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.'"
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.
http://worldwithoutsecrets.gartner.com/section.php .id.49.s.1.jsp
"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.
Pshaw, google fanboy/stockholder. Google is the crook here. As a former journalist, I whole heartedly agree with ZDNet's message, and wish I had written it myself.
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.
Ok, just because You think something is unreasonable, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
"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."
Reasonably considered private? Your, or anyone else's, opinion on what is 'reasonable' is irrelevant. Some people think it's reasonable to hold video game manufacturers responsible for murders and car thefts. Using the word 'reasonable' to justify an argument is an act of futility.
"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."
So what your saying is, it's ok for me to find that information from one source (google). But it's not ok for me to find that information from another source (CNET)? Give me a break.
"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."
Correct, no obligation exists to publish it. But likewise, the fact that some people do not subscribe to your definition of 'reasonable' doesn't mean that content ought to be censored either.
Here's the second. This is just wrong of google and does this mean the benevolent giant is really a bully in disguise. Sorry, google is a search engine that is used for all kinds of "interesting" things. If google doesn't like it, then they can pack up and go home. sheesh.
Since when is not kowtowing to somebody worthy of scorn? Is this a generational thing?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
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.
is goes beyond that. the greater issue, for me at least, is the amount of sensitive information that is available through google and other search engines/services. while what zdnet did is in bad taste - i think we should be asking:
should sensitive and/or personally identifiable information be available online if the indivdual doesnt want it to be? should i be able to 'opt out of' or perferably 'opt into' google's (etc.) indexes?
always mosh clockwise
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
Another highly recommended book on this topic is The Transparent Society, by David Brin. (Yes, the same David Brin who write sci fi.)
You missed the point. Google are the ones who can't handle their own software. A long-overdue article was used using the Google engine. It's like saying, hey guess what, Microsoft xyz software has a bug, and they haven't fixed it... shame on them... and the whole public applauds on such a find and telling Microsoft how it is. Now Google was always made aware about personal data being shown as public, from credit cards, to people's phone numbers, and CNet, after many years, pointed it out in a blunt fashion. So as a result, Google, in a mode of complete lack of control, refuses to talk to News.com/CNet. It's that "we don't care about anyone else - we're always right" perception that is taking over the "do no evil" attitude, applaud it all you like, but if you are, you can do the same for all their competitors, cause they no different.
Well first, just because information is public doens't mean it should be publicized more. Building plans for many public buildings are available at local libraries. That doesn't mean most people have seen those.
Same with people's personal information. Some information might be public because the phone company is too stupid to change its policies, doesn't mean that one should look up a certains highprofile person's address and then publicize it.
If they had used say msn search (god forbid) then google would have nothing to say.
I agree. I think this was another mistake of the journalist, "Look we're not only so cool and l33t and smart that we can find 'personal' information on the top honcho over there but we're also artistically inclined such that we don't fail to find the irony in Google being the search engine of choice in this personal quest to find a filler piece for our daily edition because otherwise we're so stupid we couldn't find anything else to report on."
Besides, it's very annoying when journalists think that they actually have a noble job. The truth is out there and must be reports on! C'mon this is really annoying. Journalists that get so high on this concept that they must report on what color underpants usher is wearing these days are just plain unbearable. Their more-noble-than-thou attitude is also annoying. Case in point that moron who hit Lindsay Lohan because he had to get just so close. All because his tiny mind couldn't understand that fact that just because he has an uncontrollable itch to be an idiot doesn't mean that he can do whatever he wants in the name of journalism.
I think most journalists are seriously deluded and brainwashed into thinking that they help (hu)mankind with information.
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.