Slashdot Mirror
Google Blacklists CNet Reporters
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet News.com is reporting that Google is no longer talking to Cnet reporters. In an article about the search company looking for new executive chefs, the article states: 'Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.' Apparently, Google was angered by an article published earlier by Cnet where all sorts of personal information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt was included. The information was obtained from Google searches."
or what's good for the Goose isn't good for the Gander?
What is this, high school?
If I can find that persons information through Google (his own company), compile a story out of it and publish it, then why are you mad? Why is your personal information on the internet anyway?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Schmidt, 50, was worth an estimated $1.5 billion last year. Earlier this year, he pulled in almost $90 million from sales of Google stock and made at least another $50 million selling shares in the past two months as the stock leaped to more than $300 a share
sweet
All that article really did was prove how powerful Google really is. They should use it as a marketing tool.
"Google, so powerful you can find information about ANYBODY!"
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
If the author's point was to show how Google can be used to invade privacy, I'm not sure why Google would throw a hissy fit.
Are they saying you shouldn't use Google to invade privacy? If so, don't allow it in the first place.
Or is he just afraid people will learn he likes Elton John.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Google was angered by an article published earlier by Cnet where all sorts of personal information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt was included.
You put it on the Internet and its fair game.
Of course, there is a lot of our information on the Internet that we didn't put there, which is why we need better laws regarding dissemination of personal information.
in soviet russia Communist-NET blacklists Google..
Anything involving the reduction of scope for C/Z/net to grow is good. Rarely in my life have I ever come across such a poor source of information.
Seriously, what the hell are they actually good for? Biased reviews, news available elsewhere, and alleged 'gurus' writing columns that are either blindingly obvious or hilariously incorrect.
If I were Mr. Google, I'd refuse to talk to them purely because they're rubbish, never mind any previous articles and privacy concerns.
What do you expect from Microsoft reporters - Mr Bill does not like google, and his reporting team at Cnet is making him happy.
No loss to google.
I am sick and tired of the shit google has been pulling since they IPO'ed. Now that yahoo search and mail has been much improved, I think I'll stop using google shit and start giving yahoo a few more page hits from now on.
Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
How about a story not written by CNET?
I mean come on, you might as well consider it a press release and call it "credible."
And I'll pass the story along to CNet then. Piece of crap two-faced pieces of crap.
They don't care about other people's personal info spread all throughout their cache...but when it comes to one of their execs, they try and pull this crap.
heh
Why not just promote from within the company? Is the food really that bad?
Yeah Drew Barrymore won't speak to me either despite all the flowers, postcards, and pictures I send.
Seriously. When did anyone have an obligation to do an interview?
__168+ New Funny Clips Added
Man, you are the king of restating the article summary aren't you?
For once could you at least attempt to impart an original thought rather than regurgitation the article? Sheesh, this one is just regurgitating the article _summary_.
No Comment.
That's true.. but just because the info is there and avl does not mean it needs to be published..
It gives me the creepy vibe of a tabloid mag..
Just feels immature that thay would do that...
Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
Okay, we all enjoy the self-righteous feeling of anger we get when we see the little man with his mouth taped over. But this doesn't qualify as "censorship" - it's a business decision taken by a publicly-held company, not Big Brother cracking down on what you can or cannot say.
The government telling you you're not allowed to say certain things, under penalty of law: censorship.
A company deciding it's not going to do business with another (in this case, a press) company: not censorship.
I didn't know Google's getting into catering? Executive chefs?
What exactly does Google not talking to CNET have anything to do with me or my rights?
Has slashdot turned to thinking whatever google does affects my rights?
I can only agree.
There is private information, and there is public information - and everything that has been ever published is public, no matter how personal it may seem.
You can't unspill water, and you should have no expection of everyone else hiding what already is public - Cnet cannot be faulted at all.
Hey Google - what about your 'do no evil' ? Don't become so hypocritical - it won't benefit you.
Well, the end of Google as a "do no evil" company, anyway. With that many damn cooks in the kitchen, it's only a matter of time (IMNSHO) before someone spoils the recipe.
Would YOU want your public and stockholders to know your high tech search company was "looking for new executive chefs"? Would you eat at a google restaurant? Heck no, do let CNET get ahold of that!
"In ar article about the search company looking for new executive chefs..."
So I guess Google is branching out into the food business?
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Yes, you can use Google to track down a distressing amount of personal information about some people, but this is a function of the information being made available by third parties. Google just makes it easier to find all these sources quickly.
People that gripe about (or sue) Google based on their indexing "bad" things, need to step back and think of the Web as more of a library, with each page as a book. Google serves as a card catalog, helping you find the books that have the information you are interested in. If somebody goes to the library and looks up a bunch of personal information on you (which is possible, just slower) you don't get mad at the makers of the card catalog. Your anger should be directed first at the person who singled you out. Next, if the books contain something which shouldn't be public (unlike major stock sales, and other things from the article, which should be public) you ought to take it up with the author/publisher of the books.
cNet took a cheap shot at Google, and did it in a fairly childish way. The point they were trying to make is both obvious, and better made in a more mature fashion. That being said, I don't exactly think Google's response is "mature", but if they want to respond in kind, I don't blame them.
Wait a sec - if Google has implemented a policy not to talk to CNet reporters (which, IMO, is their right, as it is any organization's right not to speak to the press, regardless of how the press gets snotty about it), then how did this info get passed on to CNet for their inclusion in this article?
"Hey, pass this note to CNet. We're not talking to them."
Seriously, though. Freedom of the Press is a freedom designed to allow the press to print/publish/broadcast information that they find. It is not a license to be used to force people to talk to them, so if Google chooses not to talk to CNet, so be it - go out and find information elsewhere, just like reporters have been doing for centuries. The news media in general has gotten lazy and expect companies to comply with every request, and that's why the press is so information-challenged these days.
At least, that's how I see it.
Why does CNet state that Google won't speak to them on the bottom of an article about Google hiring chefs? Kinda sneaky if you ask me. I would like to know Google's side of the story.
"In ar article about the search company looking for new executive chefs"
I guess the lunch menu needed revision...
Article's pulled off, so here's the Google cache.
ZabaSearch
He's the first Eric E. Schmidt on zabasearch. The issue is that he needs to get over the fact that privacy does not exist, unless you accidentally fill out false Change of Address forms every month.
More
This place is retarded.
Google dropping affiliation with (C|Z)Net was probably attributed more so to CNet's article badmouthing Google, than to anything else. Why would you want to do to business with anyone that hurts business?
There are a great number of things one can do, that are not necessarily what one should do. There are even many both easy and legal things one can do that are ethically reprehensible.
I see no hypocrisy in Google's actions. Why deal with a group of people who have demonstrated they have no scruples?
That's why journos have codes of conduct. Because it may not be illegal and it may not be that hard to do, but it can still be wrong.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
No one has any obligation to talk with any member of the press, period. Press freedom does not encompass compelling people to answer questions.
Linking an alleged breach of privacy to this is, obviously, ironic. But that's not the point.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Can't agree there. There's public, obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for, and then there's nicely packaged, published information. Prior to publication, few people knew, and after, many did.
Yes it's security through obscurity - but since it's absolutely impossible to get actual identity security, that's all we have these days.
Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.
Also, Google's not suing - they're punishing cNet for playing dirty. If CNet expected a different response from the article, they're retarded. If they don't want to talk to someone since they did something that wasn't nice, that's their right.
Many times the wealth of a politician, and with none of that fussy public accountability crap!
Seriously, whats the problem here? Hell, google.ca is a public company. This is a pure hissy fit, nothing more, nothing less. Another good example of the transformation from cool, private R&D firm to huge money making public bohemouth.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I think most people *do* have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The point is, that information on the web is not "freely" available. It takes time to aggregate it, and that effort is not free. Making the effort to aggregate all the information about someone on the web into one place, and then putting it in your online publication is an invasion of the privacy of that person.
Eric Schmidt is probably enough of a celebrity that he has less of a right to expect privacy than most people, but this was still an invasion of his privacy, and he has every right to refuse to cooperate with someone who violated it.
Is this the Google policy as opposed to "Do no evil"? Or is it: Don't speak to the evil ;-)
"Fom TFA:
Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.
Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here. All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there."
Just because it's available on the internet doesn't mean that's a reason to publish it.
I support Google's ability to not report to whoever they like. If cnet wants to continue to act like a supermarket tabloid, it would be in Google's best interest not to speak w/ them.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
So much for don't be evil... apparently it's "don't be evil unless it suits your money making propoganda". Not that we didn't already all know this, but hopefully it cemented that idea for everyone who might've thought google wasn't just another money grubbing mega-corporation.
It already _was_ published, on the Intarweb! The fact that they spent the time to gather it doesn't make them immature. Nor a tabloid.
Very good point. Google woudln't return any search results if it didn't have publicly accessible data to index.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Right on, Google. I say do what you want. Interview with whom you want. Don't speak to those you don't like. Seriously, this "moral obligation" thing gets pulled out anytime someone sees someone make a personal decision. Hell, it's their bloody company. This "we have to be fair to everyone who wants to speak to us" is BS. If I owned the company, and some writer wrote a dickhead report on what I built and who I am.... it'd be my damn right to never speak to them again. Go Google. Make a bazillion. No, make two. You give me Alexandria's library at my finger tips, for free. Do what the hell you want.
ohhh i can see it all now!! Elinor Mills is soooooo FIRED
The issue isn't that the information was freely available, it's that Cnet chose to diclose the information to the masses. While most people can go out and look up this information themsleves, they aren't going to publish it in a newspaper or magazine article.
Despite the CNET's claim of being banned for release of personal information (or perhaps even Google's claim) I wonder if the ban wasn't instituted more for how the other information in the article was presented.
Hahahaha! Down with the evil empire! Bill Gates DESERVES to have all his personal info post.... Oh wait, google? Man CNet sucks. Boycott CNET!
Legally there's no right of appeal, yes, but there's also nothing to compel the company to speak to those sorry excuses for 'journalists' either...
I will never talk to you again if you break your word, steel from me, publicly insult me or prove to be disloyal. It is never a good idea to insult someone if you want to talk to them, which Cnet now learned...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
It's not possible (or desirable) for them to filter and screen the content of what they index.
China seems to do it. As does a particular Canadian ISP. So, it seems that it is desireable depending on who/what you are.
If I were Google, I'd filter both CNET and their swashbuckling "ar articles", too ... filthy pirates.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
In ar article about the search company looking for new executive chefs
From this I can gather that you are a pirate and that Google is moving into the food industry
Not only in soviet russia google searches you!
So, I guess Google is really being the asshole here.
The thing that the article is pointing out -- rightly -- is that Google appears to be on the road toward becoming a major information clearinghouse. And the information is, rather than most similar things, information about everything. They have manifested a desire to aggregate this knowledge and use it in certain ways (i.e., targeted ads by reading the content of your email), and for now they are behaving as a 'good netizen'.
The thing is, as soon as these two idealistic PhD guys get fed up and cash in and decide to buy an island in the South Pacific and go live there, I fear that so will go Google's ethos of being the good guy, and the marketing weasels and fucking lawyers schmucks will pervert Google amazing technology to do some Seriously Evil Shit (tm).
It's really just a matter of time...
gameDB
Damn, the number of people who flippantly assume a typo when they should take a moment and read the article is surprising... Seriously, if you don't even bother reading the article then don't bother commenting. As for the article itself, I think it's childish of CNET to even mention the issues they may be having with Google. Google is under NO obligation to give any information to CNET. In fact it's commonplace for this very thing to happen in TV/Radio/Print all the time. Why CNET would choose to stick that information at the end of the story doesn't make any sense to me, it has nothing to do with the story and is simply a cheap shot in Google's direction.
This is why you should Google yourself regularly. And do what you can to control the information. Google responded this way because it shows the power of Google to dig into information that is not immediately obvious. I everyone knew the true power of information that is internally and externally collected by Google, everyone would be scared. This is why I will NEVER have a gmail account, and advise people against it. Allegedly, it is all public information, but the aggregation of it can bother people and cause the average reactionary to shoot up their skirt on privacy issues.
- Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't
Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here
Yes, the privacy issue is that they suggest Google are just big and evil. They didn't like that.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
...Don't say anything bad about Google, or they might also stop talking to Slashdot...umm...reporters....
Never mind.
Typo:
In ar article about...
I thought the reporting job was a rather clever idea and nicely executed.
Because those business give you publicity? You usually just take the good with the bad. If you are Paramount and Entertainment Weekly gives one of your movies a bad rating, you can't just black list them. Because they probably help your cause more often then hurt it. CNET has wrote many good articles about Google. Blacklisting them for one article is immature.
Google doesn't have any obligation to talk to Cnet, and Cnet obviously published an article made to show google in a bad light.
At the same time Google could very well be trying to mask their true intention of not speaking to a newsgroup that "put them down".
I say just take it all with a grain of salt. It's just bad press for Cnet and google at the same time.
Nasa spent billions making a pen capable of writing in space. The Russians just use a pencil.
They belong to Uncle Sam. Wait, I think I just made it worse XD
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
A definition of invasion of privacy is as follows: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inva sion+of+privacy
And http://www.answers.com/topic/invasion-of-privacy
invasion of privacy The tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light see also privacy compare right of privacy zone of privacy
There is also the element that if you are in the public eye, then there is the public interest. Let's say I was a stock holder, would I want the details posted in the CNet article? Sure.
For a comparison let's look at Enron. Let's say that I was a stock holder. Would I have wanted to know how much the then CEO was spending on parties and umbrella holders? Damm right! Maybe if the public had known we would not have had the mess that resulted.
For Google to take such action is very dangerous indeed as it has become a pissing contest. In effect Eric Schmidt has said, "Because you published information about me, Google the corporation will not talk to you?" A smarter approach would have been, "Sorry, I do not like your style, *I* will not talk to you, but if my other Google executives can talk to you if they so choose."
Frankly, this is a Google blunder... Wonder if this is the first of something...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Although it stems from the article linked regarding Eric Schmidt, the discontent Google has towards CNet is a result of the general implications of that article. The 'story' is loaded with hints that 'Google is big brother' and with all these services Google can know what you're doing and who you're doing.
With that aside, a company can decide with no reason (*gasp!*) to not talk to any news source if they don't want to.
seriously folks, most people on slashdot have such a congnitive dissonance going with regards to Google that there would be 500 posts defending Google if somehow the corporation itself were caught in bed with a dead, 14 year old hooker and a bag full of colombian flake.
just because Google isn't microsoft is no reason to automatically assume Google is some sort of deity.
in fact, why do you people have this innate longing to fall in love with ANY company? they sell TEXT ADS, PEOPLE. none of their other products has ever made a dime. those "geek" products are nothing more than the mafia boss giving large donations to the local little league team or fireman's retirement fund. it's called public relations.
Ahhh ....and a Tool that make things easy .. oh like copying DVD's and CD's is a HACKER tool.
.. Windows is trying make computers easy to use. Computers are use for HACKING ... ergo Windows is a HACKING tool..
I see where this is going. Is not MSFT getting into Search Engines?
let's turn it around
There are positives and negatives regarding Google's detail and completeness. While the medicine given to Google by CNet wasn't very tasty, Google should be more mature about this than that. CNet did what news organizations are known to do... create the news. In this case, they went after the crystal clear jewel of the internet, Google and used its own power against it.
This is yet another of those situations where responding mildly or not at all would have been the best way to handle this -- it's embarassment -- the more you fight it, the worse it becomes. The quicker you leave it in the past, the quicker it is forgotten.
Excellent Article, it explains clearly why we should care about what google is doing, and the privacy/legal risks to the users.
It is also clear about google following their own "do no evil" policy in the past. But now after their IPO they have a duty to maximize shareholder value.
For the next few years I think the management will continue to stick to ethical behaviour, but there are no guarantees.
Apparently, Google was angered Actually, the CEO was angered.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Google does this, they censor right wing sites trying to buy or run ads and have even been caught allowing Hamas to do recruitment on their arabic language site. Google seems to be morphing more into an "evil" company than a good one.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I sense a lot of bad karma here. Or, not a lot, but a bit. It makes it a bit worse that this is the first bad karma I've gotten from Google Ever.
Google allows anyone to do what CNet did. Every person in the limelight is equally exposed as Google's CEO, and anyone can be similarly researched. This is done with the tools that Google have produced.
Now, there are a lot of complex issues here - involving privacy, information and the possible restriction of such, and privacy concerns again. Google's response to this has for the time being been to opt for 'all information is best information', and have chosen to accept the consequences of that on behalf of other people. When Google employees themselves experience those consequences (that Google have already decided other people should be able to handle in a utility-maximising world), it is NOT RIGHT for them to react in this way. They should acknowledge that, yes, there are issues, and they handle the issues like they want everyone else to handle those issues.
Additionally, point 2: There is no reason for this reaction except pure retribution now that the 'damage' has already been done. Google's reaction can't take back an article. Apart from the pure retribution reason there is also the possibility of sending a warning signal - do something that Google doesn't like, and get boycotted. Which is not good either.
Wow, this is like having an extremely good game that suddenly decides to crash. Now that I know it CAN crash, randomly, there's only a question of when again.
The information has already been published on the WWW; this is how Google indexed it.
You do realize that the A-bomb is a good thing right?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
If this works on the White House press core, it will work on C|Net -- unfortuneatly. While C|Net is in dire need of a smack up side the head, and this will do nothing but help Google's cool factor -- it may become too useful a tool for companies like Google (and admit it Apple Computers), to train media companies.
It sounds like C|Net was out of line -- but I would prefer a lawsuit over blacklisting. Google has the power to do it, being the most interesting tech company as of late. Wired is now going to get all the scoops. But the cynic in me realizes that this will not be much a hinderance to C|Net, since they just might make up more stuff and then pepper every accusation with; "and Google refused to comment".
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
In effect Eric Schmidt has said, "Because you published information about me, Google the corporation will not talk to you?"
Just curious: where did you get that from? The only information I can find is the little note in the linked CNet article: "Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story."
If I trusted this reporter, I might read it the way you do. But I really don't, and that sentence could mean that there are some representatives at Google who refuse to talk to some reporters at CNet, quite different from your interpretation.
I'd really like to hear something from Google about this. Have you seen anything else?
Microsoft has far more access to personal information than google. Hotmail for example has 100x as many users as gmail (close to 200 million at last count).
Type in a bogus website? Microsoft knows. Look up a word to be translated in Office 2003? Microsoft knows. Windows XP, Office 2003, Visual Studio, Encarta etc are all closely linked to the web services. With Microsoft Live Meeting they could know all about your business meetings as it is hosted offsite.
If one wanted to be paranoid (like the author of that article) one could question all the corporate email (100 Million users) going through those Exchange servers...
My point is that Microsoft has far more opportunity than google to abuse its power. Why doesn't CNET attack MS?
Seems to me that CNet doesn't even need Google to talk to them.
... ahhh .... right, Google.
They can just use this search engine thingie by the name of
You do realize that the A-bomb is a good thing right?
Only if you believe the propaganda that it "saved" millions of lives and that the Japanese were too crazy to reason with, so we had to use it to kill lots of them who had nothing to do with the war. Then when they were about to surrender, we drop another one, just in case they were going to change their minds.
So yes, if you buy into that, I suppose you could try to say the A-bomb is a good thing...
French or American?
:-)
I personally hate french dishes, and the only good american food creation I've ever eaten is grilled cheese sandwiches, with american cheese of course.
you can mod me as a troll if you must.
Angered? Nah. Unimpressed for the last time... (at last.)
You are still in control.
Turn off cookies, or something of the likes.
If you don't trust them, don't use GMail.
ZEN is a prime number in base-36
That they're no longer talking to CNET. Very much a jab at how childish Google is acting over the matter in my opinion. They didn't report anything that wasn't openly available information.
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
What did Cnet do that proved they had no scruples? They reported on the potential privacy risks of google, and for an example used basically harmless facts from someone who has the power to change the behaviour of google.
I think that is the most responsible way to do it.
Are you really comparing a search engine to "the bomb?" I just want confirmation, because I'm staring straight at the screen and I still don't believe it.
Game... blouses.
is there and avl
Would it really have been that difficult to type six more letters? You went to all the trouble of typing up an entire comment saying nothing, and then you want to save on six keystrokes. You could have used a comma and periods instead of the useless ellipses and come out almost even.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
It's not Google's fault information is available (Score:5, Insightful). Google simply indexes information. It's not possible (or desirable) for them to filter and screen the content of what they index.
That argument didn't fly too well with the old Napster.
He cant shutup for a second. Just look at his comment history. Cocksuckers proud of his lil star.
On the other hand, the Google CEO is a public person, and as such he is supposed to be able to tolerate publicity. And who better to use in order to show the consequences of the new Information Society?
I've read it and I can't imagine why you think it was childish. Not original or particularly insightful, but not childish.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
It may be "fair game" but google can choose to talk to or NOT choose to talk to anybody they want. They have every right to publish info that's publically available and google has every right to be pissed about it and punish them by not talking to them.
Child pr0n is also available on the web, but that doesn't make posting an article including it OK. You can probably even find the stuff using Google.
I'm not saying this is the same thing, but it amounts to the same logic, so your argument, though perhaps not the conclusion, is invalid.
OK, what I see here is C-Net slanting the article to favor themselves. I mean hell both articles are written by the same person. You think their not doing everything they can to save their job right now.
Personal information?? This is obviously not what Google is upset about. It's the fact the article over exaggerates privacy issues with Google's services. If anyone here know how Google could offer the services it does without raising privacy by all means let us know.
No one is forcing you to get a gmail account, or use Google's search history or even search on Google at all. By all means go back to using Lycos. I'm sure they'll handle your privacy much better. *sigh*
Google is the bomb.
Sorry, couldnt resist.
The majority of comments here are missing the point -- they lambast Google for refusing cNet something over an issue of supposed privacy, but that isn't it at all. The reason Eric (and Google) are avoiding cNet is not that they went and found his personal information, it's that they published it in a frequently read place. Sure, it's not particularly hard to use Google and find it out, but now no-one even has to, because cNet's done all the work for them.
Eric is understandably pissed off at them for gathering up this information about him, as he probably feels it was unnecessary and mean-spirited for them to do it in the first place.
Discworld.
In effect Eric Schmidt has said, "Because you published information about me, Google the corporation will not talk to you?"
Seems to me more likely he said "Because you published information about a Google Employee, that had no real journalistic impact in an article other than to pander to the public's voyueristic tendencies, Google and it's employees will not talk to you".
There are three kinds of people in the world,
people who talk about ideas,
people who talk about events, and
people who talk about people
my respect goes to the first two.
If the article attempted to show a tendency for the personal info to effect the decisions about events or ideas it would be different.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
and that the Japanese were too crazy to reason with,
You know, once a war starts, both sides can usually find plenty of reasons to keep it going. BOTH sides become "too crazy to reason with". The only way to stop a war is for one side to force the other side to stop fighting. Asking them nicely usually doesn't work.
"When they were about to surrender" is not good enough. You can't prove that. The fact remains that they had not surrendered yet, so the war was still on.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
on its' own reasoning.
Why, say ye?
Well. If they Googled for the Google report on Eric Schmidt, founder of Google. *duck* Then they announce to the public in the form of their new policy directed towards a company that derived such information FROM Googling, that Erik Schmidt was troubled by the fact that their business sells information that actually (since they claim it, AND deliver it) DOES hurt privacy - because Eric Schmidt was bothered "greatly" by it.
Ironic how truly intelligent people sometimes fail to see the obvious. This was a bad step for Google. But I guess that means lots of negative kharma just because I don't see the innovativeness in Google just because people have yet to catch up to Yahoo in understanding of complexity of service. Google succeeds for the same reason Microsoft does - because they understand that the vast majority of users out there are idiots and must be educated, one small step at a time. Eventually, people will cross that threshold of knowledge. When that happens, Google will appear to be what Microsoft is today; a ludicrous collection of functions that 99% of users either do not want, do not need, or would use only with great hindrance being the problem.
Or has no one noticed that lately Google is more a collection of ads than real information? Perhaps you don't actually read other stuff than Slashdot (or why should you), but I do, and I am losing faith in Google.
Are you really comparing a search engine to "the bomb?" I just want confirmation, because I'm staring straight at the screen and I still don't believe it. Well, yeah! Can't you see it? One kills a couple thousand people at a go, and the other helps you find free p0rn. The two are so closely related it practically begs for an analogy. Now that we've covered nuclear weapons, hows about we compare Google's engineers to Milosevic and Hitler.
Is it really black listing? It seems more like they are making CNet stand outside the club while everyone else can go in and party.
So you're going to tell me that if I found all sorts of personal information about youself, including your email, home/work phone number, and your address, you wouldn't mind because "it's freely available on the internet"? What kind of logic is this? Just because a few simple searches on google can bring up very personal information about a person does not give anyone the right to post that information elsewhere, especially on a high-traffic site such as CNET.
You know, you only get some many letters in one lifetime.
Once they're gone your done.
Jus because I'm a nice guy, I'm sending you some extra ones I ad lying about. Use them wisely.
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
Type in a bogus website? Microsoft knows.
Same goes for Google if you're using Firefox and haven't changed the keyword.url pref.
FIRST!!!
It's shocking how many posters obviously only read the (rather misleading) summary instead of the article.
Yes, CNet publishes some information about the Google CEO, but it's not TOO private, and it there to make the point of the article - if there is so much information that Google publishes, what about the data that does not get published ?
Google's policies on that data are intentionally vague, and while I agree that it's their right to accumulate any public information they want, they should also have clear and explicit policies on what they collect and what they do with it.
Anyway, happy posting, y'all.
obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for [...] they're punishing cNet for playing dirty
Except, most of the links in the original CNET article are not to obscure information. There are links to commercially published news articles from recognizable sources such as CNN and Forbes. Some links to lesser known, but still commercial sources such as Red Herring and Quote.com simply list insider trading records. These are public information and are mandated by the SEC for corporate insiders. There's nothing remotely secret or even sensitive about the information they displayed. There were only 1 or 2 links that could be described as "obscure", but again, they were a matter of public record.
Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.
Did you actually read O'Gara's account of that? She tracked PJ to her mother's home, conned her way in to talk to PJ's mother, and published the address and photos of PJ's mother's house. That's stalking. Just a bit of a difference.
Did I read that right? I can cook. Where do i apply?
I have an online friend named Halley. Fifteen years old. When I first met her, her parents wouldn't let het post her full name, or photos of herself. Paranoid, I thought.
So I used Google to find her full name (and her parents'), her address, logitude, latitude, as well as photos of her and her dad.
I did not procede to distribute this information, even though it's all available on Google. Because I recognise her right to privacy.
Obviously, the CNET article didn't include such details, and Schmidt is not a fifteen-year-old, but 'It's available on Google' alone is not sufficient justification for posting the information, in my view.
(And, yes, when I said 'friend' earlier, I meant friend. Nothing more. I tracked down the information in order to show her why I considered her parents silly.)
the article reveals very little about Schmidt. I think Google PR is more upset that the article puts the finger on a huge vulnerability: once trust is lost, it can never be earned back.
if you read TFA, then you'd know that it's not about being able to find personal information off of google search, but the possibility of google logging and collecting all of the stuff you search for, the e-mail you send through gmail, the personal information you put in Orkut, and the places you try to find on google maps. That's a lot of information that's not present in a google search but very well might be on their servers for the government or a malicious inside person to take advantage of.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Google's decided to not talk to CNet anymore. How is that Google blacklisting CNet?
my ass...slashdot is starting to eat any poo that google drops. give me a break.
There's no difference between "available on the Internet" and "publish."
Because it's Google, it's okay.
If this was MS or Bill Gates, your thoughts would be different.
My toolbar indicates 0/10 for both articles, tho it gives 7/10 for the home page. Heck, even the preview for this post has a 3/10! So much for objective judgement based on page-views and whatnot, or whatever voodoo they supposedly used for pagerank distinction.
...if they have executive CHEFS!!
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
time for a new search site.... sux that the Google cheif is so full of himself.
I guess google doesn't like the taste of eating their own dogfood.
Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
j pg
g
1 .jpg
t on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en
. nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%2520079.JPG&imgrefurl=h ttp://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm&h=1536&w= 2048&sz=661&tbnid=AN0nR-46KkoJ:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150& hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalerie%2Bplame%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg
Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.
Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jp
Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g068
Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Ather
Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www
I think it's far less of an issue of exposing "private" info about Eric Schmidt and much more of Google not like being painted in a bad light and teaching C|Net a lesson about "saying we may become evil".
Basically C|net said he's rich, married, lives with rich people, goes to rich people parties, is probably a Democrat and flys a plane! Who woulda thunk it? I would of guessed that the CEO of Google who's stock is currently only $295.731/share would of been some poor slob living in a halfway house and dreaming of one day of buying a Radio Flyer.
Schmidt has been in the public life for many many years now, and almost all of the info published was PUBLIC RECORD. Publicly available SEC documents would show how much money he made selling google stock and his salary, and it's trivial to find out not only where someone lives but how much they paid for their home since it's public record. Marriage certificates are also often a matter public record. Fly a plane? Your pilot license probably is public record too (like your driver license) which again would have your home address.
So basically the only thing that might be hard for the average joe to figure out was that he went to a $10,000/plate dinner for a presidential candiate who lost. Of course, there were probably 50 reporters covering that public event and reporting on it, and that's where google get's useful.
Very childish on Google's part. It's something I'd more expect from the Bush administration.
> You do realize that the A-bomb is a good thing right?
It didn't have a very positive impact on the 200,000 people it killed outright or who subsequently died from injuries including radiation-based ones which are still causing mutations and suffering today.
Yeah, yeah, I've read all about how it `ended the war`. Japan wasn't a threat to Europe or America - the Americans were just pissed because of the `sneaky suprise attack` on America. Only America could be attacked years into a world war and claim it was some sort of suprise. The dropping of the A-Bombs on Japanese civilians started a new era of US foreign policy which continues to the present day.
"article about the search company looking for new executive chefs"
Man, those special diets that Sergei recently instituted must be real wacky! What is Google turning into, Kelloggs?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
He didn't want anyone to know he trully did work for Novell and was his watch that sank them for the "We Can Beat Microsoft by buying WordPerfect, ooops guess not" billion dollar fiasco.....
I agree and even said so in my post.
I think the management will continue to stick to ethical behaviour
However things can and do change. There are many shareholders lawsuits against company management for behaviour which is inconsistent with the desires of the owners.
The purpose of the press is to investigate and communicate these concerns or potential problems to the population.
Google has the potential to seriously erode personal privacy, they likely won't, but they COULD. I think it is quite reasonable to make people aware of the situation.
Microsoft has far more access to personal information than google. Hotmail for example has 100x as many users as gmail (close to 200 million at last count).
So you're saying the Microsoft knows that my name is Sammy Shitface, that I live up Shit Creek number 123 in Shitsville?
Man I feel so violated. I'll never give them any interviews ever again! It's a good thing that I posted this anonymously.
It's one pretty smart card catalog. I hear it can fetch a book that is in the card catalog, make copies of it, and keep the copies around even if the book is destroyed...
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
Google, like other corporations, is "public" only in the sense that it sells stock to the public. Corporations make use of established, legally required, avenues to communicate with their shareholders. Google may or may not be obligated to answer its shareholders, but it no obligation to talk to anyone in the media. Google's officers and employees have no more obligation to talk to reporters than they do to talk with you and me.
As for privacy: Google -- as a search engine -- isn't violating anyone's privacy. Google facilitates access to information that someone else has already made publicly available. Schmidt's charge that CNET violated his privacy may or may not be misdirected. but charges here Schmidt is only getting a does of his own medicine are also misdirected. If anyone has violated Schmidt's privacy, it is the people who made his private info accessible to the public, not the search engine that indexed it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
i'd mod you up if only i could
h
C-x C-s C-x k
No shit. How many frist prosts has this guy gotten this week? Christ you'd think he'd have more to do at work.
This is not common knowledge, most people don't know that this type of information is available.
This example has the benefit that many don't think it is a problem.
"Look he doesn't care that his own company is broadcasting this information for all to see".
What's worse is how his posts are more often than not modded right the way up.
It's not the fact that he gets a large number of posts modded up, its the fact that most of his posts are crap.
I for one am getting real tired of seeing TripMasterMonkey at the top of the list of posts. Guaranteed to run across this a half dozen times a day anyways.
I notice your account has a URL listed, and that URL has a resume. It's perfectly legal for me to comb through all your pages, cross-reference it with other sources. I could even respond by posting every bit of minute trivia about you on this page. And then you could check your website logs, and figure out my IP, which would tell you who my employer is. And if you dug through my posting history, you could likely figure out where I live, who I am, and post the exact same type of information about me.
But neither one of us is going to do that. It might technically be legal, but it's a really jerk move, and pretty much defines "ad hominium" attacks. Generally talking about someone's wife, children, personal life, etc is a very inciting tactic to take in an argument. When I was growing up, you could always tell when an argument between two kids was getting out of hand when someone started talking trash (especially true trash) about someone's family members.
I'd take it very personally if someone posted my wife's name and contact information in response to something I said. Even more so if it was something my business did policy-wise. And beleive me, it would be very hard to resist the urge to strike back at the poster using any means I had at my disposal.
Personal information which may or may not be present in Google's non-public servers is a completely separate issue.
for their "executive chefs" positions.
Those of us who live on the net have to accept the fact that we live in public in a far more direct and exposed way than ever before. But actually as the sheer volume of data on the net grows, it becomes more arduous, not easier, to find out about people. For example, ten years ago, if you asked Alta Vista about 'Simon Brooke', the only Simon Brooke it knew about was me (but it knew a hell of a lot about me).
Nowadays, if you ask Google about 'Simon Brooke', you'll learn (as I've just done) that I played a wife beater in a 2001 film, and that I run a specialist insurance brokerage, that I'm obsessive about elderly aircraft, that I've written a novel called '2Cool2BTrue', that I used to be an academic at the University of Dublin, and that my nickname is Derick. Fortunately, none of these things happens to be true.
Yes, it probably is possible to work out that some of these Simon Brookes definitely are not me, and it's probably possible to work out some things about 'Simon Brooke' which definitely are me. But with every year that passes it's getting harder. How do you hide in a forest? Make like a leaf.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I for one am getting real tired of seeing people bitch about seeing TripMasterMonkey at the top of the list of posts. Guaranteed to run across this a half dozen times a day anyways.
Years ago when I ran a dot.com (yes, when they were fashionable and profitable...at least some were), we had tons of content. CNET decided to start deep-linking to some of our downloads without sending anybody to our site (i.e., they put a link to our download on their site and only had a small plain-text attribution). They generated several GB of traffic each month, yet wouldn't remove their links even when asked. I even tried offering them a deal: retain the links, but xfer the visitor. They ignored me. I changed the link schema, and they FIXED the links, despite several letters from my lawyer and me. Amazing balls, those nitwits have. I enjoy seeing them twist a bit.
Anyone detect a hint of jealousy in the writer? He clearly wishes he was treated as well as Google employees. I wish CNet would just die off already after the tv.com fiasco. CNet is part of the (relatively) old-school internet establishment that treats its users like crap and thinks it can become a huge successful company by placing large flash ads everywhere with little information in between.
And just so you know, I am not a huge google fan either, but at least they know how to treat their customers and employees well. I think they are getting too large and are part of the new internet bubble. They have revolutionized the way internet advertising works, but there are numerous copycats and at some point people will realize Google isn't worth whatever ridiculous amount its stock claims it is. Also, its stock holders won't allow them to aimlessly create new products for long, especially when the stock starts to slip.
from Eric's website, http://ericschmidt.com/
his email happens to be: EricSchmidt1@yahoo.com
The reasoning is at question, not the goods or services.
The responsibility that scientists might have for what can be made from their research is not a new issue, nor is the question of what liability gun manufacturers and sellers have for how their goods are used. ISPs are being called to court to answer for crimes committed by means of the services they provide.
But now that you mention it -- yes, control of information is probably as important an issue (if not more important) than control of the atom was in 1945 (or 2005). Because of its importance, the view that Google simply indexes information is absurdly naive. If Google or some other information indexing service were to claim this were all that they did, it would be interesting to see how well that claim holds up in court.
[an aside to NDPTAL85: I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb a long, long time ago.]
CNET's News.com is the slime of online journalism. They're an abomination. Their stories are often riddled with errors. They love bashing Apple for 10 years (and still do from time to time). They try to turn every story into a scandal or some major announcement.
Their idea of "fair and balanced" is to say... "This company has been supurbly successful............... but maybe it's all over and they're going to file for bankruptcy?????"
My favorites News.com stories are the reverse headline features. Nothing new here, of course, but News.com does it particularly well. An example would be something like....
Title: Apple sees sharp decline of iPods in U.S.?
Opening graph: There is no end in sight to the iPod's dominance, but some wonder if the popular music player will be as popular in Antarctica...
Then they throw in the best part of any -- and EVERY -- News.com article. The famous "high-impact" declaration, where CNET determines whether or not the subject at hand will have an impact on the industry. You can bet that EVERY story is high-impact, dammit.
Bottom line: HIGH IMPACT
Antarctica's famously liberal music distribution system will give Apple a hard time making a DRM-based music store popular in the icy continent. The iPod's white design may also cause consumers to easily lose them in the snowy plains. Could this be the end of the iPod forever and give way to Microsoft dominance? Definitely, maybe.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
There's a fourth kind of person - people who know when to shut up. My respect goes to them.
"And we're seeing a worse trend. Earlier this year, the Bush administration, as many may recall, banned Kerry supporters from attending a non-partisian worldwide telecommunications forum:"
Yeah, just like the media blackout on the new anti-Hillary book, when meanwhile Kelley's book last year which also relied on anonymous sources got constant coverage and a three-day interview on the Today show?
"Sources tell TIME" isn't a reliable source of information when trying to determine someone's motives. But hey, whatever's needed to spin a conspiracy out of straw.
Read up on Germany's U-234, pride of Hitler's navy. On board were 1,200 lbs. of high-grade uranium oxide, scientists, detailed plans on advanced weaponry including rockets, proximity fuses, jet planes, etc. all more advanced than the Allies weaponry.
The scientists, uranium oxide, and plans were to help the Japanese leap forward in their development of an A-bomb. Then consider that Japanese military elements lead a coup against the Emperor, a God in shinto belief, to prevent him from surrendering to the Allied forces. I have no doubt that an A-bomb in the hands of those military forces would have been used.
America's strike against Hiroshima would have been the only strike if those in charge of Japan's military had surrendered. They didn't. Even after that awesome and terrible attack, they were still dedicated to continue the war. It was only after a second attack they were persuaded to stop their war effort. America's strike was not a first strike.
In summary, you are insane, and a partisan fool.
True, they index the Web, but they're more than a catalog (as the article details after the first page). Google also collects vast amounts of information on your use of that catalog, and--if you use their other services--they've got that data, too. That makes a big, fat target for a warrant or an unscrupulous person.
Of course they have the *right* to, but Cnet didn't play "dirty." Google's response seems a bit too much like the White House's policy of punishing reporters who don't tow the line. Press be warned: say nothing bad about Google or find yourself blacklisted. Don't get me wrong, I like Google, but I'm very disappointed by their behavior in this. And I think it suggests they might not be such the neutral party they proclaim to be. Personally, I saw nothing bad about the article. I didn't even think it reflected negatively on Google except that it discussed an issue and gave an example. Unless Google has something to hide, I don't understand why they got so upset as to resort to such a childish response. To be honest, this article didn't make me distrust Google. Their response, however, makes me a little wary.
Got sources on that, or is it just an unsupported assertion?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You need shock value to get peoples attention.
And quite honestly, if Google doesn't like how someone pointed out how easily available Google makes personal information then Google shouldn't make it so available. Crying foul because someone in the press reports what you did is BS.
Ok, I know this is a case of the royal "we", but please, let's cut the bs. Eric Schmidt (and perhaps his wife, Wendy) was angered, and used his position as CEO to promulgate a company policy. I think another personal data point we can now tease out of Google (if it's still indexing C/NET) is that he's pretty thin skinned.
Luke, help me take this mask off
To all of you defending Google, make a little thought experiment.
Say CNet had used MSN Search to find details about Bill Gates and then used them in an article. As a result, Microsoft decides not to talk to CNet reporters anymore. Do you also defend Microsoft?
Don't see the players. See the game.
*confused*
Excuse me, I was looking for /. Did I make a wrong turn somewhere on the Information Superhighway?
*/confused*
I censor no one and no thing.
I'm amazed that more people aren't upset by this. If Microsoft refused to grant a news organization interviews for a year based on one slightly negative article; there would be calls to march on Redmond in protest. When Google does it, there are posts arguing that Google was somehow right to refuse interviews. Get a sense of perspective, guys.
They just wear the stupid shirts.
The internet isnt contained within any countries laws and will be very hard to regulate what is put on it.
Google's system is completely automated and at the rate they crawl webpages and index them it would be IMPOSSIBLE to stop one of their crawlers from picking up some piece of personal info on the net.
Its just one of the flaws of the internet. Yes things will be put on there that you dont like. But if you arnt willing to live with what you said then dont say it in the first place.
Its really ironic that Google is exhibiting prejudice towards an entity that calls attention to its privacy-invading capability by using its CEO as an example. This seems to contradict with Google's self-proclaimed policy of "not being evil."
There seems to be concern in the community about whether or not all the data Google is aggrigating will be used for evil purposes and that's a valid issue, as evidenced by the items on google-watch.org:
1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.
2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."
3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.
4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.
5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.
6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.
7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."
8. Google is not your friend:
By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn't even answer email from webmasters.
9. Google i
Funny things happen in wars. People die. Plus, you don't get to dictate your terms of losing a war. You lose in whichever way your enemy decides.
I was referring moreso however to the lack of World Wars since the invention of the Atomic bomb and all of the lives that have thusly been saved.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
The article does not actually assert that Schmidt attended that fundraiser.
He and his wife Wendy live in the affluent town of Atherton, Calif., where, at a $10,000-a-plate political fund-raiser five years ago, presidential candidate Al Gore and his wife Tipper danced as Elton John belted out "Bennie and the Jets."
The detail of the fundraiser is relevant only to the town of Atherton in general, not to Schmidt and his wife specifically. And if you click through to the article about the fundraiser, you'll see that neither Schmidt nor his wife are mentioned.
Including it produces a false association in readers' minds. That's either really tricky or really bad writing. I vote tricky--the author's point of view screams between the lines if you read carefully.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
what i want to know is, why are cnet articles so ugly (grey background, lots of blank space, weird formatting. they look like what you'd expect to see in lynx, but inside a GUI window) - is it just that they don't format properly in mozilla-based browsers?
i've tried viewing them in mozilla, firefox, and galeon, and they all look the same. i have no idea what they look like in IE because i don't have any windows machines at all....i can't believe that they'd be that ugly in IE, though.
it seems to be specific to cnet - every other web site i go to renders perfectly in firefox.
Not when you're the head of a publicly held company. Most of that information is part of the financial information Google is required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The rest was published in major media outlets that he's NOT boycotting. So where's the breach of privacy, exactly?
So you're saying that the head of a publicly held company is required to cooperate with the paparazzi, regardless of his opinion of them? Is that some special US law?
Well for one I don't think that I would run a company making it so easy to find information on a specific person.
However as an Engineer if I design (for example) a car part that is dangerous and someone gets injured, guess who gets sued and can go to jail because of it? Hint it isn't the reporter who tells everyone what I did.
So, lets see, someone wrote a story about Google that they didn't like, and now, they don't want to provide fuel to the fire of the next story.
Well, stop the presses! Google has no right to decline to talk to any reporter. It's censorship, er, something. Yeah, censorship! That's what it is.
I used to be like that. I declined to talk to an ex-girlfriend who hired a hitman to kill me. Well, now I've seen the light, and I'm going to call her tonight and tell her exactly where I live.
Everyone should be really be appalled at Google for this. With all the bad written about Microsoft, I have never at least heard of them doing this. It does not really matter that it was CNET as it can have a chilling affect on every other Journal. This is the real impact.
And I had high hopes Google would stay above the fray. Now public, they have converted to a true corporation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Time to switch to Yahoo.
No matter how 'right' you think you are, don't shit where you eat.
America's strike against Hiroshima would have been the only strike if those in charge of Japan's military had surrendered.
And that's supposed to be good in what way, idiot. Lets say instead Japan had carried on and destroyed the entire American fleet.... The atomic bomb may never have been dropped and their wouldn't be a war in Iraq and Bin-Laden would never have taken out the world trade centres.
Pure Partisan Joy...
That's right. That's Google. "Don't be evil."..."Don't be fair." is more like it. I've seen this too often from them. I say they're goin' down.
Anyone know _where_ Google made this statement?
There was no attribution as to who said google was avoiding news.com, when, etc. Did something show up in the google blog or something?
Seems silly to get all worked up until there's evidence to show the statement is true.
URL: http://xanga.com/lvirden > Quote: Saving the world before bedtime. Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, n
They are just trying to talk up a storm, trolling if you like.
We only have their word that they've been blacklisted and given their history of publish both FAD and FUD.
All I have to say is move on nothing to see here.
That isn't to say they should publish them!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Let me guess, you were a ignorant infant during the Cold War? As far as we can see now, the world had a a number of narrow escapes from nuclear war. Thank your god for the lack of world wars since the invention of the bomb, cause youd likely not be here. Fool!
What if, during the public comments period, I wrote a letter to the DOJ years ago regarding the suit against a large software company who was later found guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly. And the DOJ put all the comments on the Internet and now when someone Google's my name, it comes up. The company I now work for recently became a strategic partner with that very company, which could make things uncomfortable.
This happened to me. A midlevel manager at a company I last worked for, commented "You don't really like Microsoft do you?". Since I keep my mouth shut at work, I was puzzled. He saw my DOJ letter which I wrote, what, 10 years ago.
That company was in the midst of a big purge of UNIX servers (replaced with Exchange, etc) that the new CIO and financial guys rammed through (after firing the IT crew). Not that this was alone something a company could discipline for, but it does put a red flag on you, in their eyes. Conformity is pretty important to the hive mentality.
I do not have a public website, but I soooo regret making my views known to my supposedly representative government. How would anyone know about this unless they were Googling all employees?
I can agree with openness in the government, but my letter is more of a "vote" than anything else. The government apparently doesn't take my privacy seriously, or they posted this to punish citizens. There does not seem to be a way for me to retract my letter. There is definately a bias in management against those that do not believe corporations are the custodians of the government.
When my area gets electronic voting, I'm not so sure my vote can not be recorded. Even if my ballot is unmarked visibly, there could be codes embedded in the paper. Or whatever else.
I want a fair chance at work and advancement without a (now seeming) Microsoft bashing letter being held over my head, but if someone even mentions it casually, I KNOW that can not be the case. I shared my voice because I believed in a process, that would not effectively share my views with the whole world, including Microsoft.
Yep, and that's the reason why he felt justified to blacklist them.
Everyone is missing the point.
Most people don't care their number is in the phonebook, but if you write it on the wall of a public restroom you're much more likely to get pissed.
At the same time, they're reporters (?!), I think Eric was just unlucky to have been the guinea pig & should get over it.
This IS evil by Google. You guys can justify their behavior however you'd like, but I can't.
The information presented is right in Google's own search engine, via simple searches! It's not like the reporter had to dig deep dark corners to find it.
But more importantly, to ban a whole organization based on one article that's not even that offensive? Do you really want to support this idea of big business, aka. Google, bullying little guys when something they don't like a message?
Look at the stock industry. It's rife with similar evil tactics. X corp. doesn't like Z analyst's criticism of their company. X corp. bans Z's parent company from future access to stocks, insider info, etc. Z's parent company withdraws Z's criticism. Pretty soon all you see are buy buy buy articles with lots of fluff and lies for investors. And this happens routinely.
Don't support this. This is evil behavior.
eTrade SUCKS
5. Information about me appears in Google's search results. How can I get it removed? Information that appears in Google's search results is actually located on third-party publicly available webpages. To remove your information from our search results, you will need to contact the webmasters of any third-party sites on which it appears. Once your information is removed from the non-Google site(s), Google's results will automatically reflect this change within a few weeks.