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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.