've ever seen integrate into IE.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
why would a company who makes spyware (who's very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?
Free advertising baby! Screw ethics. Tomorrow's headline "Spyware agency agrees to Google's 'Good Guy' clause". Then can then follow that up in 2 weeks with "Spyware agency break Google's 'Good Guy' clause". And a few more weaks "Spyware agency makes amends with Google and their 'Good Guy Clause'".
A million free hits, zero effort.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
While the spyware types may not particularly give a damn what Google says, a lot of people do. A lot of people look up to Google - a lot of programmers want to work there, and a lot of companies can easily see the success that Google has made for itself by having a good image and a good product.
Google is essentially offering free advice for companies. They're showing what worked for them. Often the CEO of a company will go out and look for information about how people have previously solved the solutions that said CEO is looking to solve in their business plan. It's a 'learn from mistakes and successes' ideal. Right now, spyware is fairly ubiquitous, so is it any surprise that companies start doing it more and more? Whether or not it works, it has a definite presence, and that presence brings it into mind as a company strategy.
Google is bringing their (superior, I think we can all agree) company strategy into view, and saying 'here's something better' for anybody who's willing to listen.
--
Mr Google Advocate
They are successful because they do what they do very well.
By plenty standards, Kazaa is successfull...
The question is though, why would a company who makes spyware (who's very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?"
Because a search engine and an anti-spyware/virus software do VERY similar jobs.
Scan huge amounts of data for fingerprints and patterns.
And Google as a platform is looming pretty fast.
Bind0
Maybe...
The publication of these "principles" has nothing to do with getting other vendors to start behaving nicely, and everything to do with getting people ready for the impending launch of Google's desktop search app.
To make the leap from being a Web site to being software you have to install locally, there's a much higher burden of trust they have to surmount -- especially when that software will index your entire local filesystem (just think of the snooping possibilities!).
So, I see this as a kind of pre-emptive strike on their part -- a way that they can claim that they will be as "non-evil" on the desktop as they supposedly are on the Web, and have a document to back it up.
If any other companies follow the principles that document outlines, that's probably gravy, from their perspective.
Read my blog.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are probably going to be a million similar posts by the time I'm done writing this, but I'll give it a stab.
There are a lot of spyware apps that pretend to be something useful. Pop-up blockers, IE bar plugins, etc. Google directly competes with these.
By drawing a line in the sand, Google is making sure they are able to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the public. We all know that the fight against spyware is starting to heat up. By addressing this proactively they are more likely to be heard by the ears who matter. Slashdotters already know the diffrence between the Google bar and spyware, but not all users do. And as we all know, most of the people who draft/pass/enforce laws are clueless users.
If you want to get this info from the source instead of waiting for /. to post it you can always just visit the Google Blog.
Like the lady who said "those old things over there are my husbands".
Mis-apostrophizing irks me.
"It's not googles principles that made them successful"
No, but it has allowed them to stay successful and continue to grow.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It looks like a pretty good set of rules, ones quite similar to those presented by a number of regular /.ers when talking about dealing with spyware. One that particularly attracted my attention was this one:
I'm not sure about things like changing your home page, but it seems to me that it should be possible to impliment some of the other steps at the level of the windowing system without needing cooperation from the application. You could design it, for instance, so that you could right-click on any window's title bar and find out which program was responsible for that window. The idea undoubtedly needs some more thought so that programs couldn't hide their responsibility by calling another program to do their dirty work, but I'd guess that including some facility like this would be a lot easier than convincing spyware writers to admit their handywork.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
is this BBC article:3 2475.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/37
10 things the Google ethics committee could discuss
It's reported that Google, whose motto is Do No Evil, has an ethics committee to debate its impact on the world - something that will doubtless grow as the company floats. So what sort of things might it discuss?
1. From being a stripped-down search engine, Google is now a major player in advertising. Its webmail system, Gmail, runs on inserting adverts into people's e-mails. "How far should this go?" asks Danny Sullivan, editor of Internet Search Engine Watch. "Is it ethical to put ads on absolutely everything they do, almost like a supermarket floor?"
2. How much personal data should it collect? The company is going to understand more and more about what people are doing online, says Sullivan. But does that mean our information is fair game?
3. How much permission should it seek when it wants to "mine" public data for new facts, asks Danny O'Brien, co-editor of technology newsletter NTK. "Say Google designed a system that could scan photographs online, and tell you where they'd been taken. Would it be OK to collect all the snapshots uploaded on the net and index them, even when people could find out where you lived from your photo album? Is it OK to use public information to uncover facts that might have been private?"
4. How much should the company intervene in search results? The "ethics committee", which the company says is an informal discussion between interested managers and staff, debates changes to the algorithms which order search results. Spammers who try to skew the results are one target of adjustments, according to software engineer Eran Gabber. But any alteration will change the way people see the web, so should they be undertaken lightly?
5. Does it have a role in taste and decency? Sullivan says the company will remove search results for legal considerations - but what about other cases? What about links that showed, for instance, video of American Nick Berg being beheaded?
6. As a big company, Google has business relationships with lots of other companies - it's no longer a matter of just doing search. And business is business, so what if the company wanted to introduce "favoured status" within its results?
7. Google has become something of a standard bearer for ethics - who, for instance, would know if Yahoo had a similar committee, asks Sullivan. So should Google even be bothered about ethics now, or was that something for when it was a small affair?
8. For many people , Google is the internet. They use it as the front end and trust it to give them what they need - the Google deskbar makes this even more apparent. Does Google have any feeling for how it filters the net, do many of its users even know that they get a filtered view of cyberspace or how much filtering is going on?
9. Google is not a monopoly; there's plenty of competition. But should it strive to become one? What effect might that have?
10. Do they feel lucky? Sitting on billions of dollars, what is the best way to share their luck?
THey came along, took a week internet tool (the search) and did it better than anyone else. It's the fact that they did it better than everyone else and got the press for that which caused them to be the big name.
I don't know about you, but 40-60% of the reason I started using Google ~1999 is that I had gotten burned by other "web portals" with all of their popup ads, JavaScript malware, and other shit.
If you think this is something that only us Ivory-Tower geeks care about, you are incorrect. My parents recently threw away an entire computer because it was so ridden with spyware and popups.
Google's business is all about trust. If users think they can't depend on it - because the search results suck or because of popups - they can set their homepage elsewhere with a quickness and never come back. There is a reason that the first of Google's top three questions is about popups. Users get pissed off about it, and if they blame Google, it cuts into the bottom line.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
I'd download it in a second. I'd even buy the beta invitation on eBay like I did for Gmail.
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
I dispute that. If Google had obnoxious pop-ups with every page of search results, big annoying blinking banner ads and pages that took months to load, I wouldn't use them so much, or have made it my home page.
Even if another site were to handily beat Google's search results, if they didn't have that same basic level of respect for the user, I would not use them. They made the web useable again.
Their principles are important.
It guides them when they make advertising decisions.
It guides them when they decide how to present search results.
It guides their privacy and security policies
So unless you define 'better than anyone else' as 'perfecting honest search results', I'd have to say their principles are very important. How can you be successful if you aren't honest?
GPL Deconstructed
Because they, unlike other Robin Hoods, speak with an English accent.
Go look at the site and ask yourself if any of the stuff on there is problematic. Do you have a problem with website cookies? Do you have a problem with web site logs? Do you have a problem with government employees getting jobs outside of the government?
These are things that google-watch complains about. Basically, it sounds a lot like desperate attacks on a company that has never disappointed me and has earned its success.
Google-watch is FUD (and not even good FUD, at that). Yet someone always seems to post a link to it, as if to say, "Google's not so great now, huh?"
First, it's a little pure and simple shame. The more people who say that malware is evil, and the more prominent those people are, the harder it will be for companies to justify those practices.
Second, there's secondary shame. This can actually make a more direct difference. Basically, how would you feel if you used malware (bundling, advertising, etc.) and everyone was talking about how evil it was. Maybe Google can get a few companies who use malware from other companies to reconsider how they treat their customers.
Or maybe it's just marketing, and Google wants the brand loyalty that comes along with being one of the Good Guys.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
In this cynical world, where everyone claims success comes only by bending the rules, or being 'wordly-wise", this is a company that has become successful by sheer ability, and the quality of its products and services. If, today, they say that it can be done their way, they've earned the right to say it.
*A dreamy-eyed idealist, who still believes in old-fashioned things like principles and ethics, and that you don't need to bend the rules to succeed*
They are successfull because they are the best search tool out there, but there is more to being "Google" than just being a good search tool. If it was just a good search tool, there wouldn't be an artilce about thim on /. every day. They are not only good at search, but they have an approach to the Internet that has struck a chord with many on the one hand. On the flip side, they are so influential that minor changes to their algorithms can send some small businesses into a tail spin.
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
Those shouldn't be guidelines. They should be legal requirements.
The cake is a pie
I think there's a lot to be said for appealing to customer's sense of propriety rather than merely his or her pocketbook.
Internet users are not Google's customer base. Google's customers are advertisers. We're Google's product.
exactly,
When I found out about google, I was amazed at the lack of adds. I was using yahoo which was pretty good but what was better about google was the lack of adds! Text adds are great! I even use them.
Today's xp computer can become completly unusable within a month or 2 of internet surfing, and downloading by an average non-technical computer user because of all the spyware/addware/malware etc...
I think their past behaviour, coupled with the success that bevahiour has garnered, is sufficient reason (for me at least) to respect their moral authority.
Besides, Google is not "laying down the law", as it were. They are posting the standards that they expect from themselves and recommend to their partners. Nobody _has_ to do anything Google says, ever; if they screw up, people will stop using their services. People will follow Google's guidelines for two reasons: either they agree with the ethical and logical principles behind them, or they're trying to emulate Google's success.
For me, anything that gets more people and corporations to adhere to the principle of "Do no evil" is awesome, regardless of the source. Even if Google one day abandons these principles, they will have left an example of how not being evil can serve your business, that hopefully others will follow.
Punctuation: what is it? : Where did it come from? : This "high colonic" style :not better: different : as I say further: What the fuck ! ?
Perhaps, but you miss the point (I hope).
Anti-virus makers have been reluctant to enter the spy-ware arena for fear of getting sued by adware companies. If a big name (like Google) published a spec like this, perhaps it will give the anti-virus comanies a little amunition to take to court. They can now say "Our software block your spyware because you do not follow the industry standard for software installation." I do admit that it is not likely, but I can dream...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Ok, I will bite.
I just read a great chunk of the google-watch site, and I came to this conclusion. I now know why we get better page hits on google lately than before.
5-6 months ago, no matter what you seemed to search for you would get porno, e-commerce spam sites. The kind that return things like "Search for bird poop on e-bay!"
Which was rather pointless. One pointed example was to search for "batteltech cartoon" to search for an old, unpopular battletech cartoon that was out in the 90's. You had to go 3 pages down before you could get a legit link, and not something like "eshoplink.com - search for battletech cartoon on e-bay!" bullcrap.
Now when you search for battletech cartoon, you get smart, concise, and easy to view hits.
Seems like google improved thier algorithm by getting rid of the people that attempt to abuse the search engine to get their links up. Googles entire purpose is to return valuable informatino, getting linked to a web site asking if you would like to look at "battltech hardcore porn" is not what I would deem as usefull information. This has the side effect of screwing over people that are putting up worthless information in an attempt to get page hits on google, which completely violates googles mission statement.
The fella on google watch seems totally against the fact that google is trying to provide a useful search capability that does not cater to people who abuse systems simply for fun and profit.
I am glad google-watch.org exists, it shows me how google is pro-actively trying to protect itself from becoming what yahoo was for many years. Pointless, and worthless.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion