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.'"

Comments

Re:The geek and the frog

[mmurphy000]

Generally, I agree with your assessment. However...

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?

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.

Re:CNET blames google for breaking the law?

[Aumaden]

I think you're being a bit harsh there.

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.

Re:I'm sure it'll end with a hug and a pink slip.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:The geek and the frog

[gclef]

Reasonably considered private? Your, or anyone else's, opinion on what is 'reasonable' is irrelevant.

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

The "reasonable expectation" test is a two-prong test based on:
(1) the first prong -- subjective privacy -- is whether the person exhibited a personal expectation to be left alone from government intrusion
(2) the second prong -- objective privacy -- is whether the personal expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable and several areas have already been determined to be beyond what society is willing to recognize ("exceptions" to what constitutes a search or requires a warrant to seize)

Re:news.com trying to seem like a victim

[aug24]

But publicly decrying Cnet news they're setting a precedent.

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.

Re:I'm sure it'll end with a hug and a pink slip.

[JabberWokky]

Yes. You can easily opt out - don't put your information on the world wide web, especially on a publically linked website with an open robots.txt. If you don't want Google specifically indexing you (but you might want somebody else to), you can do that, too.

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