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.'"
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.
Executive summary: Google, you're an idiot. Just for the record, please spell out the double-standard you wish us to apply to Google vs. the rest of the world.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
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
I honestly can't figure out why everyone is so upset about this. CNet's article was below the belt. Whether they had that right or not isn't the issue. Google didn't say they shouldn't have written it, but rather that they have to deal with the consequences. Reporters get thrown out of press conferences all the time for being obnoxious & no one complains. Why is it different because it's Google? Personally I applaud Google for having the fortitude to blow off CNet. It's that 'we-don't-need-you' attitude that we've all always loved about Google in the first place.
On the one hand, Cnet is singling out Google for something that can be done on any search engine. They go on to offer a slippery-slope argument about how Google could potentially do bad things. Altogether a cheap shot. On the other hand, Google's response is so arrogant, that it sounds it will incite the growing backlash. Is banning a news-source compatible with "do no evil"? I'm torn.
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.
It has nothing to do with Google, or what you can find via google.
It has to do with reporting personal information about a person in a way that is objectionable to said person, and said person actually having some recourse they can take. (Typically unlike you and me)
Just because information is available doesn't mean journalists shouldn't think about what they are reporting on. You wouldn't like it if CNet told the whole world these kinds of facts about your life. Unfortunately, in your case and mine, there's piss all we could do about it.
I say kudos to Google for standing up to asshole reporting.
No Comment.
Face it, Google is the new 6'4" 200 lb teenage brat on the block.
Of course, if it helps geekdom sleep at night, we could collectively chant "You can make money without doing evil" out of the Google scripture... and refuse to realise that the people actually running the show are not the paragons of virtue otherwise claimed.
I say kudos to ZDNet UK for standing up to asshole search engines.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
>Just because information is available doesn't mean journalists shouldn't think about what they are reporting on.
Oh, really? And when the same asshole was asked this question at a press conference few months ago, he said that Google is just making already available information easier to find.
And now that *he* goot googled, that is objectionable reporting. Fuck him.
>It has to do with reporting personal information about a person in a way that is objectionable to said person
Instead they could have made a "story" composed of Google links to search results on this guy.
How would that be different from actually writing up a story?
>Unfortunately, in your case and mine, there's piss all we could do about it.
They (CNet) just demonstrated how there's piss he can do about it as well.
If anyhthing (as The Register noted), now CNet can freely bash Google until the ban expires, which will actually help their business.
>I say kudos to Google for standing up to asshole reporting.
Screw Google.
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.
Actually, the CNet article was about how easy it was to find personal information in Google (as well as other search engines), but Google's response was not. Google responded with "you're not allowed to do it with my personal information". And Google's response was only possible because of a person's position. Other news have been reported using personal information gathered from Google and Google didn't complain about that. So Google isn't standing up to asshole reporting...Google's CEO Eric Schmidt is pissed and he is in a position to do something about it...unlike you or me.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
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.