Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Blacklists CNet Reporters

Posted by Zonk on from the no-talkie dept.

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."

7 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Google should be proud by TurdTapper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  2. What's Good for the Goose? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. This is a good thing. by mrRay720 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:This is a good thing. by eander315 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's big talk coming from someone who has 1800+ posts and an active journal.

  4. How is this "censorship"? by Percent+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Oh the Irony by cloudness+is+x · · Score: 5, Funny

    Article's pulled off, so here's the Google cache.

  6. It's time for Google to boycott Slashdot by Everyman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
    http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg

    Sergey in drag:
    http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.j pg

    Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
    http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jpg

    Larry on a Segway:
    http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g0681 .jpg

    Eric's house:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Athert on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en

    Google outs Valerie Plame:
    http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. 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