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."
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.
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.
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
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
I think they might be using the "personal information" as a guise for what really upset them about the article.
It exposed the fact that they collect enormous amounts of personal information from their users, and all we can do is trust them and their employees.
Reassuring isn't it?
The article does point out that Google is not alone in this practice.
What?
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"No one has any obligation to talk with any member of the press, period."
Maybe with one notable exeption: governments. If governments would start to favor certain newspapers and blacklisting others, it would be highly inappropriate.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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
They're not doing anything evil, they're just showing their disapproval for another company in the proper way. If they were evil, they'd have sued them, instead they're deciding to just not do business with them, which is certainly within their rights.
Now, you can argue whether or not they're getting a bit to huffy about something that's a minor deal. Information may be available to the public, but that doesn't mean it's particularly friendly or polite to publish it widely. It's not illegal to be an jerk, but sometimes it's not the best idea, and there are often consequences. I know journalists like to pretend that they're somehow exempt from any consequences, but that's not how it works.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Sued them? On what grounds? "Using our services for things we don't approve of!" is not something that will win you any lawsuit.
I think the main point is that Google refusing to talk to any press that gives them bad marks is "evil" in the sense that they are trying to create spin so that no negative news is heard from them. Its similar to a controversy in Maryland where the governor won't talk to two reporters who wrote a bad article about him. Yes, it's his right, as it is Google's right...but it's generally seen as an "evil" thing to do, because now say you are writing an article about Google's latest product...if you bash it you may fear being blacklisted, so you are kind of black mailed into writing a glowing review. That's the thinking at least.
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.
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.
Well, if a newspaper reports something that you don't like, then I do not consider breaking ties with that newspaper as ethical.
If something false was claimed, then they would have moral grounds for avoiding that newspaper - but I read that article, and it's nothing bad at all!
The reaction seems a one man's childish, overblown reaction - and the fact that this man is a CEO of a major company just makes it seem even more ridiculous.
So CNN finds out you may have done something bad and would upset other people, so they publish your name, phone number, address, work address, and information about your SO.
Just because some of this can be looked up in a phonebook doesn't mean CNN should be reporting on that part of it.
The information has already been published on the WWW; this is how Google indexed it.
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.
He cant shutup for a second. Just look at his comment history. Cocksuckers proud of his lil star.
Well, if a newspaper reports something that you don't like, then I do not consider breaking ties with that newspaper as ethical.
You're saying that you've never decided to break ties with someone because they did something you didn't like? That's almost the only reason you do break ties with someone. Why should Google continue to associate with them if they don't like them?
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
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
Have you read their IPO filing with SEC? They specifically state following 'do no evil' will lead to long term gains. They will not be influenced by near-term shareholder value.
So not only do they plan on doing no evil in search, they also plan on doing no evil financially (i.e. maximizing current profit over long term). Certainly, it would NOT maximize shareholder value in the long run to 'do evil'.
The most successful companies in history have had similiar policies. For example, Wal-Mart has always advocated continually dropping prices, regardless of current profit maximization. In the long term, this maximizes profits by keeping their market penetration and fostering a culture of cost-cutting.
It *is* the point. Yeah, no one is going to point a gun at Google execs and force them to interview, but no one is claiming that.
The point is, Google is throwing a hissy-fit after someone demonstrated how their own service "invaded" their CEO's privacy. It's an excellent article, and an excellent example. Google is being completely asinine about it, which is very amusing.
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
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.