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.
The submitter's sarcasm detector looks like it's woefully inadequate.
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
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
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.
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.
Given the equally childish actions of Google, I'd say this was a perfectly appropriate response.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.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.
hmmm, if ZDNet posted a story about me tomorrow saying that i was now worth a billion dollars and lived in a gigantic house, i can put my hand on my heart right here and say that i wouldn't have a single unkind word... ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
to quote kant's categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." i.e. only do what you want others to do.
i think the greater aspect about this is that zdnet is making people aware of just how far google's reach into our personal and private lives is. google is treating us as a means, while zdnet is respecting us and treating us as an ends only.
"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." google is treating us as a means, they are taking our information without asking. to treat us as an end they would have to ask if we consent to having our information included in their indexes.
further reading. of course, the bulk of my ethics are in line with kant, you may disagree with my viewpoint.
always mosh clockwise
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.
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
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.
"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." ---
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
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.)
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.
You could but you'd go to prison for it. Lets see here, reckless endangerment of a minor, or putting said minor at risk of personal injury above and beyond the normal run of affairs due to your actions, incitment to a crime, again regarding a minor, and they'll probably get you on loitering too. But that's because you got a camera and took the photos.
What ZDNet is making clear here is that you shouldn't be afraid to eat a big ol' slice of what you are serving. If you are serving a vast amount of information all disorganised, you must assume its only a matter of time before someone organises it. Also, you had better be ready for that moment when it comes to bite you in the ass, and this is what the ZDNet stance underlines most eloquently.
People have expressed concerns about privacy and google before, but it was seen mostly as conspiracy theorists crying in the wilderness. Now the top guy of google has been personally targeted by his own creation, it's all out in the open. Superb journalism says I, and rough justice, further. If you open pandora's box, you had best be prepared for what comes out...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
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.
Just posted this on ZDUK.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
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.
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.
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.
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