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.'"
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.
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
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.
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.
To add some:
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.
There was a grad student a few years ago that collected a whole bunch of public information on powerlines, phone lines and fibre and internet lines. He sifted through it and made a very detailed map. The information contained therin could basically be used to take out a whole lot of critical infrastructure in the US.
In the government/military such works, even having come from public sources, can be classified due to the sheer amount of critical information in them. This does not mean the sources are classified, merely that the sifted sorted analyzed information is.
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.
I can follow someone home, get their address, habits, realtionship status etc... From that I can get a bit more information using publicly available information (say, the phone book and the library) and after a bit I would be able to know a lot about them. This does not mean I then go and publish the information all over the internet along with all the information I found out.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.Bollocks.
You seem to be missing the fundamental point that most of the information in question came from Google itself.
If the boss of Smith and Wesson routinely got shot at by nutcases toting guns he sold them, then he might be a bit more careful about who his company sold guns to. As it is, they're probably rarely affected, so it's "not their problem" - the more they sell, the better.
In this case, Google is routinely hoovering up all the details of our lives, and all we can do is trust them because they're supposed to be the good guys, and the only assurance of that we have is their word. Sort of. Just exactly what does "do no evil" mean in the context of privacy issues anyhow?
Google has provided us with all sorts of wonderful facilities but they are long overdue in providing serious answers to privacy concerns. As a publicly traded company, it's about time they started acting like grown ups.
So far all attempts to get them to provide definitive answers to such questions have come to nothing, so eventually someone (CNet in this case) forced the issue by making it matter to them personally.
It had to come to this eventually. If you're doing something that affects millions of people, and any concerns they raise are just deflected with "na na na na na - I can't hear you", then sooner or later, somebody somewhere is going to have no option but to force you to just ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
Your own argument is actually in favour of the opposite position of the one you think it is - Google is ploughing ahead regardless, "just because they can".
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.
Just one quick thing to say:
>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.
and then
>There's such a thing as personal responsibility. You have rights, but you also have moral obligations.
Do you think that individuals who are attempting to make a profit running a business or service are somehow exempt from these moral obligations you're so fond of?
If not, then how can you justify the folks at google making a huge, huge pile of money (to paraphrase you) "collecting information that is buried on the net in one place and publishing it"?
If so, then how can you justify your apparent double-standard, wherein this behavior is morally reprehensible if it's "gratuitous" but morally appropriate if it's for a profit?
It is this specific double standard that is being pointed out by CNet UK, by the way.
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.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
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.