Slashdot Mirror
ZDNet UK Begs for Google's Forgiveness
prostoalex writes "In light of the recent CNet ban by Google folks at ZDNet UK are now not sure whether they will get the same treatment, being a CNet company. But, just in case, they apologize profusely: 'Acting under the mistaken impression that Google's search engine was intended to help research public data, we have in the past enthusiastically abused the system to conduct exactly the kind of journalism that Google finds so objectionable. Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts, let alone in capriciously using them to illustrate areas of concern. We apologise unreservedly, and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role just as soon as it feels capable of communicating to us how it wishes that role to be seen.'"
I can't help but think that the people at Google would be able to find the sarcasm dripping from ZDNet UK's "apology" insightful, funny, and apropos, perhaps enough so that they'll lovingly buy them out and fire them all.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Ok, here's the thing. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. Geeks, and it appears ZDNet UK journalists, think that because something's "cool", it's good, regardless of the use.
To use an extreme example (which happens to also be illegal, but being immoral doesn't always imply being illegal), it's not a reasonable thing for me to do to shoot the CEO of Smith & Wesson. Yes, I can use his gun to do that. People do use Smith & Wesson's guns to shoot people, legally and illegally. Smith & Wesson makes a substantial profit from people who use their products to shoot people. However, just as the founders of Google wouldn't advocate using their system to look up personal details about someone for malice, profit, or to invade their privacy, I seriously doubt the founders of Smith & Wesson particularly like the notion of protection racketeers using S&W guns to shoot shop owners or advocate it. There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of Smith and Wesson guns. There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of Google. Some of the former include shooting in self defense. Some of the latter includes looking up some private information because you need it.
Yes I can look up many of Google's founder's "private" information via their own search engine. But while I may do so, I can have legitimate and illegitimate reasons for doing so. Legitimate reasons include trying to get a phone number for an old friend (in a world where Google's founder is a friend of mine); illegitimate reasons include gratuitously drawing the attention of thousands of people to information that reasonably should be considered private, whether it happens to be publically available or not. If CNet had a story about how Google's founder was fighting an attempt to build a mall near his home, it might have been reasonable to include the name of the street he lives upon, because that's relevent too. But this?
I know many people will respond with "Well I can do it, so it's ok, because if it's possible to find out, it's public, and there's no difference between information being buried in the net and it being collected in one place and published as a news story". No, it isn't ok and yes there is a difference. That's the point. The chances are most of you wouldn't know any of this if CNET hadn't published it because you'd never have bothered to find it out. And the net doesn't change much. Anyone who knows my real name can probably Google enough to find out private information to the level of home address, my previous addresses, my telephone numbers, my friends, family, my interests, the music I love, and even my sexual fetishes. However, this information could also be extracted by an investigator using perfectly normal leg work and without any attempts to deceive anyone. Would that justify someone posting the information in my local newspaper, simply because it's out there and possible to find?
The fact some people do not subscribe to the notion of there being a reasonable expectation of privacy does not mean that people should just blast out personal facts about others willy nilly, solicited or unsolicited. There's such a thing as personal responsibility. You have rights, but you also have moral obligations. We see technologies routinely end up crippled or even banned because some idiot decides that laws usually applied to two year olds ("If I can see it, it's mine.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Acting under the mistaken impression that Google's search engine was intended to help research public data, we have in the past enthusiastically abused the system to conduct exactly the kind of journalism that Google finds so objectionable.
:-)
Just a bit...I sure Google will find a lot of humor in this.
I think this is the first time I've wanted to mod a story up for sarcasm.
Incidentally, "Oh, snap. No they dih-ent."
Dear Google:
we're sorry that you suck.
-ZDNet
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Comic Book Guy: Oh, that's usefull.
Actually, though, quite a good reply on ZD's part. It gave me a laugh, anyways.
Sweet informative mod.
Communicating, or changing peoples' perceptions? Which is it?
The submitter's sarcasm detector looks like it's woefully inadequate.
ZDNet's response is exactly the sort of self-referential, smartass, meaningless bullshit that you'd expect from "edgy" (i.e. shitty) campus journalism, not a mainstream news provider.
That is some solid gold right there! I imagine the Comic Book Guys/Google Fanboys among us are dealing with quite the dilemma right now!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
See what happens when you try to learn a second language by reading Slashdot and k5 threads, kids?...
and of course all of that sarcasm was very well placed.
Google is clearly in the wrong here. Yea it is disconcerning to know that info.
With my first roomate at college I found where he lived with his telephone number, right down to what house he lived at.
Even though the university sent me his old number and no longer lived there. He was still somewhat spooked when I gave him directions from main street.
It is an old problem with gods - you don't know what they want..
Oh wait, we have money now! heh heh heh...
Agile Artisans
I'm really starting to get annoyed with news.com trying to seem like a victim here. Two things in particular occur to me.
1) We all know you can find a lot of information on the net if you really search for it. That doesn't mean if you search around for all the information you can find about a particular person, and then slap it on the front page of a huge news site, without giving them advance notice, or asking their opinion in any way, they aren't going to get annoyed. Of course, it's still legal to do so, and Google and Eric know that. But it might have been decent to ask first.
2) Google isn't banning news.com or anyone else from talking about Google, or using Google. They are just saying that they pissed them off, so they aren't going to talk to them. Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them? Does the press have some right to get all their questions answered by whoever they like?
I imagine it's possible Google might have let this slip after a while, espically with a brief apology.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Wow. Just Wow.
Were you juggling seals, while riding a unicycle over a cobbled street while you wrote that?
You went to the effort of providing a response, next time try that extra step, provide a readable response.
Punishing a media outlet for publishing freely available non-sensitive information sets a very bad precedent. Imagine if the government could get away with that. My feeling is that Google got far too used to the press eating up their every action and was shocked - shocked - when someone had a criticism. Perhaps their corporate philosophy needs to be broadened into "Do no evil, and don't pander to your inner brat." It's good that the folks at ZDNet aren't sucking up to Google. On the other hand, they might be provoking a playground brawl.
Is now gone. This is a childish and smarmy move I did not expect from any organization claiming to have integrity. The Internet is not a middle school playground, ZDnet. You won't look "cool" by doing this except to people that were already on your side.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
That's perfect. It is a bad sign about Google's corporate culture that, as a search engine company with ad revenue, they don't think people should be able to find the information the search engine provides.
*is run over by rotten tomatoes*
http://worldwithoutsecrets.gartner.com/section.php .id.49.s.1.jsp
Goo-gle Yubari: You call that begging? You can beg better than that.
"Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts..."
BUUUUURN.
Actually, this reminds me of a story I read on LiveJournal (flame suit engaged.) Someone's account was deleted because they posted someone's home address without their permission. Funny thing was, the guy's address was readily available on his own web site. Nevertheless, the poster's account was terminated, and he was told that he had violated the TOS for LiveJournal. (He also wasn't refunded the fee for his paid account.)
Found it! Where's Meta?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
if you're blaming cnet for this then why not blame google ten times over? their google cache is a publication of soooooo much personal information, even after a person deletes it from the original page.
"Four legs good, two legs bad".
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
In certain country legal areas you cannto publish
Yeah, and it was illegal to fly a kite in Afghanistan, (Well, at least until late Sept 2001) whats your point?
you un-repentant piece of MS 'dog sh**
Um, why is MS in here?
Have you thought about getting the help you need?
But did anyone catch that Eric Schmitt's email address is EricSchmidt1@yahoo.com?
Check for yourself.
Say what you will about the guy, but he's got a sense of humor.
I think every reporting organisation should line up one after the next and ask the same question until they are all 'banned'. if google put the information out there in public then cnet have the right to publish it. googles attitude is just plain childish. Dean
Why do I get the image of the Google CEO hanging the ZDNet CEO out of a window by his legs (ala Fish Called Wanda) while reading that apology?
This reminds me of something I read a while back. The US Congress getting pissed because someone posted their social security numbers on his website. Seems that they consider that information to be private, yet used it as ID on their records, which are publically available. Can't find the link at the moment unfortunately. If Google doesn't want people looking up certain information, I'm certain with their abilities they can filter it out easily. Then again, it's always been easier to shoot the messenger, rather than hide the data.
They forgot the sarcasm tags.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You should know Google has no obligation whatsoever to even give you the OPPORTUNITY to ask it questions, much les answer them. Any company you ask qeustions to is giving you the PRIVILEGE of answering them.
CNET (and ONLY CNET) lost that privilege with Google by outright attacking them, and no amount of rhetorical bitching about freedom of speech and the important of the press is going to change the facts that 1)they deserve it and 2)Google has not done anything evil here.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
C'mon. The owner is just punishing another company for doing something CLEARLY and personally objectionable, and they're hiding behind the "oh, but you're this great big public good company, you should have stances we can follow, etc!"
This isn't some kind of ideology game. ZDNet got taken to task for being dicks. We ought to recognize them as such.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Welcome to freedom of speech, sometimes people say things you don't like. Google should have responded to the story with an *answer* not an *attack*.
"Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them?"
Because Eric isn't Google and Google has a legal duty to dislcose, not disclose through 'rose-coloured-reporters' only.
"I imagine it's possible Google might have let this slip after a while, espically with a brief apology."
Apology? For what? The article was spot on he had every right to say it and should not fear retribution from companies because of what he reports about them.
They're not begging for forgiveness guys, they're being sarcastic.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
I think I've read that speech before, I think it was in a leaked memo from ZDNet to Microsoft.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
ZDNet seems to have some sort of ethical mental block virus spreading through their staff. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you don't get the difference between having access to information about a person from various sources and taking that information and making someone a target by singling them out then I would say you have real problems. How about I take pictures of your kids playing in a public playground and publish them in a forum known to be frequented by pedophiles along with your address? I could but I wouldn't.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
That's not an apology but a slap to their face. But poooor cnet...
mix_master_mike
vafrous
Most of the links CNET posted (7 out of 9) were links to press releases and news articles and only 1 link might be construed as being the least bit intrusive. The links consisted of:
- Schmidt's own homepage. Ok, not a news source, but come on, anything there was put there by Schmidt himself.
- An article on Forbes.com about tech. CEOs
- A post-IPO report at RedHerring.com
- A list of insider trades on GOOG at Quote.com (actually published by the SEC and available on a variety of financial information sources)
- An article in the AlmanacNews (Menlo Park local paper)
- A CNN article on Schmidt holding a Gore fund raiser in his home
- A blog that cites a New York Times article
- A press release about Schmidt giving a talk at Xerox PARC
- And, the only link that is even possibly prying: FundRace.com, a site that tracks campaign contributions.
I would maintain that neither CNET nor Google broke any laws. Both publish links to public information. If there is an issue with illegally publishing an address or other personal information, it lies with the original publisher. But it would probably look bad if Google tried to quash CNN or the NY Times. So, CNET takes the heat.Leaves everyone blind. Not my quote, but it fits perfectly here.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I agree with those who see Google having the right to not talk to whomever they choose.
In Canada during a Telco labor dispute the company removed access to a site that displayed information they found objectionable. As the owner the ISP they had the power to do so, but did they have the right? Should they have contacted the site owner first state their intentions.
If you put garbage out on the sidewalk in most areas it is then considered public. Is it right for someone to route through this "public" information and post this somewhere. Even though it may be deemed public, we have an expectation of privacy! Yes it can be found, no it is not alright to group it all together in one esy package for everyone to see.
If CNet had done the article in a manner to show what information could be found about themself this would not have been an issue, but I note that personal information about the authors was not provided, likely due to their expectation of privacy!
Am I the only one that thinks Googles decision not to talk with CNET has more to do with the paranoid nature of the article than it actual revelation of public information about Erich Schmidt.
The article basically accuses Google of deliberately trying to collect information on it users with such privacy invading techniques as "using cookies" and "offering free webmail".
No seriously, read the original article if you haven't. It's not just the singling out of the CEO that prompted Google's reaction it's entire article, and it's probably in Google's best interest not to talk to them, because it's pretty clear anything they say will be used against them in the court of public opinion.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Dear ZDnet UK
We had completely forgotten you guys were over there. Thank you very much for bringing yourselves to our attention!
Sincerely,
The Google Team
*click (the sound of enacting a non-evil ban)*
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
That's how MOST stories work, especially if the company doesn't believe it will get a fair reporting of their side.
The problem here is that CNet used absolutely no self restraint in order to write an alarmist peice that Google can't personally do much about. What did they expect Google to do, filter out all numbers?
Google decided that CNet was reactionary and alarmist and no longer feels giving CNet interviews is worth their employees time because they no longer trust CNet to be impartial.
I'd have personally found out if my lawyers could make a decent case for cyber stalking. Just because peices of information are available doesn't make it okay to painstaking persue them and publish them, unmasked, in a collection for the world to see, and especially doesn't mean there's anything Google can do about it.
This is exactly the same story as when people sue Google because you an use Google to find something proprietary to them. In those cases, the general oppinion seems to be that it's not Googles fault that information is available. What this reporter did, is say that because it's available he should be able to disclose anything he can dig up about Google's founder and publish it, knowing there's nothing Google's founder can do about it anyway.
The reporter was an ass, and handled it in the most biased, reactionary, luddite way possible. I wouldn't deal with them anymore either.
Never confuse volume with power.
Most people picked up on the sarcasm in ZDNet's response, though it seemed to escape the story's submitter. After looking at the submitter's site it appears that english is not his native language (go to the root level, above the blog). As good as his english is, I guess sarcasm is a subtlety that is perhaps only heard by native or long-time speakers.
This is not a knock on the submitter; I just find it interesting. Children below a certain age can't pick up on sarcasm either (something I've noticed in my own kids when they were younger).
Your point about the proper spelling of 'useful' is well taken. Likewise, one might also say it's 'useful' to spend one's time doing something more constructive that nit-picking the spelling prowess of others.
But hey, if that's your thing . . .
Sweet informative mod.
"Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should"
Sigh. I guess you're either sarcastic or dense. I'll proceed as if you're dense.
The point wasn't to expose personal information. Neither was the point to show that personal information can be gleaned from the internet.
There are a couple points, and I guess I need to spell them out:
1) Google has a lot of information on each of us.
2) Google has been profiling people who use their system
3) Google won't tell us how or why
4) [Google won't even tell us why they're worth their own stock valuation ferchrissakes]
5) Therefore, lets force the issue as good journalists should do and make Google say something.
6) Google isn't pissed because C/Net made some *PUBLIC* information available
7) Google is pissed because the journalist is raising a good issue about Google's treatment of personal information
8) Information that Google should be willing to answer
Look sport, I like google too, but they're being *ssholes in this case. And so they should be mocked and ridiculed.
I have no clue what the bruhaha is all about, but the CNet response isn't an apology at all. In fact, it's the most tongue-in-cheek mildly insulting purposely crafted response I've ever seen at saying Google needs to grow up (or something), or suck it up, or just cope (one of those). It looks like CNet is trolling Google.
Unless the topic title 'begs for forgiveness' is meant also in some tongue-in-cheek and not so subtle ironic way as well, the reply is actually quite spiteful.
Google's reply: /mode #google +b *!*@*zdnet* /mode #google +b *!*@*cnet*
diegoT
... or does ZDNet's 'apology' sound a little tongue-in-cheek to anyone else? I mean, Google's function is 'to help research public data.'
Not that I could blame ZDNet for being a little sore over being bent over for knowing how to use their resources. I guess that brain drain has had the side effect of creating a company full of power-hungry twits who can't take a little abuse. Eh?
This is supposed to be an apology? That's like rubbing salt into the wound before you put a band-aid on it.
Just read what they have to say...
Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts [from Google].
Translation: Google handed us the knife. Then, we stabbed Google. Who's committed the sin? The knife.
Google UK has told us that we'll have to talk to Google US to find out whether we too have fallen under the writ of excommunication. As we share all information with our American brethren it is hard to see how it could be any other way, but we humbly await news of our fate.
Translation: since Google now has as much power as the Pope, we can only ask for its blessing, though this is difficult, considering that the Vatican (aka Mountain View, CA) is so far away.
Google UK's inability to explain the local implications of the decision could be read as the results of an angry, irrational action dictated in isolation from the top of a large and disparate organization.
We asked our church here in the UK whether we have committed sin. They don't know, because the Vatican (aka Mountain View, CA) defines sin for them. Perhaps the Church is flawed.
And forgive us too for any effect Google's righteous wrath will have on our coverage of issues affecting the company.
Translation: We have just committed blasphemy against the Church, we know that we shall incur the wrath of God! Run away, less you be turned to a pillar of salt!
It's wrong. Don't do it. Google says so.
Translation: In the end, don't mess with the Pope, because we all need his blessing to get to Heaven.
... they are missing the point, the point is not that there is no place for using Google in research for stories, Google is just pissed that personal information about their CEO was disseminated. They wouldn't care if you used Yahoo to get it, or MSN even.
-everphilski-
The sarcasm is obscurring a real threat: "and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role" Google tends towards arrogance when working with non-techies. For example, Wall Street, Regulators and now The Press. Whether or not the institutions deserve the slap I think it not wise to annoy them. I think it was Napoleon that said he would rather face a squandron of Lancers than an angry press.
I love this kind of letter. It is politely contrite and conciliatory while spelling out FUCK YOU in huge flaming letters. I don't get angry enough to send them very often, but I surely enjoy it when I do. It was really good to see one like this publically published, particularly in this whole noxious mess.
Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
Can I mod the article +1 Funny?
-Daniel
KD5UZZ
www.w5yj.org
In general, in journalism, if you depend on a source for news and interviews, pissing them off is a really bad idea. Most journalists learn this in school, CNet just had to learn the hard way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The genie is out of the proverbial bottle and we all have lost some of our privacy as a side effect of personal/private information being made easier to obtain.
So long as the private information published is true there is not anything that anyone can do about it (the truth is the ultimate defense in slander/libel cases). The best one can do is to shame the publishers of so-called private information into a cease and decist mode.
However, like spammers, there will be some that refrain from such 'illegitimate' uses, and many more that will not (with most shielding themselves from being labeled as the source/publisher of the data-mined information).
Your "murder by Smith and Wesson" metaphor is both extreme and ridiculous.
It is also extreme and ridiculous to suggest that ZDNet is staffed by children or sociopaths.
What the ZDNet reporter has done is to report publically available facts in a story. The facts were not unusual or disturbing facts.
The irony is that Google was the means of access to these facts. The reporter might just as well have used a different means to verify these facts.
Had the reporter done so, would Google have also punished people who corroborated facts, telephone companies whose line were used, printers of financial reports, the legislature for its disclosure laws, and so on?
The reporter may be a bad reporter. But Google is acting hypocritically.
Mr Schmidt might not like being talked about. But he is at the top of an important company.
It is Google's right to be hypocritical. But this contradicts the Google motto, "Don't Be Evil."
The fact that a company with so much influence over Internet users has a deteriorating ethical compass is disturbing.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
WHen a (SCO-shill) reporter published info about the woman that runs Groklaw, everybody slammed the reporter... now that someone is doing the same thing to Google, they're slamming Google for their response...
:)
Wow... I know this is Slashdot, but the triple-standards still surprise me.
(Yes, I know the Groklaw story was a more personal and unwarranted attack thank the Google one)
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Take them off Google search results.
Actually this would be a bad precedent, but truthfully, all the webmasters out there know how damaging this would be.
If you don't want it cached include a robots.txt and google won't cache it.
The real problem isn't google the problem is people who publish information on the web that shouldn't be there. Google's job is to search web pages and they are being trashed for doing a good job.
Seems more passive-aggressive than it does apologetic!
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
that Google isn't talking to ZDNet. ZDNet will be waiting a long time for the reply.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Is it just me, or does this "apology" seem more like a thinly-veiled snide remark? Especially this part: "Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts."
Sounds to me to be more of a "hey, Google, you can stuff it" than an apology.
Information may be public, but publishing an article with personal information about a CEO in this manner is kind of rude... so to have Google then refuse to deal withe the news agency in question is no surprise.
If a paper published my name and address and whatnot and I wasn't expecting it, I'd probably not speak to them in the future, either.
what is the big deal.
one of the company execs got mad about something and doesnt want anyone discussing things with anothr company.
can anyone else say big fucking deal.
Now, is the fact that CNet is supposedly small fry justification for people not caring about a much larger, much more influencial company shutting them out?
Seems we have our own double standard here on /. to discuss.
Method of processing duck feet
I had originally meant it to be just two, but there are so many legitimate issues that I had to type them all.
I mean, since the guy seems to be an asshat.
You mean public information like this.
Mark Murphy
1710 MacArthur Road, PMB #108
Whitehall, PA 18052
Business Phone: 888-297-6959
Home Phone: 610 435 4569
Fax: 888-297-6959
Please don't call me. I am just trying to prove a point.
Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't give you the right. ZDNet went too far in delivering its message. Sure, they could have gone further, but that might have been criminal, or at least made them liable for some kind of damages in a civil court. Google's response was perfectly rational. Who WOULD bother to talk to someone personally attacking them? Noone, except for the purpose of firing back.
Journalists so often act without thinking, because they don't have time to think. It's all about getting that scoop, beating everyone else to the "story." So often they get it completely wrong because of that.
So much of our "news" these days is the shit that should be relegated to tabloids.
Let me know when there's some actually decent investigative journalism going on again in the world. I hate blogs/bloggers because they are full of unsubstantiated bullshit. Journalistst, however, are no different these days. Have some fucking integrity...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Eric is a hypocrite, he's never come out on the side of privacy, taken no steps about privacy and yet objects when his own privacy is invaded.
He is in the position to do something, his response is to attack the messenger. Well fuck you Evil Eric.
Seems to me with all the "quality" tech journalism that comes from and has come from ZDNet to date shows that they've not a single clue.
This cute little stunt just simply adds another log to the fire...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
who saw the sarcasm in that announcement?
Guess so....
Mark
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
These posts all seem to imply that Google/Google's CEO is hypocritical. The post all SEEM to imply that Google is collecting information on everyone which it's not.
The problem here is that the information SOURCES that Google uses are too public. If you use Google to look up Tax Records and get personal information, it's not Google's fault, it's the Tax Office's!
I didn't see the Cnet article but, IF the article meant to imply how bad Google was for making everyone's info public, then Cnet is in the wrong.
Google has just made it easier to find stuff that has always been available.
Cnet is right about how scary the information available is and Google is just a tool to get it. The real problem is the SOURCES of the information.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
That step was to use Google's CEO as the example. Whether or not you can find information on Eric Schmidt is NOT the story from a journalism perspective. The news story is how easy it is to find personal information on the Web using search engines. And this is a well-trod story, so it's ongoing coverage, not a breaking story. It calls for a feature treatment.
If written for a public audience, a proper feature treatment illustrates the story with examples gleaned from the general public. By focusing on Google and Google's CEO, this is clearly written to get the attention of Google, NOT as a general news article.
Journalistically, this was a crappy article--poor idea, poor execution. It clearly was written to generate controversy and get under Google's skin. The writer probably thought they were being edgy and in-your-face--demonstrating their journalistic cojones by sticking it to a well-known powerful company.
Well, that's a great attitude for a journalist, but it only works if you're breaking a story. In this case, the story offers no new information or no new angle. Really, no one is surprised that the author was able to find so much info about Eric Schmidt--it's old news. So it's really just what the old-school guys call a hatchet job. The only reason it's gotten any play at all is because of Google's response, not the story itself.
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.
Google doesn't "publish" crap. They provide links to the people who actually do publish it. Why do people have a hard time understanding what a search engine is?
Find the sons of bitches who actually put your personal information on the web and get pissed at them, don't get pissed at the medium.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The information in this article is nothing compared to amount of information you can learn by reading your favorite weekly tabloid. Why is it that some people get so upset when a business person gets the star treatment? After all, they are the stars of the business world.
I want to know who Larry Page is dating and about his oriental-girl fetish, whether or not Bill Gates cheats on his wife, who Larry Ellison's latest gay lover is, the plans for Steve Job's wedding, the designer Eric Schmidt used for his summer mansion, etc.
Seriously, they are the truly rich and famous. I think I spot an under-served market here!
It it were a US company, not only would they be piddling themselves, the apology would be genuine (it would seem so, anyway) and would not be a well worded. And yes, I'm a US citizen. I love British use of language sometimes! :)
The info that O'Gara published about "PJ" was not publically availuble on Google. C|Net didn't sit outside Google's CEOs house and take pictures either. There is a big big difference.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
> Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts
Yes, I've always felt that "readily available facts" have absolutely no place in modern reporting.
And of course we all know how dangerous it is to allow "unregulated, unprotected access" to facts.
We should scream about the White House press corps - although I don't think we do it nearly enough. Because the fundamental core of democracy is that everyone needs unfettered access.
The government has an obligation to disclose as much information as possible and not to lie about it. An obligation they don't take seriously.
Google, on the other hand, is a publicly held corporation. They have specific reporting requirements to shareholders and the SEC, but none to the press. Smart investors should read the actual filings and not necessarily trust 3rd party analysis without cause. Talking to reporters is something Google does because it is good for Google.
Please note that Google did NOT ban CNET from search or change the rankings of CNET in google or google news. Google did not try to sue them.
Google simply said they would not talk to CNET reporters. That's EXACTLY the punishment that befits writing an article a company doesn't like - that they'll find someone else to give their press releases to.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
This whole "children's fight" as many are calling it, isnt as petty as you all seem to believe. As stated above, Cnet had the right to publish those facts, they have the same rigth to publish any info they can find about anyone they want. But let me ask you this, wouldnt you be mad if they decided to report about you and list all police files involving you (even as a bystander), your driving record, your address(es) your phone numbers, employment history ect ect...
Would you be happy? I doubt it, would you stop talking to the guys who did it? Probobly. That too is within your rights just like Google. Is it the adult thing to do? No, but maybe justified.
How is google in the wrong for not talking to people who publish "personal" info, no matter how they got it.
The media in general seems to have lost its sense of responsibility so I cant blame Cnet alone, but at what point do they take responsibility for changing peoples lives. Just because something can be done...and can be done legally, doesnt make it right or justified.
Am I the only one who instantly thought of Marc Antony's "Honorable Men" speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caeser? I think this "apology" is a brilliant example of modern satire.
For those that haven't read the speech, go here and read it, starting on line 83. It begins with "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears." I think you'll find that it's very similar in style to the ZDNet "apology."
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
ZDNet UK, my hat goes off to you. That has to be one of the best examples of rhetoric sarcasm I've seen in a company response in a long time! Nice middle finger up to Google, lol.
And here I thought companies didn't know how to be so slick.
I understand that the reporters were trying to prove a point in their article. However, why didn't they just do like other reporters have done in the past - use themselves as an example. Why risk the potential fall out. Additionally, while google might make this easier to do don't we have the same capabilities using the phone book or just basic offline tools? Or is the whole point to show how easy it is?
There was nothing in the Cnet report that isn't public information anyway, no matter *where* the reporter found it.
I was especially interested in the man's stock sales of his own company. If google stock hasn't anywhere to go but onward and upward, why is the CEO selling ANY of his company's stock so soon after IPO. What, he's a little short on the mortgage that month? Needs to pay the rent?
I'm a little surprised that the techie world have largely, up to now, have had such a romance with google when they are clearly another techie "hype-stock" in which small investors (including geeks who read things like slashdot) are fleeced by larger financial institutions and the execs of the company.
I truely would like to know who is buying google at the current price. They are a SOFTWARE company, haven't we learned anything from the recent boom and bust? Rule one would probably be something along the lines of: GOOD companies don't really NEED to go public AT ALL!
end-of-rant-that-restates-the-horribly-obvious
Also posted on the story's comments page
Congratulations - with your unrepentant attitude and sophomoric sarcasm you've clearly identified yourselves as the bad guys here.
The original article buried what should have been two interesting cautionery stories (about the information trails we leave behind us and Google's questionable data retention policies) under a mountain of unnecessary privacy-invasion and cheap personal shots. It was utterly unnecessary (and you had no right) to explictiely identify the person you'd researched, and selecting Google's CEO was a blatant attack both on his person and the company, making it very obvious the author had some kind of axe to grind.
A professional journalist, acting with integrity, would either have anonymised the person but reported a frightening selection of facts about them or "objectively" researched their own (or a colleague's) life. They would certainly have asked permission before publicly holding anyone up to such unwanted scrutiny.
Simply because the information is out there, that doesn't justify publicising it. Light is constantly bouncing off your body when you're at home, but that wouldn't justify poking a camera through the blinds and taking naked photos of the "journalist" who caused this furore, would it?
Granted, Google appears to have over-reacted in blacklisting CNet for a year, but it was both the journalist *and* CNet the company who allowed this hatchet-job to be posted to the site, and since you've left yourself open to lawsuits for such blatant and deliberate infringement of privacy I'd say you got off lightly.
With this childish attempt at getting one more dig in you demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is more about a personal vendetta against Google, and not (as you will no doubt claim) reporting in the public interest.
This is doubly uncalled-for, because Google themselves are the ones making this information available. Unless you are seriously arguing for the abolishment of all search engines (which would pretty much render the web useless), it should be obvious to all that the onus is on the user to use their service responsibly. Congratulations - you are the first entity to publicly prove that you can't.
In addition, your sensationalist methods have quite obscured the *important* parts of this debate - how to deal with the increasing transparency of an information society, and Google's data retention policies. If you were trying to make any point at all in the public interest, you have therefore failed miserably.
You should know that this pathetic display has quite turned around my opinion of the integrity and professionalism of ZDNet and CNet both, and I will no longer be using your websites or purchasing your publications in any form.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
sweet jesus, folks. Google's totally within their rights, and I'd do the same thing in their place. CNet put some very personal information on a public site--yes, it can be done. yes, it's (probably, cyberstalking aside) legal. but that doesn't mean it shows any discretion or tact, which reporters are generally expected to display. Even if we don't assume that:
Reporters are not *entitled* to be told anything, and if a reporter (or group of reporters, as in this case) proves themselves hostile, juvenile and indiscreet, I wouldn't talk to them for my own good--and I'd expect that as an intelligent group of folks, Google wouldn't either. Google isn't decrying the free availability of information--to think that is absurd. they're decrying the irresponsible and vindictive use of it on a highly public website, and they're protecting themselves from a group of people who are clearly hostile to them.
The totally unprofessional, absurd ZDNet UK piece only confirms the bullshit-ness of the ZDNet position. They were tools, they were unreasonable, they were below the belt, they got burned, and now they're pissed and they complain to the world in the most juvenile tones possible. Amazing. It's like listening to a two-year old with an ego.
We apologise unreservedly, and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role just as soon as it feels capable of communicating to us how it wishes that role to be seen. To me this is just a scary thing to read. Had this involved Microsoft they'd be up in front of a Senate committee by the end of the week. Google has the ability to not only do what they want but have the press say what they want.
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
I'd mod the parent funny but it's probably true......
It's just a little lover's spat... They'll kiss and make up...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The only thing that would make this whole article about collecting of personal info any funnier would be if it was posted in the NY Times(free registration required).
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
but... Maybe it would have been better if the report had shown the reporters own information. I totally agree with Googles actions in this case, with one exception. I dont think they would have done this to a news group if they had used google to report on someone elses information (aka not googles CEO). I guess what I am saying is that if google finds someone abusing the service (which this was in my opion) they are totally in the right to stop providing service (which is free by the way) to that person(s). But if they are going to take the high ground and be proactive I want them to ban the local news station if they were to post my information. Not being the CEO of Google I have a felling my request would fall on deaf ears.
No scoop for you, one year!
http://www.realmeme.com/Main/savinggoogle/index.js p
You seem to be missing the fundamental point that most of the information in question came from Google itself. No, the information came from websites that Google accesses in an automated manner. Just as any other search engine does. CNet's story was just another example of the "gotcha" journalism that seems to be so in vogue these days. Rather than focusing on Google and publishing the address of its CEO, to illustrate the same point, all the author of the story had to do was find out what information a number of search engines had about him, instead of somebody else.
Ridiculous. The mod bias in this topic is bewildering. (uh oh, I mentionned the "m" word. This will quickly become -3 troll)
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
NT
Truthfully, I don't know much about CNet UK, but here in America, CNet borderlines on Tech sensationalism at times. Yes, it's only on occasion, but those occasions are often enough to annoy me. If CNet would stop trying to make their article titles +1 Flamebait just to get you to read them, maybe I'd take their opinions on Google more seriously.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
"Reporters get thrown out of press conferences all the time for being obnoxious & no one complains."
The first part is an exageration, and the last part isn't true. At the very least, the reporter in question often complains.
(His press-agency often complains too. As sometimes others that are worried about journalistic integrity or who see the role of a reporter as more then just slavishly repeating the official stance.)
One should love google for the things they do that are good&cool, but it doesn't mean they are above criticism.
If Cnet got the info from publically accessable data (found by google itself, even), there is really no reason why google should put up a tantrum.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We provide a service, and have a mission.
We believe in freedom of information.
Our mission is to collect and index all the public information in the world, and make it available to everyone, irrespective of race, gender, religion or level of affluence. We see access to information as the great leveller, eroding the boundries between the haves and the have-nots and promoting a more egalitarian and just society. Because of this we do not charge for this service, nor even offer a "premium" version with additional benefits.
We believe in an open, transparent and democratic society, and believe that the best way to achieve this is to maximise the free flow of information.
Obviously nothing is black-and-white, and obviously there are limits - we believe in the freedom of speech, but that does not include the freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. Or at least, not the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre and then demand praise or accolades, or even co-operation, from the people you have hurt or needlessly inconvenienced.
Although we promote freedom of information, as this example shows it does come with a price. That price is personal responsibility.
We support the possession of knives for eating, but it is well understood that this presupposes a level of responsibility that means everyone isn't going to rush out and stab the first person who irritates them. Sure, there are always a few people who'll abuse the privilege, but as long as society punishes them for their transgressions and doesn't mistake the potential for incitement, on balance knives make society "better" - we can eat meat, develop table-manners and hey, we don't have to live exclusively on gruel.
Broadly, we provide the service in an attempt to make life better, and because we believe it aids and improves society. It's very useful, and has substantial legitimate uses, but it's up to you to use it responsibly, and up to you to censure people who use it irresponsibly or try to take advantage of it.
You know as well as we do that the web woudln't function without us and others like us, so if you disapprove of what we're doing that's fine, but be prepared to give up the entire future of computing, information technology and knowledge management, and be prepared to slow the development of our culture as a whole.
Your call.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
You are hereby banned and blacklisted for 2 years !
Regards,
Eric E. Schmidt
Google Inc.
These guys gave up any semblance of professionalism years ago.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That has to be a fundamental priniciple of morality in any system that believes that people are equal in fundamental dignity and value.
The original article was on Google's potential use as a tool for ferreting out "private" information. Hence, Mr. Schmidt's "private" information would seem to be relevant as a compelling example of the problem.
OK, lets apply the goose-sauce principle to this situation. Clearly, there's a public benefit to talking about this. There's also a specific cost borne by one person. How do we know the cost is offset by the benefit?
Simple. If you are the journalist writing this article, you use yourself as the example. Or, if you aren't juicy enough to have a nice fat Google profile, choose your editor, or the CEO of your employer. If the thought horrifies you -- well then the thought of doing it to somebody you don't know should too.
Right and wrong in the real world isn't just about principles -- it's about consequences, beneficial and harmful. The problem is that we are good judges of consequences we bear ourselves, but poor judges of consequences borne by others. So, if we benefit from an action, and somebody else pays, there's a natural tendency to discount the costs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Another highly recommended book on this topic is The Transparent Society, by David Brin. (Yes, the same David Brin who write sci fi.)
Honestly, because of the reason for the article, I found it to be clever and find google's actions to be at best hypocritical.
Just another reason to switch to Yahoo search. Google is too big for their britches.
Mark
Actually, the Federal Election Comission reports all donations over $200, and is required to do so by law. FundRace.org is therefore just using another source of public info.
I agree with you; Google needs to lighten up. I think the article was well-done and makes its point effectively. The fact that Google doesn't like that point doesn't change its validity.
Well, now they've appologised I'm SURE Google will be fine with them!
Damn, I still can't reach the level of sarcasm required to write for ZDNet.
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll, I'm just a fucking idiot.
"The original article buried what should have been two interesting cautionery stories"
Except that Eric E. Schmidt is the CEO of the search engine they used. If he clearly wants privacy and can't have it, then what chance the rest of us - who are not the CEO of Google? A story about anyone else other than the CEO of the major search engine wouldn't have illustrated that point! None of us can simply go to Google engineers and ask them to remove the information.
The AC is making a good point. A search engine indexes ALREADY publicly available information.
Yeah, because it's Google that needs to be taken down a peg, not the bastion of journalistic integrity that is ZDNet.
"Whether or not you can find information on Eric Schmidt is NOT the story from a journalism perspective. The news story is how easy it is to find personal information on the Web using search engines."
No, using Eric Schmidt's search engine against Eric Schmidt privacy. The story only works if they chose Eric.
He response is to blacklist CNET, CNET have the right to call him for this bullshit.
and the sound of slurping can be heard from the backrooms at Google's HQ when ZDNet visits.
Terminator: "Sarah Connor?"
Sarah Connor: "Yes?"
Cue "red dot laser sight" synthesizer music.
*boooom*
body massage!
There's a difference between doing something and being able to do it, though. The ability to somebody to use google to get "information X" is a little different than somebody going to the trouble of using it to track down "nasty information Y"
My local Telco has a reverse lookup online. Certainly you could use this to get a person's address etc and use it for nefarious purposes... but does that make the tool or the intention evil. You can be sure that if I used it to look up person X and plastered it on a news article the tool would look bad, despite it being a rather general and in many cases useful tool.
On the other hand, if there is anything Google can do to prevent this sort of data aggregation, they probably should. Public information should be libre, but making it non-gratis would provide a disincentive to aggregate. Google could try to figure out if the web page they're spidering contains sensitive personal information, and then not indexing it. That still leaves them with the problem of what is and is not sensitive (telephone number? address? mother's maiden name?). It also wouldn't prevent the CNets of the world from doing the aggregation, but it would make it a lot harder for them, and it would prevent embarrassment to the company president.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
They said no.
Google currently indexes 8,168,684,336 web pages. If they hired 1,000 people to check web pages for personal information, and each person worked 7 days a week and could check 1,000 pages a day, it would take 22 years to go over today's snapshot of the web.
Yes, there are some things they could probably filter out automatically, such as SSNs and credit card numbers. But addresses and phone numbers? It would be difficult even for a human to know whether the owner of the information wanted it to be public or private.
Personally, I like the fact that I can Google my own private info from time to time, to see if anyone has posted it on the web without my permission. True, if I couldn't do this, no one else could either. But the information would still be there, visible to who knows how many people, and I'd never know it.
The CNet crew were discussing privacy risks that were the direct product of the company run by the guy in question. MOG's 'report' on PJ was, by contrast, of absolutely no relevance to the discussion - the only applicable question is "is this individual working for IBM", the answer to which appears to be "no".
I consider it fair game when spammers get sent tonnes of unsolicited snailmail. I consider it fair game when officials in favour of the police being able to rifle through garbage without a warrant get their garbage rifled through. Equally, I consider it fair game when someone whose company is distributing large amounts of personal information (before anyone makes the obvious objection, I'm thinking of Google Cache) has personal information from that very source distributed. If they don't want that information spread, they'll have to do what the rest of us are stuck with doing and ask Google to remove the relevant pages from its index. In his case, of course, it's far easier than it would be for the average joe.
I don't see it as unacceptable for CNet to redistribute Google's CEO's personal information when it was handed to them on a silver plate by the company he runs. Especially not when they were trying to drive home the very issue that is currently ticking him off.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Mr. Schmidt needs to come to terms with the notion that, as a man with some considerable fame within the buisness and Internet communities, the press is going to take some interest in his personal life.
This is no different from how the media treats anyone with even minor celebrity status. In fact CNET simply used information available in the public domain to illustrate its point, far less questionable than the lengths some reporters go to dig up dirt on today's headlining star.
Research is different than "reporting".
CNet is journalism while Google is a research tool. They have different objectives, standards, and ethics, and it is a good thing that they do.
Journalists (and really the rest of us) need access to amounts of data to tie in connections, make non-obvious connections of their own, report on an entire story. But a journalist doesn't throw that information out there. They are bound by ethical standards, which, I think, CNet clearly violated.
Apparently Slashdot just became a sarcasm-free zone. Either that, or UK wit is misunderstood over here
http://www.richardmartineau.net/museum/
There is a difference between publicly available information and the aggregation of that information. Although nothing that was published in the article was too extreme they were trying to bring attention to this distinction.
-The roads\trains\subways I take to work everyday is publicly observable and therefore publicly available. But just because I have to act in public doesn't mean that I authorize or intend all of my actions to be publicly availible as aggregated information.
-Publishing my daily routes and habits (credit card transactions, store transactions, anything etc...) in an aggregate form may yield MORE private information about me than I intended through any particular public action.
The point is that at some threshold an aggregation of personal information can lead to a violation of privacy that may be potentionally injurous to me depending on how and by whom it is used.
I think there is a constitutional right about undue search or something that extends to a good argument for privacy. I'm not sure if that refers specifically to government actions or if it is protection from others in general. I could see this being invoked and examined in order to determine a threshold for the amount and intent of allowable aggregation of disparate pieces of public information about an individual.
There is a difference.
Let's use another recent story. Alexander.
Alexander took his troops all over the middle east, getting tons of them killed, killing lots of people. It didn't end until he was personally wounded. Then it was suddenly time to go home.
The only way to make the president of google -really understand- at a gut level what he was doing to people was to do it to him.
The evil response it provoked from google was just gravy. A lucky insight into a heavily spun multi-billion dollar corporation trying to pretend they are nice guys while they are really just a new variant of the same old amoral/work your employees to death/ dirtbags we've always dealt with.
I think the odds that google will consider peoples personal privacy went way up after zd-net gigged the president of google.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Just posted this on ZDUK.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I think it's important to keep in mind that no matter your position, information is a neutral tool - inherently neither good nor evil - it's all in how it's used. Some may feel that information is intrinsically good; I don't agree with this biased view - I maintain that it's neutral. Case in point: the same information that Einstein bestowed upon the word that yielded so many wonderful inventions and discoveries also made the atomic bomb possible.
Now, while I've always been for *responsible* journalism, the fact that the information in question was gotten via Google, a search engine that merely indexes already publicly available information, pretty much negates any such issues for me. This is a beautiful case of irony and hypopcrisy.
Now, if the information had been obtained by hiring a Private Investigator, who tailed the CEO, went dumpster diving, the whole nine yards, then that would be a different story. However, all the information was gotten via his own freakin' search engine !
If Google has an issue with this, than perhaps they should take a look inward at the "power" of their engine and lay some of the blame on themselves. Again, personal accountiblity goes out the window.
Can a person sue themselves ?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Is this really about the not-so-detailed, not-so-personal information that has been published previously in major media such as Forbes, NY Times, etc... (and comprises only a couple paragraphs of a three page article)? Or is that just a cover for backlash against what really irks Google, e.g. pointing out that Google logs your IP address along with detailed information on your searches, links followed, etc... not to mention email, shopping and so on you may do through their services.
CNet and MSN are partners.
http://www.cnetnetworks.com/partnerships/
msn has a rival search engine.
msn would benefit if google's reputation suffered.
therefore cnet might benefit if google's reputation suffered.
An ethical reporter might mention this as a potential conflict of interest.
from the article
>>And it's not as though Google is the only company asking Web surfers to make that leap.
>> Trust is the key
>>The original article incorrectly implied that Google Desktop Search can track what's stored on a user's PC. The service does not expose a user's content to Google or anyone else without the user's explicit permission
If Microsoft had written this article wouldn't we have declared it FUD?
The best possible example I can think of is Google allows you to find people who stupidly post credit card numbers in unsecure locations. Just because you can find these numbers and other highly personal information, does that give you the right to use it? No. If Cnet did an artical about a personal and posted their credit card number that they found through Google, how is that different from what they did about all the personal information. Where is the line crossed?
Excellent point. But I think by using the CEO of Google as an example, the author was trying to make Google see the consequences of their actions.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Sigh. I guess you're either sarcastic or dense. I'll proceed as if you're dense.
You're an elitist shithead, you realize that right?
It's too bad that, you, the only person in this entire conversation that actually read the original article has to come on here, post a flippant AC post confusing 'dense' with 'equally ignorant to the rest of the herd' thus ensuring that the truth remains obscured indefinitely.
Having read the article, and several of the replies here, the conclusion I came to si that Google got pissy when cnet called them onto the carpet. All cnet did was show that there are, indeed, valid privacy concerns. Google reacted like a spoiled child, basically saying you can't come to my party because you looked at me funny. Zdnet's reply is, frankly, a good riposte to Google's petulant response to the cnet article. Rather than deal with the concerns raised in the article, and explain how, or if they intend to act as trustworthy guardians of our information, Google threw a hissy fit. Damned nice response, guys.
I think you are missing the point entirely. There hasn't been any suggestion that anyone broke any laws. Most computer literate people know that you can gather a huge amount of personal information from public sources.
IMHO, the point that Google is trying to make is that they don't like CNET basing their article on discovering information about the Google CEO and then publishing it without discussing (or even notifying) this individual beforehand. Google retaliated by refusing to talk to CNN - which is their undisputed right. In the past, a number of news publications have been cut off from sources (such as the White House Press Office) for crass behavior and AFAIK nobody has suggested that this is a freedom of the press issue.
Why did CNET select the Google CEO as their test subject? They could have selected themselves to demonstrate the capability to gather personal information. However, they probably didn't like the idea of their own information being outed, so they selected someone they felt "deserved" it more. I think CNET crossed the line here, and are merely getting what they deserve - no access to that particular news source for a while.
The "apology" by the UK division is funny, but also disingenuous. Clearly they don't think they did anything wrong. Actually they remind me of playground bullies who do like doing mean things to others, but when someone complains they say "Why are you upset? It's only a little fun."
CNET just didn't think things through. Or perhaps there isn't enough editorial oversight there. Either way, someone at CNET should have considered the implications of their actions and selected a more appropriate target - one who agreed in advance to their personal data being used as an illustration of the ease of aggregating data in the internet age.
I see this whole issue as a breakdown in journalistic ethics, and the "apology" just compounds the problem. Perhaps this is one area where the print media are far ahead of the digital media.
Are you sure this announcement didn't come from ZDNet France?
& I wish I knew the password to your heart . . . &
People seem to confuse power with public trust. If Google were a government entity, they would need to ensure that their reponse was measured, and that no conflict of interest existed. Google is a private entity, and while they have a responsibility to the public, it is only being served by their actions. I see no conflict of interest here, and in fact, Google news relies on some degree of cooperation from content providers just like Zdnet. If anything, Google is making things harder on themselves by their actions.
ZDnet's actions were unconscionable. I try to avoid dealing with people I don't like, and I pay the costs. If I were a public servant, my right to do so would be curtailed, and reasonably so. Being a cop could be an appealing career choice if I didn't have to deal with the scum of the earth (in addition to everyone else.) As it is, I'm free to avoid violent people as much as I can.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Google is completely retarded on this one. All Cnet wrote was his income, the town he lives in, and one of his hobbies.
Isn't that what people do on a regular basis with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? I fail to see why the CEO should have his panties in a bunch.
while this report does provoke interesting discussions about our privacy and the difference between supplying information and indexing information to be easily accessible, i feel the way the summary was worded was misleading. all google did is refuse to engage in talks with a company that published a biased article against them. we should uphold their right to do that--google doesn't have to spend time and resources to help a media source blast google. cnet can say whatever they like about google, but don't imply that google has to help them.
i won't lie: i like google. despite these privacy concerns, i feel that they offer excellent no-nonsense services with a general respect towards the public. google makes money off their information services, and i would hardly blame them for it. the side effect is that google has a considerable and unique source of power: information. we are used to corporations having other large powers, but information is a new one and i think people are scared. maybe rightly so, but i would like to point out that google has thus far acted very responsibly.
- he is reducing the future publicity and good-will his company can generate, which would most likely enhance shareholder value in the long run.
- in the non-E-world terms: If some company president, say, were to refuse to advertise their cars on CBS, or refuse to allow Car and Driver to test-drive them - all because he didn't like what they wrote about him personally, then he's stealing shareholder value. Not reaching the biggest possible market share, not getting the most possible positive publicity for something not *directly* related to the company itself, is bad for business. It's like hiring your nephew instead of a qualified applicant.
It's also childish to be petulant. And stupid... Probably more people have heard or will hear about this article now, than if they'd just ignored it. How lame-brained! You would think you don't get to run a multi-thousand employee operation and hire and fire people, without developing a moderately thick skin.
Unless he's devious enough to figure he gets more publicity by pulling this caper... I rarely credit CEO's with that kind of "deep" thought. (Never ascribe to malice what can best be explained by incompetence). besides, the negative aspect of the publicity doesn't compensate for the increased publicity, I would think.
In the book "If At All Possible, Involve A Cow" is the pithy comment "...sarcasm is lost on some people..."
Sorry, but with all this hoopla, I went to the original article.
Other posts have described this has a "hatchet job" or "over the top" - I consider this to be a good example of quality reporting!
Why does the Paparazzi exist? Because they only bug celebrities and other public figures. Google is a public company, making its CEO a public figure.
In my eyes, Google is taking a big shot in its image with this stupid, short-sighted move.
My home phone number and address is not in the phone book. Yet, a short google search just now turned up my home address AND telephone number because my wife serves on a home-schooling committee that published minutes.
How is this not relevant? This is reporting at its best, identifying a real, potential social problem, and with this maneuver, Google is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
What the paparazzi does is technically legal too, but we still consider them to be privacy invading cockbags. Congratulations, ZDnet. You're acquiring a reputation as the paparazzi cockbags of the Internet.
i don't know who's stupidest: google (employees, investors) who thinks that as a business entity it can do absolutely no evil, or the people who support google (users, advertisers) who think that google really would do no evil.
is a company (the people) so childish really can do no evil?
First off, I agree, this entire thing was childish. That said, I expect to see this rated this flamebait or troll or whatever for criticizing all these "insightful" posts... BUT...
/. majority also said "Fuck her" to Maureen O'Gara for exposing someone else's private details, is a gross double-standard. Let me guess, we're just supporting those we already like, and pounding on those we already don't like.
How dare Slashdotters get all in a tiff over this. If I'm not mistaken, and I'm most certainly not, Slashdotters were slapping each other's asses left and right when this story came out.
Slashdot did all but gang-bang Sys-Con Media over Maureen O'Gara. Now that another reporter has disclosed the private details of another online person (including links to their home address), now the person themselves is the guilty party somehow?
I kinda liked having "Good" karma, but if giving it all up exposes the hypocrisy here, then so be it. Yeah, Google over reacted. But saying "Fuck him" to Google exec's privacy, after
I guess the issues don't matter, as long as you jump on whichever side of the fence suits the community better.
I8-D
there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts Classic.
Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? - GWB
I believe that the crux of the Google ~ Smith&Wesson analogy is that in the Wild Wild West (pick your time period), when guns were "new(er)", and "more" people shot/were shot, the laws did not always get consistently enforced, and varied from place to place e.g. you might get away with shooting someone.
Clearly, in the Google side of this analogy, the behavior of gratuitously publishing personal/private info (by ZDnet) may not covered clearly by law, or consistently enforceable, but does not constitute the highest standards of behavior that we would aspire to have society act within.
The question of whether this publishing (shooting) is a noble act, drawing a spotlight to the emerging controversy that needs more attention, or whether it is a grievous misuse of technology (guns) is not answerable once for everyone, but an individual question of opinion. The opinions of many (should) shape the form of laws to come regarding this behavior.
Maybe I'm just a sucker for a meaningful analogy, but I think this analogy is more about development of laws & regulation than about right & wrong. Just as Smith&Wesson had (and has) an active role in development of laws about firearms, I expect Google to play an active role in laws about personal privacy.
The original CNET article is here The original CNET article is here I think it is actually not that bad as far as privacy invasion, except for where they listed his home address - thay goes a step far. Anyway, a curious aside - check out the link to his homepage - it's linked from the article as this and takes you to here where there is a picture bearing his likeness, and an @yahoo.com email address! Hack? Sarcastic joke??!!
All this information is legally made public. It's public information for a reason. Celebrities and millionaires may not like us finding out where they live, etc. But they have the resources to insulate themselves from the scrutiny- as obviously they are trying to do, so it is reasonably in the public interest to know this stuff. This isn't getting his teenager's cell phone number, all this stuff SHOULD BE made public and IS MADE public on purpose.
/. would be flaming his entire extended family right now, privacy be damned and you know it!
His address, income (stock sales) and political contributions ARE a matter of public record, and I am very glad they were publicized this way. Google's CEO should be glad, too, because it's a lot easier for the company to 'do evil' if stock prices, residences and political contributions aren't out in the open.
If the founders move to India, the investors should know that. If they sell of all their stock, they should know that. In the case of Google, we really NEED to know that because their entire market could crash if they lose faith in the own stock. Their political contributions are important to avoid conflicts of interest that Liberal hacks are always quick to see from Conservatives. If this was Halliburton,
It's a hatchet job.
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.
We've done this one before: obeying robots.txt is not guaranteed.
Not that it helps much anyway, if the personal information about you was put on the Internet without your consent by someone else. Yes, of course that someone is ultimately responsible, but it doesn't help the victim when "services" like Google and the Wayback Machine start propagating it all over the Internet.
I hope CNet do this to every major public figure who hasn't worked out yet that privacy matters, starting with all the politicians who haven't voted strongly for data protection legislation, the executives of every supermarket with a loyalty card scheme, and the executives of every company that holds credit card data for one second longer than they need to in order to process a transaction and guarantee it's genuine.
Maybe then enough powerful people will start to understand that in a free society, it is not appropriate to allow the collection of large amounts of personal information without a very good reason. If ever there were a textbook case where the good of society as a whole should be placed ahead an uncertain benefit to an organisation, this is probably it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Don't Be Evil. Be Hypocritical, Unpleasant, Petulant and Juvenile. But Not Evil.
I'm pretty sure that the "possibly prying" site you are referring to is:
fundrace.org
-Anon
So what if the ceo got googled? I didn't find any information listed in the article to be bad. It lists his salary which should be public anyways since after all he is the ceo of a PUBLIC company. Mentioning the he has awife and kids isnt so bad either. Any happily married man will be proud to share that information to a stranger they just met.
I think the article does raise a valid point about privacy(albeit I do not like the way the article was written. I defintely feel they could of portrayed their point in a better manner). But at the same time its not something for google to get upset about especially since the info. they list about the ceo wasn't really private to begin with.
Do you realize you can find social security and credit card numbers using Google, right? (number wild card searches)
Now imagine this. The reporter went out and searched for credit cards and SSN's. It would be very reporter-like for that reporter to say "Hey, I found some information!" But it would be crossing the line to say, "Mr Schmidt at 123 ABC lane with the social security number 123 34 5678 has the credit card 4314341239102481.
Yep, in some cases, the information is out there. Yep, anybody could find it. No, it does not mean you should put it in the headlines to make your selfish point. Now imagine "Mr Schmidt" being you and see how you feel.
The Google ban on CNET is a wholly appropriate response to a troll that has demonstrated that it may use information in a way that an organization finds inappropriate. Really, let's say that CNET goes Googling for "Windows Vista" "Chicken" "Goat" and "Sacrifice" and makes a story full of the links. Now, do you think Microsoft is going to give CNET any juicy tidbits about what's going on in Vista or any of its other products? Heck no. CNET has demonstrated that it cares more about interesting news than corporate press releases (probably a good thing) and Microsoft is going to respond by not giving interviews or press releases (also probably a good thing).
The price of being a journalistic watchdog is that you're not a lapdog anymore. And it's a good thing. Think of this as a time of mutual discovery for both CNET and Google. (And let us wish for a time of mutual discovery between Fox News and the White House...)
I think you are missing the point.
The problem is not that he is pissed that someone used google to disclose personal details on a news service. The problem is more likely that they disclosed it at all.
No matter where CNET obtained the information, what they did was highly distasteful.
It doesn't matter one iota where they got the information. If he had said "no, you are wrong - it isn't possible to find this information with google", they might have googled themselves to show how possible it actually was.
But that's not what he said. And that's not what they did. He didn't say it wasn't possible - he said it was information that was available elsewhere, which is true.
In response to this, they decided to gather up a bunch of details about his personal life and put them in an article about general privacy concerns with his company.
That is poor taste.
Give me liberty or give me kill -s 9
And what about you, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion?
Clearly, there's a public benefit to talking about this. There's also a specific cost borne by one person. How do we know the cost is offset by the benefit?
But that very principle makes Schmidt such an excellent choice. Unlike any person outside of Google, Schmidt has benefitted enormously from the way Google does business. Therefore, he is the most obvious person to pay the cost associated with this discussion about Google's business practices is Schmidt himself.
As yourself: would you accept being written up like that by CNET and other publications in return for a few billion dollars? I certainly would.
Please google made no effort in protecting privacy of others. Google is used daily to find peoples SSN and credit card numbers. Now this guy get all pissy about HIS OWN PRIVACY was "violated" when it IS FREELY AVAILABLE! (Phone Book, Trading Records etc.) So now acting like a bully.
WHAT HAPPEN "DO NO EVIL!" ? Bullshit, now they are in driving seat and make everyone kaotow to their whims. This is T-Model Ford all over again.
Dont for once think that Google is somehow a good guy. They will assimulate everything...otherwise they dont get listed.
The reporter wrote an interesting article - whos focus was Google because of it's massive database of information - about how a database like this could be just waiting to be exploited. He used an example that I thought was pretty good, as it's information that's freely available on the web.
The person he searched on got all pissy, and made a childish call. They're basically saying "If you point out flaws in Google, you're cut off."
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
"You're an elitist shithead, you realize that right?"
I'm not an elitist, I'm cursed with being smarter than most people. And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.
Its not always a benefit to be smart than 98% of the population. Stuff occurs to me that most people cannot fathom, and obvious stuff to me seems like rocket science to most.
That doesn't make me elitist, and it doesn't make me a shithead. I gave the guy a priceless gift: truth. You don't often get the truth from even your closest family, so understand I did something wonderful and precious for this guy.
He should thank me, send me money. Or something. Well, if I wasn't an Anonymous Coward.
But I appreciate the complement.
You're right, I did read the article. How is that elitist?
Because you go insulting one person when the entire forum is at fault (not to mention the press) for missing the point. The ad-hominem attack discredits you, and the results are your post which contains the most truth of anything posted here today remains at score 1 while people continue to argue a non-issue above.
To understand the point you have to go back to the previous article. The new article (or any of the other stories on this issue for that matter) is just as ignorant as the discussion here. Just because people do not to do their research does not make them 'dense'. It must make you feel superior to think that though, hence 'elitist'.
And what about you, do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion?
How about my name.
Positive moderation of posts that express a point of view that conflicts with your own
- or: -
Negative moderation of posts that you agree with.
- recommended action: -
Get over it FFS!
"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
That's funny because I thought your post was going the other way! If Google allows anyone, anywhere, anytime to summon up information about anything on the net, and can through their hands up that this is an important technology, then Google's gander, er, executives may have their information summoned up by that system.
If I get shot by a gun I made, that's irony. I might have the right to create it, and I might defend my right to make it, but it wouldn't have been here to shoot me if I didn't. Double-edged, to mix metaphors.
Google and President Bush will push their wrath until we figure out what "good" is.
Is this serious?
I think this begs the question, how would the public have reacted if Cnet had instead posted information on some other high public figure, such as Gates, Jobs or a major politician? The feedback from the censorship could then have ranged the spectrum from a fanboy's dream to a near-conspiracy theory level of dislike.
For the record, I applaud Google for standing up to hack writers. If more journalists realized the implications of their articles, perhaps the general press could have more credibility when it comes to more important matters
Well, no wonder you're a 'former' journalist and one a current one!
As a journalist, it's your mission to act in the interests of your readership and the public as a whole.
This means you should have no qualms about ruthlessly interrogating otherwise unaccountable corporations, institutions, governments and the people that run them.
If you're in the business of cow-towing to them, and seeing the crumbs they brush from their table as a 'privilege', then you would never have made it as a serious journalist away.
Hope your new career is going well, and yes, I'll have fries with that. Thanks!
Hmmm. Just tried something.
I typed News.com into Google. No hits. Hmm.
So I tried ZDNet and a few others. Lots of hits.
Of course, if you type in news.com as a URL in a browser, it works.
So this is interesting. Google is mad at News.Com, and Google (who pride themselves on being a world class search engine) have either missed News.Com, or have kill-filed it.
Which leads us to ask, Mr. Google: Are you incompetent or are you controlling access to information in a way that would make, say, the People's Republic of China sigh with admiration.
Ooops, forgot Google is already collaborating on restricting access to information with the PRC. I guess it is 'access to what Sergei and Larry can make money allowing you to find or NOT find' not 'access to information' that drives google. Wouldn't bother me if they didn't have what amounts to damned near a information access monopology (googlezon, anyone).
Just some thoughts.
RandomRob
http://www.identix.com/datasheets/faceit/ABIS_law. pdf
http://www.identix.com/datasheets/faceit/ABIS_civi l_id.pdf
http://www.identix.com/datasheets/faceit/ABIS.pdf
http://www.compukiss.com/populartopics/travel_tran shtm/article836.htm
http://www.findbiometrics.com/Pages/smile.html
http://www.aaae.org/government/150_Transportation_ Security_Policy/400_sponsors_and_corporate_members /visionicspr9.html
http://www.identix.com/industries/BRCH/border_sol. pdf
There are lots more out there. Look for yourself.
Excellent point. But I think by using the CEO of Google as an example, the author was trying to make Google see the consequences of their actions.
Yes, I think that much is clear. I think it must be hard to be an ethical journalist. Part of their profession's purpose is to hold powerful people to account, but it must be very hard to draw the line between hard-hitting journalism and setting yourself up as a self-righteous two-bit vigilante.
The original piece in question is actually pretty good, except for the bits about Schmidt. That was an utterly gratuitous and smarmy attempt to garner attention while taking cheap shot at somebody whose only crime other than creating a service Ms. Mills probably finds indispensible, seems to be making too much money. Clearly, if Mr. Schmidt wanted to exempt himself from the awesome privacy invading powers of Google, then he could,but in all fairness he hasn't. Would that Ms. Mills had as much decency.
If Schmidt deserves because his service inadvertently provides data that a motivated person can piece together in a way that invades privacy, then what are we to make of Ms. Mills, who deliberately invades privacy and publishes the details to the world as a publicity grabbing stunt? Shouldn't by that standard, Ms. Mills herself be open game?
Of course not. Not that it would be hard to do so, especially if you're willing to pay a few bucks for a background check. She'd better pray nobody else stoops to her level.
It's incredibly irresponsible to draw attention to the private details of an individual this way. Mills like to harp on how much money Schmidt makes; how would she feel if some nutcase decided to stalk Schmidt's wife, or to kidnap her as a result of this? It's not farfetched -- Schmidt is right to be upset.
This is the kind of thing that might happen through a loss of perspective. If Mills has any character at all she'll own up to it being a mistake.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The point isn't that the information is public, its always been public, google has just made it super easy to get to "by anyone anonymously". Ensuring lots of abuse because before you had to identify yourself at the courthouse first(check), now you don't. Goggle could have limited the engine (kind of like all engines are doing in China including theirs) to exclude personal info but they didn't and now are being caught in the mistake. Googles creators(and most other engines) are smart enough to realize where this could lead and chose to ignore it. Google made billions providing any info on anyone without any checks to the individual(victim) and now are being taken to task on the issue. Cnet did proper reporting in the honorable history of watergate and other reports on problems being ignored by large interests in their singular quests.
To google's ceo all I can say is "you hung yourself out, take responsibility for it"
If I get shot by a gun I made, that's irony. I might have the right to create it, and I might defend my right to make it, but it wouldn't have been here to shoot me if I didn't.
Well, I think that's a good analogy.
Even people who belive that making guns is morallywrong can still for the most part figure out that shooting a gunsmith is wrong. It takes a unhealthy level of self-righteousness to set yourself up as the Angel of Retribution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are other search engines (Yahoo, MSN, AltaVista, etc...) and I don't choose to support any entity who from a position of safety, allows a repressive regime to gain a propaganda victory by limiting content available to their subjects. What Google is doing is assisting the state media control in China in exchange for money. I can't support that.
I don't see what the big deal is. If you don't like your private information being given out, just sign up for the "Do not Google" list!
As yourself: would you accept being written up like that by CNET and other publications in return for a few billion dollars? I certainly would.
Well, the obvious flaw with your argument is nobody is going to offer anybody a billion dollars to get written up in CNET. Mr. Schmidt didn't get a billion dollars for getting written up in CNET; he is not "famous for being famous". He made his money the the way our capitalist ideology says its supposed to be made: he created a company that people get value from. Sure, some captains of industry need to be taken down a notch, humbled into social responsibility, but so far as I can see Schmidt is no Andrew Carnegie.
Being a moral person means recognizing that your actions have consequences and weighing them appropriately. So, if I knew that taking some poor down on his luck shmoe and writing an article about him would make him a billion dolllars, but expose his family to nutcase stalkers, kidnappers and theives, I'd say on balance he's better off rich and he can use his money to deal with these problems. If on the other hand we're talking about somebody who is already rich, well naturally that draws some attention, legitmate or otherwise. But just because your power to help or hurt him is much more limited doesn't mean your obligation to weigh the consequences of your actions isn't there.
Now, exactly what did Ms. Mills do for Mr. Schmidt? Did she make him a billion dollars? Nope. Did she further exose his family to danger? Yep. Did she do anything that might benefit Mr Schmidt at all? Nope. Did she benefit herself by endangering his family for a cheap publicity stunt? Yup.
You can argue rich people deserve it just because they are rich. I don't buy it. If you argued that breaking into his house and stealing his money, on the basis your need is greater than his, well, I'd give even that more respect than the idea you can put his family at risk just to draw attention to yourself. Its contemptible behavior.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This isn't an apology, it's a slap in Google's face. ZDNet is attempting to cast Google as a bully, wherein the concept is that the censure Google is applying is evil, based on some vague notion that all research leading to a story is fundamentally a good thing.
What Google is protesting is not research, but rather the posting of private data in a public forum to make a point. The point could as easily have been made by releasing the second letter of each word, but they didn't do that. It's got nothing to do with that the search was done on Google; that's just ZDNet UK spinning it as hard as they can to look like a wounded party.
Frankly, if they had gone down to the city county buolding, they could have gathered the same information, and if they had posted it in the article that way, I'd think they were equally legitimate targets for punishment.
I mean, come on, did home addresses really make the point so much that their impact - the impact of the home address of one of the world's richest people being published internationally - is justifiable?
This is some smarmy editor stepping in and pretending to be bent over a barrel so that nobody can see the black eye he was given for not stopping a fundamentally inappropriate article in its tracks. In normal modern journalism, where there are standards - magazines, newspapers, journals - article author writers get fired and their work left unpublished for less.
Frankly, I'm surprised the writer or their managing editor are still employed. It almost makes me wish ZDNet had released something worth reading in the last ten years, so I could boycott them.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I find it all rather amusing that sooooo many people think ZDNet are being serious here... It's wonderful :-D
The journalist was trying to make a point by listing Google CEO's personal information. The point is you can virtually find any sensitive personal information on the web. By anyone, not just journalists. I say Kudos to the journalist, and Google acted like an asshole.
Exactly. I totally agree with you.
It's public information but some public information should probably not be easy to search- or at the least you should be informed
1) If someone is searching for information about you. 2) Who they are.
And you should be able to "opt out" and say "Do not return searches about me."
My point was now the google president can understand how it feels since since it has happened to him.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Google can simply erase from its database any information it doesn't want found.
Google removes all traces of ZDnet, and CNet from it's search engine.
They aren't begging for forgiveness, this is jsut a satirical retort. it's an open-palm slapp in googles face.
Move sig!
It seems ever time sometings posted thats about a company sueing another or doing something slashdot immediatly attacks the company doing the attacking.
It's like were all deaf to what happened to provoke the attack.
Fact:
They printed the CEO's personal information on a website.
Fact: The ceo acted like a little child on the playground that just lost a ball. Grow up. They didn't reveal anything intresting.
Now google isn't evil, they can't do much if the CEO sais don't talk to these people. Even if everyone else wanted to they couldn't. I believe that the ceo is over reacting but google is fine.
Plus remember, sometimes you cant' control what other people put on the web.
You can argue rich people deserve it just because they are rich. I don't buy it.
Don't try to turn this into some kind of class warfare. At issue is not that Schmidt is rich. You brought up a cost/benefit analysis, and I was responding to that. Since Schmidt's business model involves making personal information accessible in new formats, Schmidt is the natural choice to demonstrate potential problems with such a business model.
Did she benefit herself by endangering his family for a cheap publicity stunt? Yup.
CNet's actions and the actions of Google are analogous: both are legal, both are making published personal information available in a new format, both make some people very uncomfortable, and we can argue about the ethics of both of them. And that is enough justification for such a "publicity stunt", because drawing attention to potential problems like this is exactly what journalists are supposed to do.
Being a moral person means recognizing that your actions have consequences and weighing them appropriately.
I completely agree, and I think that's exactly what CNet has done. Unfortunately, Google's reaction suggests that they have not yet considered the consequences of their own actions as carefully.
Let's hope that this controversy will induce them to do so and maybe take some actions, because I think Google is generally a great company and is doing a lot of nice work. Automatically recognizing and removing pages containing sensitive personal information from their index is feasible and might be a solution.
UID GeckoX: what's your last name? i need to google you.
This is great theater. A corporate officer is eating crow and the news organization that ran the story is is getting the cold shoulder from them. The "apology" is absolutely hysterical too. The whole thing is playing out like it was written by Shakespeare.
Google has said many times, that is does not dig hidden information, it just makes finding information easier. This is all nice and good.
Google has a sentence that says "Do no evil". What if the opposite has happened long time ago, but nobody from google was worried, because nobody of "t hem" was affected, but just ordinary people, who just put up websites of themselves and things, that interested them. But now, when google suddenly realised, that it can be used to put together almost confidential information and it is about their CEO, they are pissed? Fuck off, google. I am using previewseek.com already. It was good, until you lasted.
--
The real AC
This is instead an astute piece of British sarcasm. They're saying Google can go and stuff themselves because they've used their search engine exactly how it was designed to be used and if Google don't like the results, tough luck.
Wrapping it in an apology is the best way to get this past the American sarcasm-detectors.
-Nano.
I run some sites, so I am well aware that my personal info is out there in the whois records for all to see. However I would take objection to someone posting it as an example of a way of how easy it is to find information on someone who owns a domain name, so I can understand why Google would do what they did. It's not so much a matter of the information having been private, but it is the difference between someone going out and searching for it directly, and having it pushed out to people en masse. Google's responce was fairly just IMHO, so I am not sure I can sympathise with CNet / ZDNet on this one.
This ranks right up there with that MP calling the rest of Parliament a "conga line of suck-holes" in reference to their voting for war in Iraq.
It took a few recursive links to find the reference http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/05/12 2217&tid=153, but this is the closest thing I've seen to a job opening on /. for which I'm qualified since I started reading it. Cooks are geeks too--it's just that my food beats my code anyday.
Now, exactly what did Ms. Mills do for Mr. Schmidt?
Pointed out his hypocrisy.
Did she further exose his family to danger?
No. Anyone who actually wanted to do harm to Schmidt's family could have easily found out his address...by doing a google search, for instance.
Wonderful analysis of morality "in the real world"! Wouldn't it be nice if Google's CEO and Google itself took your advice too? In other words, what you're saying is just as damming when aimed against Google as it is when aimed against C|NET.
Google makes some private information easily available and refuses to set a privacy policy or to answer questions about it. They have benefited from this and discounted the cost, just as you say. As a consequence, CNET published the article in question.
Your reasoning works wonderfully in both directions, and so, it offers no intrinsic moral defense to Google at all.
I do admire your insight into the issue of morality.
This situation is unfortunate, because although CNet's disclosure of Eric Schmidt's persona information was below the belt (and Google rightfully returned fire), the CNet article raises an important point that doesn't get enough attention these days (especially here on Slashdot).
/. headline and blurb paragraph, if you read TFA it seems pretty obvious that ZDNet UK's editorial is bitterly sarcastic. ZDNet's not apologizing, they're calling Google out and wondering whether Google isn't secretly pleased that the disrespectful info about Schmidt gave them an easy excuse to discredit a concerning/damaging article.
Google, it seems, was forced to respond to the cheapshot at its CEO, and the important issue the article less-than-tastefully broached fell by the wayside.
Despite their reproachable publishing of Schmidt's personal info, CNet is the good guy here (which is not to say Google is the bad guy). It takes a certain amount of journalistic nerve to place one of the biggest and most concerning magnifying glasse over one The Search Giant. We should thank CNet for having the guts to raise questions and accusations at a company that everyone loves.
And despite the
As the CNet article considers: CAN Google "do no evil" now that they're driven by money, a currency where morals are not only rarely considered but in fact legally not allowed? And then there's the question of what happens if Google later "goes evil," or if someone illicitly gets a hold of their data, or if the many copycat companies "go evil"...Google/MS/Yahoo are in fact opening the door for ANY future company to get the same kind of privacy privileges, in terms of socially-accepted precedent.
In the end, do we really want ANY company legally owning all this personal information about us? Or even POSSESSING it, ownership or not?
A /. poster would never claim to have a genuine interest in issues of privacy vs. freedom of the press just so they could side with someone demonstrating the effective use of sarcasm. Right?
Your reasoning works wonderfully in both directions, and so, it offers no intrinsic moral defense to Google at all.
Not really. Because there are three levels of cuplpability to consider:
Not culpable.
Negligent culpability.
Intentially culpability.
The CNET article was deliberate and intentional.
That Google can be used to infringe privacy is clearly not intentional, and therefore at most Google is negligent.
In order to show that Google is negligent, you must show three things.
(1) Google is a aware of the problem
(2) There are actions available to Google that would mitigate or eliminate the problem.
(3) The net benefits of these actions outweigh the costs -- I'm speaking ethically here not financially of course.
I think the place that you can't get past is #3. Sure, there are things Google could do. They could shut down. But the service Google provides has tremendous value to everybody.
It's not clear to me that it is technically feasible to build a search engine that works nearly as well as Google does, but screens queries so that the informtaion returned in them can't be pieced together.
Applying the same level of analysis to CNET:
Are they aware of the problem? Yes. They're writing an article ABOUT the problem.
Is there something they could do to eliminate or mitigate the problem? Yes. They could use a hypothetical example, or the author could use herself as the example.
Would the benefits of this outweigh the costs? Yes. Nobdoy needs to know thus guy's home number to get the point.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No. Anyone who actually wanted to do harm to Schmidt's family could have easily found out his address...by doing a google search, for instance.
Anybody with any street smarts knows there's world of differnce between being vulnerable to crime, and being vulnerable and singled out.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Don't try to turn this into some kind of class warfare.
I have to say you put me in the bind. Remember this:
As yourself: would you accept being written up like that by CNET and other publications in return for a few billion dollars? I certainly would.
It sounds to me that you're saying here that because somebody is rich, then it's open season to publish any information about them you can get your hands on. It goes with the territory of being rich. My own belief is that yes, it's true, but it doesn't mean that people who contribute to that aren't culpable. Personally, I have no fundamental objection to class warfare -- even if it's misguided, it at least pursues a higher purpose than self-aggrandizement.
CNet's actions and the actions of Google are analogous: both are legal, both are making published personal information available in a new format, both make some people very uncomfortable, and we can argue about the ethics of both of them.
Well, I think I see a distinction here where you do not. Multiple distinctions, in fact. Let's lay aside the issue of legality, which I can think we both agree is irrelevant, and let me get to what I see as the heart of the matter.
I will stipulate first that Google's impact on privacy is worse -- far worse -- multiple orders of magnitude worse, than the indiscretions of a single reporter. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise. On the other hand, the world benefits enormously from Google. To the degree that people can use a search engine to piece together information, they can piece together information about people. I think one comes with the other. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you that you can slice the siamese twins of information and personal information in two. That's what happens when technology advances: good things and bad things mixed together.
On the other hand, what the reporter did was hold up an individual as example of vulnerability. I see three reasons why this is worse. First, one of the few remaining sources of privacy we have is that there are so many of us, like schooling fish. Pulling one one out of the school raises its vulnerability considerably. Secondly, it's a willful and deliberate act. It isn't just that, as part of writing articles, private details of peoples lives somehow inadvertantly leak out. The author put them there with the intention of personally benefiting from it, and probably with the knowledge if not the intention that it would harm somebody else. Third, it is unnecessary. No particular good came of it, other than to get attention through wantonly irresponsible act. The article would have been just as informative the details in question, with details taken from a willing subject, or with fictional details.
Since Schmidt's business model involves making personal information accessible in new formats, Schmidt is the natural choice to demonstrate potential problems with such a business model.
I think you're overstating your case. Google is not in the business of making personal information available in new formats. That would be Yahoo, through it's partners like Intellius. I used them recently to get the unlisted numbers of some friends I'd lost contact with over the years. For a few dollars more I could have gotten background reports on them, and for a bit more than that I could actually piece together a great deal of information on their associates too.
Google, on the other hand, is in the business of general purpose search. It may not be feasible to modify the search engine so that it detects ways in which data can be put together in privacy violating ways, and still function reasonably well for other kinds of searches. Furthermore, it's not even clear that it should be modified if it could. It's not necessarily bad that you can research somebody. But publishing the results of your research is a different kettle of fish.
Unfortunately, Google's reaction suggests that they have not yet considered the consequen
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Google is acting like any company that gets perceived bad press: throwing a hissy fit. The response of most companies is to yank advertising from the offending publication and/or to put the publisher on its PR Blacklist and exile its writers from press conferences. What's that, you say? But this is Google, The Company That Does No Evil! So now we see that Goggle is a company that behaves like any other company. Bad conduct when it suits the company's interests is to be expected. So what else is new? If you have a problem with that, use another search engine. Tell Google.
Go right ahead. Have fun with that.
No Comment.
It sounds to me that you're saying here that because somebody is rich, then it's open season to publish any information about them you can get your hands on.
No, what I'm saying is that Schmidt chose a business model that made him billions of dollars but that also has implications for people's privacy. A portion of his wealth is due to that business model; that portion is what, in a sense, he has traded for being willing to be exposed in this way.
What is it exactly that Google is supposed to do? If you can show me I'm 100% behind you, but I haven't heard anything on this even remotely resembling a feasible course of action.
There are many things one can do about it, some involving Google some not. For example, if people are aware of what information may be available, they can take additional steps to protect themselves from identity theft. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, we can pass legislation making all web search opt-in only (pages only get indexed when a search provider has explicit permission) and imposing strong penalties for anybody publishing or linking to social security numbers or credit card numbers. Or, Google and other search providers can voluntarily remove pages containing credit card numbers, social security numbers, and other sensitive information from their index.
If you actually work through the example in the article in question, you'll see how difficult it would be to stop somebody from doing this without actually crippling the service.
I don't think that's actually true. But you have to keep in mind that we don't have any obligation to make Google's current business model or service work. The Internet has grown up largely without laws and regulations, and as society catches up regulating things and enforcing existing laws, some services will become infeasible.
The best way for Google to avoid that path is to pro-actively come up with technical measures to reduce privacy concerns about their service. But simply pretending that there is no problem will just annoy people, and ultimately, it's a democracy and we, the people, set the rules under which companies are permitted to operate.
Wrong.
Let's go back to the original insight -- it's all about consequences. Google does something. As a consequence C|NET does something. Plain and simple. It's not that complicated.
When you step away from pure action-reaction cause-effect consequence-based view of morality, then you get into things like "levels of guilt", but all of these are based on arguable human (read: flawed and uncertain) principles.
i'm tired of cocky journalists reporting whatever they feel like just because they can. This reminds me of the Karl Rove incident, where the journalist was told the description of a cia agent , but didnt use any judgement and repotrted her name. I understand what cnet was trying to do in the article, and ots true that google makes finding information easier, good or bad; personal or not. This does not give the news media the right to report personal information of people without their consent. If someone were protesting the deadliness of guns, it would not be justifiable to walk in and shoot a gun shop owner. Sure, guns can be used for doing bad things, but that doesnt justify using them that way, even if youre trying to prove a point. If i were google i'd be pissed at a dinky little journalist trying to point out all the negative aspects of my search engine just for a story. and to add insult to injury, they intentionally attack a high ranking employee by publishing all of his personal information to try to prove their point. im not sure if i would go as far as google did, but they were definitely justified in doing it.
What is happening here have to make us think about what will become Google in the times to come. If a company like Cnet is begging google to not "black it out" from the search results, just imagine what this will be in a couple of years with all the tools they are creating and giving away. The French Library Association (or something) has decided that Google would not digitize their entire library and that they will do it by themselves to make it available to the public. Maybe they sensed what Google can become... The next Microsoft. The big senseless corporation. If google is listening it is always time to stop this action that is against the "no preference" way of treating information like it is supposed to be. If find this move so disturbing that I'm wondering if it is not the time to switch to another provider like Yahoo or MSN. But they have also their "preferences" on the results they give. Maybe an open source one will prevail after all ?