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.'"
here's a rule of thumb, read the article before you post dumbass. it was a sarcastic joke. & shame on the ignorant mods that can't figure that out either.
As for defending the CEO's right to privacy, well, sorry. Being a CEO of a famous publicly traded company, he -- like politicians -- is a public figure (if not legally, then ethically anyway). You can not harm him physically (not even with something her company makes), but you can say anything about him, short only of lies (ethically, anyway).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Generally, I agree with your assessment. However...
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.
Moreover, the original article did not provide a street address in the text (though it linked to it). Most of the other facts it listed were stuff you might find in any Forbes or Fortune article. Really, only that one link to his address would seem beyond the pale.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
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.The question is, should Cnet be treated as a news source? They've made the troll, that effectively shows they is nearly the level of National Enquirer.
On the other hand, Google shouldn't be using shareholder time and resources to jealously protect its CEO and founder. I don't see it being too disimilar from Apple's retailiation against Wiley for publishing their book about Steve Jobs.
I do see the point with backlash. For those that don't know, Apple withdrew ALL Wiley books from their stores, including the. Apple would have been better off doing nothing because of the press they got in response. It backfired so much that the book in question got a doubled run before the book was released.
Untrue. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" has a very clear legal meaning, and the "communities" opinion of "reasonable" does matter in court. see here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm
Slightly off topic I know but no need to imagine. Your own government (I'm assuming you are from the US) is guilty of punishing reporters / media organisations for revealing unflatering truths.
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.
This is always worth losing my mod points for: THAT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Google didn't issue a fucking press release, they just wouldn't give them any more interviews. OK? CNet then wrote a whinging article about how Google wasn't talking to them, the crybabies.
Personally I do think Google is morally justified, but whether or not they are, they still weren't 'publicly decrying', just ignoring, CNet.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
They are called standards, and they already exist.
Incidently, all the other databases of personal information that Google uses (phone numbers are the most obvious) have a clear opt-out method on their site. Of course, you are still in the original database available at a fee to all marketing groups, but that's a phone company issue that has been debated back and forth long before even Archie existed, let alone the web.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
Actually one thing that every single person here seems to be missing is that the original article was mostly about Google's profiling and data retention, not the search engine.
Of course, when you open up an article with a paragraph of links of personal information you found by searching Google, you'd think that was the subject of the article. Can't fault people for thinking that, but I'm surprised no one read even more than the first paragraph!
Bottom line is C|Net screwed up because they pissed off Google and didn't even make their point. If they had just left off that whole introduction the story would communicate it's point better, and they wouldn't be blacklisted.
That's not to say that Google is not overreacting... I think it's pretty immature what they are doing considering the nature of the information that was posted.
Bah, the whole thing is just silly.
Woah, do you not understand what they did? It sounds like you think that they banned CNet from using their search engine for a year. That's not what happened. They said that they would refuse to comment to CNet about stories for a year.
If the local news outlet prints personal information, you have every right to stop speaking to them also. No one is taking that right away from you.