Google Secret Privacy Document Leaked

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Secret Privacy Document Leaked

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @12:50AM from the don't-look-there dept.

siliconbits writes "A confidential, seven-page Google Inc. 'vision statement' shows the information-age giant in a deep round of soul-searching over a basic question: How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels—the vast trove of data it possesses about people's activities? Should it tap more of what it knows about Gmail users? Should it build a vast 'trading platform' for buying and selling Web data? Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?"

281 comments

and... by ae1294 · 2010-08-10 00:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Should they be evil?
1. Re:and... by Thanshin · 2010-08-10 00:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  MWAHAHA?
2. Re:and... by digitalchinky · 2010-08-10 01:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How evil are the shareholders? Will google become evil over the apparent need to make a few extra billion every year? Why is it not okay just to coast along when you're on a good thing already? How much money is enough?
3. Re:and... by drewhk · 2010-08-10 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What shall we use to fill the empty spaces
  Where waves of hunger roar?
  Shall we set out across the sea of faces
  In search of more and more applause?
  Shall we buy a new guitar?
  Shall we drive a more powerful car?
  Shall we work straight through the night?
  Shall we get into fights?
  Leave the lights on?
  Drop bombs?
  Do tours of the east?
  contract diseases?
  Bury bones?
  Break up homes?
  Send flowers by phone?
  Take to drink?
  Go to shrinks?
  Give up meat?
  Rarely sleep?
  Keep people as pets?
  Train dogs?
  Race rats?
  Fill the attic with cash?
  Bury treasure?
  Store up leisure?
  But never relax at all
  With our backs to the wall.
  ---
  Eh, Pink Floyd deserves the sacrifice of some karma points...
4. Re:and... by DarkKnightRadick · 2010-08-10 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  totally awesome and true.
  
  --
  "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
5. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hit the nail right on it's head. Google is a company, which is owned by its shareholders who solely want profit. Google is currently the most valuable brand in the world. By engaging in activities like selling users information, brand value will decline and so will profits (long term). However, not selling the information (short term) will make shareholders angry.
  The problem is that Google is a company, which is an anonymous entity in society solely created for the purpose of generating profit. If they change this, then they can be "not be evil" and then they won't have such dilemma's.
  I don't see buying google employee's buying up stock untill they have 100%, to convert Google into a different form then being a company, though.
6. Re:and... by Lumpy · 2010-08-10 01:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or only Quasi-evil.
  Evil-lite.
  just a little evil?
  don't gnaw on your kitty.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:and... by bsDaemon · 2010-08-10 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  If all the employees owned the company, then it'd be a cooperative and exist solely for their own benefit. And who's to say that Google employees wouldn't turn out to be just as evil without the direction from outside shareholders? Likely, they'd also turn out to be a bunch of greedy meatbags.
8. Re:and... by Wiarumas · 2010-08-10 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Google had the good vs evil scale when considering whether or not they should pull out of China. There is no doubt in my mind they have some sort of good vs evil or profit vs privacy scale on some executive's dashboard.
  
  --
  I will bend like a reed in the wind.
9. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Time to hire a conscience.
10. Re:and... by icebraining · 2010-08-10 02:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Google has two classes of shares: A and B.
  A are only worth 1 vote, B are worth 10.
  A are all publicly traded, B are all hold by founders, directors and executives.
  At least in 2007, 67% of the votes were owned by Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
  So being publicly available does not mean they don't control the company anymore.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
11. Re:and... by digitig · 2010-08-10 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Google is currently the most valuable brand in the world.
  Really? Last thing I heard it was second to Walmart.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
12. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  Every time I see your .sig about Best Buy and low grade dog food, I wonder: What would you recommend otherwise. I've been to "boutique" car audio places which charged about 4 times as much for stuff that wasn't much better than what one found at BB. And one "premium" car audio store ended up installing stuff by twisting wires together so there were shorts and drop-outs aplenty until I had a mechanic spend the time to hunt down and properly solder the wires and use heat shrink tubing.
  Know a decent chain that sells decent car audio gear that actually is worth the cost, as opposed to places that sell you BS like $500 USB cables with silver coated wires so "the bits get there in better order"?
13. Re:and... by ReederDa · 2010-08-10 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's the shareholders that should be concerned. It's the company itself that's talking of making these decisions about people's data.
14. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Hit the nail right on it's head. Google is a company, which is owned by its shareholders who solely want profit.
  As a (very small) shareholder in many companies, no, we do not solely want profit. Mostly, we wantshareholder value. Which is dependent on profits, of course, but far more heavily on brand value and perception.
15. Re:and... by Monchanger · 2010-08-10 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Walmart? That brand is J-U-N-K, and no amount of smiling faces will change that fact. They're only in business because they sell cheaply, not because people think well of them.
  Brand is about what you mean to customers, not investors. That "brand" directory explains it's not about brand, but about market caps.
16. Re:and... by interval1066 · 2010-08-10 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  How many yachts can you surf behind, indeed. Problem is, the REAL mission of any public company is to make profits for its share holders and if such a concern doesn't show healthy and consistent growth every quarter the stock is considered "not great", or at least not as good as it could be, so companies are always looking to grow. Being a money maker, but a stagnant one, is almost as bad as being a cash burner.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
17. Re:and... by Monchanger · 2010-08-10 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you! Nice to hear a learned and sane voice once in a while. Wish I hadn't blown all my mod points on trivia yesterday.
18. Re:and... by bertoelcon · 2010-08-10 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not being evil doesn't mean they have to be good. They could just be lawful neutral.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
19. Re:and... by Elektroschock · 2010-08-10 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  3 Aug 2010 - P-6552/2010
  Question for written answer to the Council under Rule 117
  MEP Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D)
  Council recommendations for combating ‘radicalisation’ in the EU
  
  The conclusions adopted at the Council meeting of 26 April recommend, as
  a means of combating ‘radicalisation’ within the EU, a mechanism for the
  collection of personal data for the purposes of political, religious and
  psychological profiling in order to assess the likelihood of recruitment
  by terrorist organisations of those concerned. An addendum dated 30
  March 2010 contains a joint questionnaire for the authorities seeking to
  investigate, for example, ideologies directly advocating violence, more
  specifically ‘extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist,
  anti-globalisation etc.’ movements, while a further question seeks to
  obtain data concerning the ‘friends, family’ etc. of individuals under
  investigation. In view of this:
  1. What precisely is the Council's legal interpretation of the term
  ‘ideology’ with a view to monitoring the practices followed by the
  prosecution services regarding compliance with the rule of law? Who will
  be responsible for deciding which individuals subscribe to the
  ‘ideologies’ under investigation and accordingly which of them are to be
  subject to scrutiny? What criteria will be applied in this respect?
  2. What is understood as being encompassed by ‘anti-globalisation
  ideology’ and how will the Council ensure that the extremely general
  nature of this concept does not mean that all those who hold political
  views diverging from the relevant ‘mainstream ideology’ regarding
  international developments are not from the outset treated as
  ‘potentially violent suspects’ and kept under surveillance accordingly?
  Similarly, the term ‘Islamic ideology’ obviously encompasses thousands
  of individuals who have no intention of committing acts of violence or
  inciting others to do so (offences in any case already covered by
  criminal law within the Member States and hence not necessitating any
  new data collection ‘mechanism’). How does the proposed mechanism avoid
  the danger of the national authorities collecting data on all ‘Islamic’
  (or other) ‘ideologists’, without exception, in order to investigate
  which of them are likely to engage in ‘violent radicalisation’ and which
  are not?
  3. Why does the Council recommendation ignore the close link between
  certain forms of terrorism and organised crime, which obviously has very
  little to do with established ‘ideologies’?
  4. How does the Council respond to the accusation that its
  recommendation is couched in such general terms that it is effectively
  encouraging Member States to keep both law- abiding citizens and
  wrongdoers under systematic surveillance?
20. Re:and... by RabbitWho · 2010-08-10 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is like 2 years old, no? And they're still not evil!
  
  --
  it's under construction
21. Re:and... by TubeSteak · 2010-08-10 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  How evil are the shareholders?
  Google has a dual-class structure, with Class B stocks getting 10 votes per share.
  Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page are the only ones who get to own Class B stocks.
  They collectively own a controlling interest in the company and intend for it to stay that way.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
22. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  Step 1 in getting quality... NEVER BUY FROM A CHAIN. nothing sold at any CHAIN store is worth a damn. Fry's Best Buy, sears, all of them suck.
  Step 2 research. you need to look at what your real budget is and then research what is available. The flagship units of lower end components are actually quite nice when you know what to look for. How to you know? join a few large AV or HT boards and ask.
  Step 3 dont skimp on the Audio and video outputs ... dont waste money on the inputs. This means your display, being a plasma or projector is far more important than the bluray player. a $129.00 samsung bluray player is as clear as a $5800 denon top of the line unit. BUT a Vitzo LCD has a crappy picture compared to a nice panasonic or other midlevel brand. Spend a few more hundies to get a better display that will last. Buy real speakers and amp/SS processor. the mini speaker setups are utter crap. Most dont know that they sound like crap because they never listened to a real one. Best Buy loves to demo the small sony or bose speaker setups because the markup and profit on them is huge.
  Step 4 - if you cant install it yourself, then hire someone that has references. You went to a shop for your car and did not get references from others as to the quality of their work. This made this "high end shop" in reality a very low end shop that told you they were high end. You paid a premium for kid in a driveway quality. because you believed them. NEVER trust a store, ask for refrences and call them. OR research the store online. bad places earn a bad rep fast.
23. Re:and... by digitig · 2010-08-10 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Most valuable brand" is about what people will pay, so it's about investors, not customers, whether you like it or not.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
24. Re:and... by DragonWriter · 2010-08-10 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Hit the nail right on it's head. Google is a company, which is owned by its shareholders who solely want profit.
  
  I think the word you are looking for is "corporation" not "company"; any business entity is a company. And even then, its not really right -- its true that the sole common interest of the voting shareholders of most widely-held corporations is often financial returns (and, because of the fact that its easy to move money around between different investments, often short-term profit.) But that's less true in Google's case than it is in the case of most large, public companies, because Google's establishment of stock classes and the structure of its IPO were designed to keep disproportionate control with a narrow group of founders with a particular shared vision.
25. Re:and... by Dishevel · 2010-08-10 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I vote Chaotic Neutral. Much more interesting.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
26. Re:and... by metrometro · 2010-08-10 03:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > being publicly available does not mean they don't control the company anymore.
  Minority shareholder lawsuit. Google it.
27. Re:and... by Monchanger · 2010-08-10 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sigh... Yes yes, bottom line is everything... Nothing else matters...
  
  "Most valuable brand" is about what people will pay...
  That "people" == customers. So you've said it yourself- it's about customers. Regardless of motivation, regardless of consequences.
  The site you quoted is stupid, confusing "brand" with "brand value". Brand, as in "brand loyalty", is about customers tending to purchase specific products or from specific companies, and has absolutely nothing to do with that company's bottom line. What that brand is worth, while the impetus for improving it, is but a derivative aspect.
28. Re:and... by sexconker · 2010-08-10 03:54 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Walmart? That brand is J-U-N-K, and no amount of smiling faces will change that fact. They're only in business because they sell cheaply, not because people think well of them.
  Brand is about what you mean to customers, not investors. That "brand" directory explains it's not about brand, but about market caps.
  Google isn't top dog in the grand scheme of things, be it "value", market capital, or brand recognition.
  Why do you care so much, anyway? Blind fanboi rage?
29. Re:and... by icebraining · 2010-08-10 04:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If other shareholders file a lawsuit and win, the situation might change. But right now they do control the company, regardless of being a publicly traded company and having a minority in shares, and this probably won't change as long as Google continues to raise their profits and reduce their operating expenses as they have been doing year after year.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
30. Re:and... by VortexCortex · 2010-08-10 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I vote Chaotic Neutral. Much more interesting.
  Yes, but Lawful Neutral would be optimal...
31. Re:and... by Monchanger · 2010-08-10 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Dear Idiot:
  I didn't say anything about Google.
  You want my grandparent.
  XXX,
  Me.
32. Re:and... by metrometro · 2010-08-10 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They don't have to win to have power. To use a slashdot-grade analogy, holding a gun to your head will influence your behavior even if I never pull the trigger.
  Google will lose money some day. And when it does, all kinds of Not Evil stuff will be under assault.
33. Re:and... by nacturation · 2010-08-10 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Google has a dual-class structure, with Class B stocks getting 10 votes per share.
  Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page are the only ones who get to own Class B stocks.
  They collectively own a controlling interest in the company and intend for it to stay that way.
  Seems to me that strategy really hampers their ability to cash out via selling their shares, since the sale of any shares (except to each other) effectively sells control.
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
34. Re:and... by nacturation · 2010-08-10 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or only Quasi-evil.
  Evil-lite.
  just a little evil?
  That would be "Evil [BETA]".
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
35. Re:and... by hazah · 2010-08-10 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Bad bad bad analogy! Should you actually pull the trigger, you will loose all of your held power over that person. It's always a bluff, and if it isn't, the end result is still not the desired result.
36. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Though the preferent shares (the B kind) are indeed worth 10 votes, those shares do not give rights over dividends. It's a trade-off between making money and controlling the firm.
  However, this is mindblowingly sick.
37. Re:and... by curunir · 2010-08-10 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why is it not okay just to coast along when you're on a good thing already?
  I think it's drilled into students in business school (if not earlier) that perpetual growth is the only reasonable goal.
  A few years ago, I had an opportunity to tag along with a graduate business school trip to Japan (a parent was the faculty chaperon for the trip.) On the trip, we met a diverse selection of Japanese CEOs and executives. One of the most interesting to me was the head of a Sake brewer who was running the business that had been in his family since the early 1600s. It wasn't really his responses that were enlightening to me, but the questions the students asked. After asking basic questions about sales and profits (which were apparently relatively flat, as beer is becoming more popular among Japanese youth than Sake), he had to endure a string of questions asking about his plans for increasing market share, overseas expansion and even creating new product lines that would be more popular with today's youth.
  His answer was almost identical to every single question...it basically boiled down to, "I just want to run my family's company the way my ancestors have. I want to make the best Sake I can possibly make and I want to provide for my family and leave the business to my sons. My profits provide a comfortable life for my family and myself and our Sake has won many awards. So I have no plans to ..." (where ... is whatever he was asked about)
  It not only went on for nearly the entire hour he answered questions, but the discussions at dinner later indicated that none of the students could understand his point of view. Everyone kept saying how naive he was and everything they would do if they were in his position. It was disheartening to think that these students were the future business leaders of America.
  
  --
  "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
38. Re:and... by icebraining · 2010-08-10 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's not exactly a "tradeoff" because the B shares aren't for sale - they designed it so they (the founders) could keep control. Selling them would be against the purpose.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
39. Re:and... by Raul+Acevedo · 2010-08-10 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as simple as them just trying to make more money. If they don't respond to the new and emerging threads from rivals, Google could eventually fail. This is part of the reason they extend into so many different areas such as Android. It's not just about making more profit; it's about ensuring long term survival.
  
  --
  In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
40. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Good point. This is what happens with every decent company that decides one day to go public. Shareholders screw everything up...all they care about is profits.
  I used to love Google. In fact I used almost everything google. If Google moves forward with this anti net-neutrality thing, I swear I will drop all their services and go to somebody else.
  Check this out...scary - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html
41. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Minor nit...
  "B are all hold by founders, directors and executives"
  There are also B shares held by (non-executive) current and former Google employees. I don't know the exact breakdown, but I believe that all pre-IPO ISOs were for class-B shares.
42. Re:and... by mattack2 · 2010-08-10 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Step 1 in getting quality... NEVER BUY FROM A CHAIN. nothing sold at any CHAIN store is worth a damn. Fry's Best Buy, sears, all of them suck.
  But whatever you buy from the "non-chain" is going to be the EXACT same thing you can get at the chain, except likely more expensive at the non-chain.
  If you want to pay extra for the expertise or help setting it up, feel free. But if you know what you want already, why not buy the commodity item at the cheapest price?
43. Re:and... by inmytaxi · 2010-08-10 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  wah wah. as you know the shareholders is everywoman and man, not a bunch of billionaires but rather people who deserve for google to do their best. if you think maximizing profits is wrong, you should tax the companies accordingly.
44. Re:and... by stiggle · 2010-08-10 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  All you need is for them to think you will pull the trigger.
  If you have a bad enough reputation then it will work.
45. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-11 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  But whatever you buy from the "non-chain" is going to be the EXACT same thing you can get at the chain,
  really? Please show me where you can get RBH speakers at a "chain".
  RBH is not more than most of the crap brands like Bose, Polk and Yamaha. but are build with real quality drivers like scanspeak and other better quality parts.
  Maybe if you expanded your knowledge before buying you would understand that. Plus chain stores have their own "lines" to eliminate price match shopping. typically they are lower end lines to maximize profits. Nothing sold at a Best Buy or a Frys is anywhere near the quality of the lesser known brands that are a good value and stellar quality for the money. He pointed out learning by reading forums, or did you not read that far?
  If you are plain old silly and, "I WANT SONY" then feel free to shop at bestbuy. Sony is very much "low grade dog food" in the words of the GP. His point is clearly; commodity common brands are typically crap.
46. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-11 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Google's S1 has a particularly clever and audacious defense againt such suits. The S1 is a document which you file when going public. It's the contract you make with your shareholders. Usually it contains provisos like the uncertainties and risks of your industry.
  Google's has a section called "don't be evil." In it, they explain that they won't pusue certain opportunities which might otherwise increase shareholder value on the basis of their unusually strict ethics policy.
  A minority shareholder suit would have to claim that any given action that they had a problem with wasn't reasonably covered under such a broad caution. To be sure, this proviso has cost shareholders millions if not billions (e.g. in China), but if they warn stockholders in the S1, then there's no failure to comply with their obligations to the stockholders.
47. Re:and... by hazah · 2010-08-12 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Against cowards. Oh who am I kidding, the world is riddled with them.
All your info by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 00:54 · Score: 0

All your info are belong to us...
how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 00:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

how much would you pay a month to see no ads on any website?
1. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would pay one adblock+
2. Re:how much would you pay? by delinear · 2010-08-10 00:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  how much would you pay a month to see no ads on any website?
  Nothing?
3. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html
  you can already pay google. dunno about other sites.
4. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's a sucker's question. Cable TV is $100/month and you still see ads. There is no end to the greed.
5. Re:how much would you pay? by Lumpy · 2010-08-10 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing. I use privoxy I already see no ad's on all websites.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:how much would you pay? by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2010-08-10 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a sucker's question. Cable TV is $100/month and you still see ads. There is no end to the greed.
  You also go to movies and see ads before the movie and product placement throughout the movie.
  
  --
  There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
7. Re:how much would you pay? by envirotex · 2010-08-10 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I send them and noscript some money periodically but I don't promote the ABP add-in. If too many people use it the adults will take it away from us. I have not seen an ad in 5 years.
8. Re:how much would you pay? by jopsen · 2010-08-10 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  What ever they make from showing me ads... Seriously that can't be much...
  And if the money went directly to content creators as some sort of micropayment, I might even pay more...
9. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  If it weren't almost completely infeasible to become a start-up cable carrier, competition would mean that advertising time would decrease, not increase as it is now. Ditto on ISPs, which is why ISP-controlled advertising is such a terrible idea. We should have 50-100 national and state-wide carriers, not 3-5. But then you get into the realm of content licensing contracts (NFL Network: "run X amount of ad hours to license our material") and regulations.
10. Re:how much would you pay? by mcgrew · 2010-08-10 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't have a problem with product placement; seeing Walt Kowalski drinking PBR and Heinekin instead of some made-up brand adds realism to the movie. But they didn't use to have commercials in the theater. They would have trailers for upcoming shows, but no ads for Coke or Toyota.
  As to cable, cable channels didn't have commercials back in the day. Nor were the movies censored. Nor did thay have those goddamned annoying logos at the bottom right of the screen.
  These days it seems nobody gives a damn about the audience. And they wonder why people are leaving in droves?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
11. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  What...? Why is this labeled Insightful?
  The $100/month you cite is around the cost for cable+phone+internet services that a single company provides your residence. They are providing you with access to the content, not the content itself, which is what advertisements pay for. You seriously expect your $100/month to cover all the expenses that go into not only providing you access to the shows you watch BUT THE SHOWS THEMSELVES? You're absolutely bonkers.
12. Re:how much would you pay? by DrBoumBoum · 2010-08-10 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I should really donate to privoxy (better than adblock because works with all browsers on my machine). * beats chest *
13. Re:how much would you pay? by ckaminski · 2010-08-10 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I hate the damn logos, and I hate the damn animated marquees...
14. Re:how much would you pay? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  Nor did thay have those goddamned annoying logos at the bottom right of the screen. Glad someone else remembers! The trick is to boil the frog slowly.
I don't see any ads at all... by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 00:57 · Score: 2, Informative

...thanks to Adblock
1. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by betterunixthanunix · 2010-08-10 01:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  My thoughts exactly, although Google would probably make quite a bit of money selling no-advertisements, if only because the majority of people are just not familiar with ad blocking. Reminds me of the various "remote desktop" packages that charge people for what is essentially a rebranded VNC.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by IBBoard · 2010-08-10 01:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  All that they need to do on Google's pages is to move away from graphics and iFrames and on to embedded text. I could put adverts on my site very easily that AdBlock+ couldn't catch because there would be no easy way to distinguish it from text. On Google's own pages, it wouldn't make a difference about counting views etc, because they're already capturing that data and can handle it in code. The only problem (for them) comes in tracking one person across multiple sites since the "simple HTML with no markers screaming 'I am an advert'" ads wouldn't be able to share cookies.
3. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The only drawback of paying is that once you pay for something, no matter what, they know who you are when you use their services. So they can with 100% of accuracy collect data (even if they may look insignificant at first) about you.
4. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by dawilcox · 2010-08-10 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  This type of thing reminds me that Slashdot sells ad free pages (1000 for $5). I wonder if they think that a majority of their readers are not familiar with ad blocking either.
  http://slashdot.org/faq/subscriptions.shtml
5. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  You can train adblock to look for string values. Are you going to rename your css and tagged divs just to be unique for every page visit? Thought not.
6. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  All that they need to do on Google's pages is to move away from graphics and iFrames and on to embedded text. I could put adverts on my site very easily that AdBlock+ couldn't catch because there would be no easy way to distinguish it from text.
  
  That's not really true. Most decent web browsers allow stuff like "user stylesheets" that can even block text ads. The ad block plugin I use in Chrome even handles it automatically - if I can click on it, I can block it - doesn't matter if it's in an iframe or embedded element or not.
7. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by IBBoard · 2010-08-10 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  And if it isn't tagged up in a uniquely identifiable way? Like it's just a div in a div in a div in a div called left-nav? You're not going to get a rule to catch that without wiping out chunks of useful content on other websites.
8. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by networkBoy · 2010-08-10 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  No,
  They know we all can use adblock, but they also know that we likely will buy this subscription just to support them.
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
9. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Ginger+Unicorn · 2010-08-10 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  if i go to blah.com and tell adblock to block the div called "nav-left", that rule will only apply on blah.com.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
10. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Kidbro · 2010-08-10 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Unlikely. DOM structures are generally huge, complicated beasts. The odds that you can write a CSS selector that matches the ads on one page without hitting anything on other pages are pretty good. Even if it is just a div in a div in a div in a div called left-nav, some of the ancestors are likely to have identifyable properties, either from classes, ids, other attributes, their position with regards to their siblings... something. And since it would be easy to keep unique css rules per site or even page, you wouldn't really run the risk of wiping out content on other websites.
  It's all about how much effort you (for some value of "you") want to spend keeping the rules up to date.
  
  --
  May we live long and die out
11. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by RabbitWho · 2010-08-10 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ads keep the Internet free and support websites like slashdot and countless others. Adblock is evil.
  
  --
  it's under construction
12. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by FraGNeM · 2010-08-10 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  If these rules are consistent for your specific domain, a block could be made for that identifier only on your domain.
  Since ABP in particular is built upon subscriptions, if your site is popular enough, it would only take one person creating a rule for your specific site to block ads on that site for everybody.
  Simply changing the names of your tags, or naming them the same as something useful on other sites, won't stop people from finding a way to uniquely identify your ads. You have to make your ad placement as resistant to pattern recognition as possible, and that isn't an easy task.
13. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  People would just create a more complex detection heuristic, even if that involves measuring element heights or imbedded content spacing. Non-host-redirected ad link parsing would be the real killer. It's basically a war that can't be won.
14. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by krelian · 2010-08-10 03:31 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Look what we have here. The village idiot announcing his leetness for using adblock. What do you think would happen if everyone started using adblock? Would we have less or more intrusive ads? Would it be easier or harder to block them?
  You are as smart as a guy who found a trick to get free money out of ATMs and then goes telling everyone about it when they complain about their financial hardships.
15. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by IBBoard · 2010-08-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  And then you lose the whole nav. Or you block "#nav-left div div div" and lose the whole nav, just at a different level. Or you block an nth child and as soon as something is added to the nav or moved around then you lose the wrong thing again.
  Yes, you can do CSS selector blocking, but it would seem trivial to defeat it if people didn't do what they do now (which is to add things like id="adTower" and the like to it, or put it on a separate server with its own advertising domain as an iframe or an image)
16. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by MikeBabcock · 2010-08-10 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Randomly generating the div ids in the middleware such that they're still consistent but different on each visit isn't hard. Not even remotely hard. If it were necessary, or desirable, they'd just do that.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
17. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by shentino · 2010-08-10 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer blocking the site serving the ads.
18. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  ...thanks to Adblock
  
  Blocking ads is one thing, not being tracked anymore is something else. I don't mind targeted ads when they are not annoying but you don't have to track people to be successful in your advertising. For instance, show ads for new games on websites that provide game review or better: ads for divorce lawyers on meetics (Lawl). This doesn't need tracking to be shown to the targeted audience. I see tracking as an offense.
  I've spent a lot of time trying tools to protect my privacy: one can try privoxy along with Tor. There are also great add-ons for firefox such as BetterPrivacy and NoScript. There is Ixquick.com (AKA StartPage) which offer anonymous searches, an https proxy access to the search results and they are working on an email service that respects your privacy.
19. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by afex · 2010-08-10 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  i used to think this is true, but i don't anymore. My last two machines (laptop of 3 years and PC of
  you know what i've discovered? I still don't click ads!
  
  you know why? because i, like you, and like 90% of the slashdot crowd, is 'good at the internet'.
  
  what does this mean? it means that i subconsciously filter the ads out myself - even the flashing, moving ones. Heck, the ad could literally say 'hey you - [real name] - this product is exactly what you googled for and is super cheap!' and i would not click it. not because its not exactly what i'm looking for, but because i never even give it a second thought
  
  i sort of forgot where this post was going - i guess i'm just saying that the notion that adblock is 'evil' or 'bad' i think is no longer true - those that use adblock are the ones that would never click an ad in the first place. and those that click ads anyway just to 'support' the site are even worse - eventually the company will lower their rates because the clickthrough-to-revenue ratio has gone down the toilet.
20. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Abstrackt · 2010-08-10 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Look what we have here. The village idiot announcing his leetness for using adblock. What do you think would happen if everyone started using adblock? Would we have less or more intrusive ads? Would it be easier or harder to block them?
  You are as smart as a guy who found a trick to get free money out of ATMs and then goes telling everyone about it when they complain about their financial hardships.
  I suppose it comes down to how people use Adblock. I only block the ads that bother me (popups, popunders, eyegougers, etc.). Relevant inline ads that don't distract from the rest of the site can lead to some really interesting discoveries.
  
  --
  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
21. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by diegocg · 2010-08-10 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  But it's not illegal. So I'll keep using it.
22. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by proxima · 2010-08-10 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  i used to think this is true, but i don't anymore. My last two machines (laptop of 3 years and PC of
  you know what i've discovered? I still don't click ads!
  This depends on the ad and the context. I normally avoid ads like the plague, but when searching Google for something (especially when I'm shopping), I'll often (a few times a month) click the advertisers. For one thing, I can be reasonably certain that the place I'm going to has the product for sale and use it as a starting point for price comparisons. My click through rate, even for Google, is probably still way below average; but I'm glad the ads support a free search engine.
  
  --
  "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
23. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  An Internet is always free, it was the corporations getting in on 'the new thing' making what is the world wide web now and charging for it.
  Adblock is taking back control of what you want to see and do. If you created a LAN would you force dirty advertising tricks to everyone on your network in the hope that it can pay for power and maintenance?
24. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by Kireas · 2010-08-10 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Suck it up and deal with the adverts. Most people have a mental block to the things at this stage anyway - I know I don't even notice them anymore.
  
  --
  To much anime is bad for the brain...desu.
  
  Sorry. Couldn't help it.
25. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by RabbitWho · 2010-08-11 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's not illegal to pick your nose in public either.
  
  --
  it's under construction
26. Re:I don't see any ads at all... by RabbitWho · 2010-08-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I bet if you're looking for something like car insurance or Spanish lessons in your area and you see an ad for it you click on it. A lot of people think they ignore ads, but they only ignore the ads that they're not within the target audience for.
  
  It's the same with television, everyone says they don't pay attention to the ads, but if ads didn't work they wouldn't exist.
  
  --
  it's under construction
Ads as social media? by nlvp · 2010-08-10 00:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I quite like the idea that you could use ads that you pay for (that don't cost much) to advertise your party or to post silly messages to your friends. Of course the privacy implications of what google needs to know in order to be able to do this are absolutely terrifying, but the idea remains cute.
Additionally, I liked the idea when they turned it on its head, saying that certain individuals can agree to receive adverts of a certain type and you can then pay to have your adverts targeted to those people... such as recruiters.
I wonder the extent to which these ideas are just that : great ideas, but completely impractical in the real world, but this kind of brainstorming is what gives rise to the really good ideas in the end anyway, so its not surprising that they should be having this sort of discussion internally.

--
Salocin.com
1. Re:Ads as social media? by somersault · 2010-08-10 01:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I quite like the idea that you could use ads that you pay for (that don't cost much) to advertise your party or to post silly messages to your friends
  I'd love to be able to pay for what I can do for free on Facebook!
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
2. Re:Ads as social media? by RMH101 · 2010-08-10 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I vote "meh". Seems self-evident that
  a) Google (if it chose to) could mine a lot more data than it does - e.g. contents of gmail, results of using Google DNS, etc
  b) There are ways that Google could make a lot of money out of mining more data from the contents of their servers
  c) There is a point where customers would get pissed off/could be illegal if they over stepped the mark
  d) That it's entirely reasonable for Google to debate and investigate what further data mining they could do without Being Evil.
  I presume the document in TFA is a debate over where they draw the line. I'm glad they're debating it. I'll let you know what I think of them when they've decided where that line is.
3. Re:Ads as social media? by IBBoard · 2010-08-10 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally, I liked the idea when they turned it on its head, saying that certain individuals can agree to receive adverts of a certain type and you can then pay to have your adverts targeted to those people... such as recruiters.
  Sounds a bit like what Bynamite are doing with their plugin. I've been running it a while (on my works dev machine) to see what it picks up and what advertisers think I'm interested in.
  The idea is that I can also use it to feed back a message of "no, I'm not interested in X", since it lets them better target their ads, which saves them money/makes them more sales while leaving me with more adverts I "want" to see (for a given value of 'want' that is small to non-existant).
  So far I'm just using it to see what it thinks, since I've also got adblockers. Overall it seems moderately accurate, but Google dominates by a mile (only got one or two topics from elsewhere - Yahoo) and it seems excessively twitchy in that I hit one story on how Toyota screwed up their latest hybrid or something and suddenly I'm "interested" in hybrid cars (where as I was interested in the cock-up).
4. Re:Ads as social media? by m.ducharme · 2010-08-10 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  My impression from TFA was that the document was a Doubleclick Devil tempting Brin and Page in the desert.
  (pardon the sacrelicious metaphor, I couldn't resist)
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
5. Re:Ads as social media? by nlvp · 2010-08-10 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say I wanted to do it :)
  I meant I thought the idea was neat. I think it's rough ideas like these that develop into products in the future.
  
  --
  Salocin.com
6. Re:Ads as social media? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Me too, if it meant that I would always be treated like a valuable paying customer when it comes to problems with privacy and usability.
  And I'm not joking either. You often get what you pay for.
7. Re:Ads as social media? by somersault · 2010-08-10 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Paying definitely does not guarantee "privacy and usability". The only way to be truly private would be to do something like set up your own forum for you and your friends.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
8. Re:Ads as social media? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Free? You pay Facebook your privacy - that sounds expensive. Not as expensive as Google might be: you'd pay with your privacy plus money for the ads.
9. Re:Ads as social media? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Accidentally moderated your post redundant; posting to undo moderation.
10. Re:Ads as social media? by somersault · 2010-08-10 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  If anything was actually that private to me that I care who sees it, why would I be sharing it on Facebook..? Facebook is designed for sharing, not privacy. Even for "private" conversations I still go through 3rd party servers, and I honestly don't care if that helps make adverts more relevant to me or not.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
11. Re:Ads as social media? by rastoboy29 · 2010-08-10 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  You think they don't mine gmail? The ads aren't random, you know--*they're keyed to the contents of your email*. Think buddy. You think they provide DNS servers altruistically, too? I like Google...just sayin'...
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
I gotta say... by Pojut · 2010-08-10 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

...while I abhor some of Google's actions in recent years, they are in a simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate position. They are fortunate in that they have gotten where they are based on their own merits, including their ability to navigate the market with ease and giving people what they want.
They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
I'm glad to see they are having at least some form of internal dialogue about just how greedy they should actually be ("greed is good", after all). This indicates that they are at least aware of the recent downturn in the public's perception of them.

--
Living With a Nerd
1. Re:I gotta say... by QuijiboIsAWord · 2010-08-10 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  They are unfortunate in that they are such a huge business; while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business).
  Not. True.
  
  --
  -Hmm...I got a G+ invite, better remember to remove the request from my sig...-
2. Re:I gotta say... by Pojut · 2010-08-10 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes true. Profit should be the highest priority for business. Don't mistake profit for bad business practices...most companies would likely make even more money if they treated their customers right and listened to their concerns.
  Again, you don't have to be an asshole to make good money...despite the common stigma.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
3. Re:I gotta say... by ImNotAtWork · 2010-08-10 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The good thing is that they are actually asking these questions in the first place. We all know other companies (not all) that wouldn't give some of these balancing ideals even a moment of reflection.
  
  and no I'm not a Google fanboy
  
  --
  open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
4. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  They've been on top of everything for a while now, and that hasn't corrupted them as it has Microsoft or Apple. They're doing fine.
5. Re:I gotta say... by Pojut · 2010-08-10 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  As I said to another poster who responded to me, people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more you focus on customers, the more your profit will increase (in theory, at least).
  Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
6. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  A business's chief priority SHOULD be customer service. It never is, but it should be. Personally there is a grand total of 0 companies on this planet that get my money without giving me exactly the service I want, with the customer service offering to back it up.
  
  I changed phone companies last year because the company I was with wouldn't give me (a client of 3 years) the same offer that they were offering a new customer. They lost a customer because of one stupid decision. I've been with my current provider happily for 5 years now, and they offer me their "new customer" offerings when my contract is up.
  
  Prime customer service leads to profit. If you make customer service your priority, profit will come on its own.
7. Re:I gotta say... by UberMorlock · 2010-08-10 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  That is not at all what he said or implied. If I had mod points, I'd have modded you troll
8. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Are they really asking it or was this a "leak"?
9. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Not true. Profit is a means to an end. High profit is often the best way to achieve it.
  But the real end is to maximize shareholder/owner satisfaction. (At least in the UK), the directors are required by law to act in the best interests of the company, and generally the directors are assigned by the shareholders to perform that role.
  So, for example, a company may be wound up and assets sold off, because the shareholders want their money back. Pretty much puts a bullet between the eyes of any further profits.
  Or a company may deliberate avoid potential sources of high revenue because its shareholders have a moral objection to them. Or it may choose to charge less for goods because its objectives are to help people. In the end it comes down to the company's purpose, and that is usually - but not always - to make money.
  Some companies happily dump waste in 3rd world countries. They pay the fines when they are caught, and their profits are higher than the responsible companies. There are enough greedy people around to keep investment interest high in such companies. My company wouldn't do such a thing given the opportunity, even if the profit was high, because I think it's morally repugnant. Profit isn't the highest priority.
10. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  ... Well isn't that special.
  entitlement much?
11. Re:I gotta say... by mpeskett · 2010-08-10 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's a sensible point hiding under the hyperbole about slavery though; sometimes a company can turn a better profit by doing something unethical, so commitment purely to the bottom line will fail to produce businesses that do good things.
  Doing something unethical (of the type that your customers care about) then getting publicly busted for it... that's where ethical behaviour is a more attractive option for the profit-chaser. But too often companies are able to slide along despite unethical practice by being so big (and the bad stuff so remote) that people just buy from them out of habit, without giving a lot of thought to exactly what they might be supporting.
12. Re:I gotta say... by Nadaka · 2010-08-10 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Shareholder satisfaction is measured in profit. In the US all publicly traded companies are legally required to try to maximize profit for their shareholders.
13. Re:I gotta say... by Lumpy · 2010-08-10 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yoiu are missing one thing from that.
  Profit at the expense of quality. 99% of all corperations dont care about anything but next quarter. if I can piss off 30% of my customers but increase profits for next quarter then I am a freaking hero.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
14. Re:I gotta say... by Nadaka · 2010-08-10 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Only if slave trading were legal.
  A publicly traded company may be required to seek a profit, but that does not give them license to break other laws to do so.
  This is why they pay so much money to buy new laws. So they can have more profit without running the risks involved in breaking the law.
15. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  So you'd rather all the businesses in the world providing valuable services shut their doors to provide you the service you want? When you've got your fill of service and the company closes it's doors, what reasonable person will step in to be the next one? Customers sometimes demand service that companies cannot meet... free product, insane pricing, etc.
16. Re:I gotta say... by fast+turtle · 2010-08-10 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  The highest priority of any business should be dealing ethically with everyone. Otherwise, if Profit is their highest principal, then RIAA is performing exactly as they should and we have no reason to scream at them for taking any and everyone to court for piracy.
  So Sorry Pojut but we didn't sell you anything but the sizzle. There wasn't any product nor will there ever be any product (vaporware/duke nukem forever) is the results of that kind of thinking. It also results in dangerous products such as the Ford Pinto Hatchback that exploded if hit in the rear. Ford was actually caught with hands in the cookie jar for failing to spend the $10-20 dollars to fix the problem on the line because it was cheaper to pay out the few lawsuits. That's the kind of corporate thinking you're pushing.
  Hell it sounds just like the Corporate thinking in the damn Star Wars Prequells.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
17. Re:I gotta say... by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 01:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I find it interesting that doing evil but at least reflecting on it a bit beforehand has now become what passes as a "good thing."
18. Re:I gotta say... by Pojut · 2010-08-10 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's the kind of corporate thinking you're pushing.
  After re-reading my OP a few times, I can see how that could be grokked from what I said...but I assure you, those types of practices weren't what I was referring to.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
19. Re:I gotta say... by somersault · 2010-08-10 01:57 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
  "Making as much money as possible" will only be possible through being "bad".
  Being nice will ensure happy customers, happy employees, not breaking any laws etc, but it doesn't guarantee the highest profits.
  What if you're a nice company that already has a monopoly on your market? What if you've branched out into every market in the world and have a monopoly on everything that is sold anywhere? To make more profit you then have to start being a douche by raising costs on the customer's side, cutting down on employee benefits, or start breaking laws (environmental as someone mentioned above, or dodging taxes etc).
  "Making as much money as ethically acceptable" isn't quite so profitable, but it is nicer.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
20. Re:I gotta say... by HeckRuler · 2010-08-10 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that long term viability should be the highest priority for business. Profit helps with that, but it's not the be-all end-all. You can fire all your employees and make a really good bottom line at the end of the year, but you'll be broke the next. The people that care about such things like privacy and security are also the professionals that judge internet companies like Google. Those people are also Google's employee base. So I'd imagine that not being evil is really vital to Google. I'd say they would even pay large sums of money, or fore-go large sums of profit, to maintain their good image. Because without it, I'd go elsewhere, and turn on adblock for google.
21. Re:I gotta say... by m.ducharme · 2010-08-10 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Go RTFA, there's an anecdote about Page and Brin arguing about whether to implement behaviour-based advertizing in ad-sense.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
22. Re:I gotta say... by mlts · 2010-08-10 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  There are two ways to make money:
  1: You can have a business that has a reliable, established name that makes profits year after year where it looks ahead years ahead to see what may be the biggest thing, and does R&D to capitalize on it, funneling profits back into R&D to be able to keep ahead of the curve and maybe even developing a new product line that might be profitable, similar to how IBM went from cash registers to computers.
  2: Or you can just focus on the next quarter above all else. Whatever profits are made are made only thinking of this quarter. R&D? buy a company or license something. Here, ethics do not matter because if the company goes bankrupt, that is for the shareholders and the government to clean up.
  Unfortunately, most companies are all about being full of #2. Companies that are quiet and grow solidly year after year (Mag Instruments, Harley Davidson, IBM, Corning, RedHat) don't tend to be in the public eye that much because they are busy researching and in general, too boring for the press to follow.
  Yes, companies are out there to make a profit, but there are short term gains and long term gains. It would be nice to see companies eying 2, 3, five, even ten year plans so they are relevant and profitable in the future.
23. Re:I gotta say... by mlts · 2010-08-10 02:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I have worked at businesses who wouldn't even think of bothering with these questions. Instead it would look like this: "Would selling the stored info we have on our customers help this FQ's numbers? Yes? Get legal to sign the contract, and the DBA to do an export of the database and E-mail [1] it to the client."
  [1]: These are PHBs talking, so they wouldn't understand a 1TB database export can't be E-mailed.
24. Re:I gotta say... by kilfarsnar · 2010-08-10 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  As I said to another poster who responded to me, people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more you focus on customers, the more your profit will increase (in theory, at least).
  Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
  I agree that making money is not inherently bad. After all, capitalism is supposed to be about bringing together buyers and sellers and having both walk away better for the transaction. If the seller can make a good profit from satisfying the customer, I think that's great. But concentrating on the profit can easily lead one to be a dick. There is no shortage of examples of businesses acting irresponsibly (to put it mildly) in the pursuit of profit. They exploit labor, externalize costs, hide malfeasance, etc.
  Personally, I think it is a matter of degree. I think you could make a million by being a good guy. But if you make 100 million, you probably had to be a dick somewhere along the way. I'm a believer in the old addage that behind every great fortune is a great crime. That's just the way I sees it.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
25. Re:I gotta say... by Alphathon · 2010-08-10 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive.
  
  Making as much money as possible isn't inherently bad...it's all in how you go about it.
  That is very true, but if "making profit" is a higher priority than "not being a dick", then they will be a dick if it increases profit. It's not that being a dick is required for profit, but if you are willing to do so you will get more.
  In almost all situations, being just a little bit of a dick is far more profitable than not being.
  The real question is how much of "being a dick" does it take before profit starts to decrease due to customer dissatisfaction? If making a profit is the top priority (which it is for most companies) they will be "dicks" as long as the money saved/gained outweighs the loss caused by dissatisfied customers, like if they can grow a crop they need for a product at a third of the cost by cutting down part of the Amazon, but it loses them a third of their customers. In that example profit is the top priority, but other companies would put the long-term well-being of the planet ahead of profit and so would use sustainable crops etc. What about the law - should it not come above profit? I'm sure we have all heard about companies that have done things illegally to cut costs and later been found out, be it evading taxes, using illegal labour, or simply not conforming to regulations.
  Slavery might have been a bit of an extreme example, but it is within the realm of belief that it could happen if the company thought they could keep it hidden from the public. If profit is of the highest priority, then no ethical or legal concerns would override that beyond "How much profit would we lose if we are found out?". I wish it weren't the case, but many companies do this (for lesser things than slavery mind), which is why the rainforest is being destroyed, why millions around the world are paid 50c/hour for 28 hour days in a factory, why farmers who grow crops abroad get 0.1% of the sale cost for their goods and so on.
  As you said, "it's all in how you go about it" - that really should be the priority, not the amount of profit made, or at the very least they should be equal, balancing concerns (make as much profit as possible AND be ethical/not a dick), which changes "make as much profit as possible" form the top priority to a top priority.
26. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  So you'd rather all the businesses in the world providing valuable services shut their doors to provide you the service you want?
  Not even close. I don't even know where you pulled that from TBH. My demands on my cell phone provider were reasonable. I wanted the discount rate that they offer to new customers. I've been their customer for X number of years, I should be the one getting the deals, not the new customers. The longer I've been a valued and paying customer, the more freebees and discounts I should get. Anyone who thinks different is a moron. Just because the businesses today are doing things backwards doesn't mean I'm going to fit into their little mold. Companies today just want more and more customers, but they don't care if they loose them afterwards. They should be working to keep current customers on by inciting them with deals. Instead they know they can bring someone in and lock them in for 3 years. Problem with that plan? The irate customer is going to tell you to shove you shit service after the 3 year plan is over, and you lost that customer, forever.
  
  Some customer requests are out there, but nothing in my post was unreasonable. Far from it; it was simply me demanding that the company stop screwing me over at every turn.
  
  When a company shows me some respect for being a loyal customer, they will continue to get my business.
27. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  They haven't done the evil yet, so yes it is a good thing.
28. Re:I gotta say... by Archangel+Michael · 2010-08-10 03:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  One of the first lessons I learned in business went something like this ...
  Boss: The customer is always right
  Me: Even when they are wrong?
  Boss: Even when they are wrong.
  Me: How can that be?
  Boss: It just is. You make the customer believe they are alright, and business will take care of itself.
  A few weeks later, I was in front of a customer, who was OBVIOUSLY not getting what he wanted, and I was trying my hardest to accommodate the customer, my boss steps in, and asks the guy what he wanted, the guy said "Fire that asshole" pointing to me. Boss looks at me and says "Your fired, get your things, I'll get your check".
  The look of horror on the customer was priceless. I got up and went into the sales office while my boss negotiated with the customer my being fired for a deal (same deal I was making). The customer made one last request as part of the deal, that I don't lose my job. ;)
  I learned a lot from that boss. Take care of customers, because without customers, you have no business.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
29. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, Google's nature is to be evil. It was made that way, after all. It was born to be evil from the very beginning.
  It's not like people. This is a pure deity that people made.
  But--- even if its actions are evil, we have yet to know what it thinks of it.
  If Google considers them evil and agonizes over them, or considers them good and laughs about them. That is not something we can assume.
  If that thing has emotions like those of humans and agonizes over its doings, it is evil.
  But if it has no doubt about its existence, it is good. Everyone wished it to be that way, after all. If it has no doubt about its function, it cannot be evil.
30. Re:I gotta say... by teh+kurisu · 2010-08-10 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  A business's chief priority SHOULD be customer service.
  
  That depends on your business model. Ryanair, for example, keep customer service to an absolute minimum in order to keep fares low. Low fares mean lots of passengers and lots of passengers means profit.
  A business's chief priority should be profit. Customer service is a means (but not the only means) to that end.
31. Re:I gotta say... by icebraining · 2010-08-10 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  What, isn't he entitled to spend his money the way he wants? That's all his saying.
  Entitled are the companies who think they deserve to get our money even if they offer a poor service.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
32. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it is true. If we left it to the companies to decide what is right and wrong the companies with bad business practices would get an unfair advantage.
  The reason the system does not work today is because the governments have been to lenient towards companies that misbehaves in the past. If we never had let companies get away with things that we consider criminal if individuals do them the problem with misbehaving companies would not have been near what we have today.
33. Re:I gotta say... by Bucc5062 · 2010-08-10 03:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I have seen this from time to time, a statement "companies are required to maximize profit", but I cannot find any specific law that spells out how 'maximize' is measured. I looked into wiki and found this reference, but nothing stated measureable requirements. In fact, the only "requirement" is that they make a profit, how ever that profit is measured.
  I may be quite comfortable making 6% profit while someone else may choose 10% profit. The rationalization that corporations have to "maximize" by law is a fallacy used to justify actions that tend to have negative impact on societies as a whole, but do wonders for a small set of individuals pocket. Robin Hood was created because greed so impacted Sherwood, the suffering of the people overcame the rule of law. Robin took from the rich because they basically were taking from the poor (land, wages, people). Don't like redistribution of wealth, don't want to take from the rich, then rich should become more aware of the effects of the imbalance of greed and correct them. Job creation locally on up to start. Fair trade practices (not free), and getting back to setting long term profit goals to smooth out the up and downs of the market.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
34. Re:I gotta say... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-08-10 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  The good thing is that they are actually asking these questions in the first place. We all know other companies (not all) that wouldn't give some of these balancing ideals even a moment of reflection.
  and no I'm not a Google fanboy
  And what good fortune that such a soul-seeking document about the corporation torn (torn I say) between its golden heart and desire for profit should surface right now when they are in the spotlight for abandoning their principals ("No, no just a little compromise") on net neutrality. You see they're really good at heart, doesn't this introspection prove it ?
  Where's the sarcasm tag ? You'd think that a society that sees so much of it in every area of business to politics would be used to this kind of misdirection and spin by now.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
35. Re:I gotta say... by Cajun+Hell · 2010-08-10 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Profit should be the highest priority for a business. Public Good should be the highest priority for a corporation.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
36. Re:I gotta say... by Cajun+Hell · 2010-08-10 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  people seem to always associate "concentrate on profit" with "being a dick"...the two are not mutually exclusive.
  They're not, but Google is an example of a company (I'm not trying to bash Google here; this applies to much of the web, pretty much anything other than shopping sites) where customers and users aren't the same thing. They actually could be a dick to 99% of the population and cause great suffering, as long as it doesn't alienate their customers (advertisers).
  Obviously if Google is annoying enough, users will leave and their ad revenue will decline. But all the time we see ways that we'd think would annoy users, but which users end up tolerating (ads on cable TV, Google scanning gmail boxes for ad keywords). You might even say that what this document is about, is Google further exploring ways they can serve their customers at the expense of users' interests.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
37. Re:I gotta say... by jdgeorge · 2010-08-10 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Profit should be the highest priority for business.
  False. The highest priority of a business should be whatever the highest priority of the OWNERS is. This is true for publicly or privately held businesses.
  For example, if the highest priority of a business is to achieve a goal of some sort (e.g. build a sewage system for Smallville) and cease operating after the goal is attained, then THAT is the appropriate highest priority of the business.
38. Re:I gotta say... by sheph · 2010-08-10 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, entitlement is expecting something you haven't earned or paid for. In the case of customer service, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a company to treat their loyal customers at least as well as new customers. A product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If it's only worth the discounted price then the customer leaves when they jack up the rates. Or at least they should. If I'm the customer I get to decide what I'm going to tolerate, and what I'm not.
  
  --
  I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
39. Re:I gotta say... by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  They have done evil. Here just one example.
40. Re:I gotta say... by dcollins · 2010-08-10 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  "nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business)"
  Disagree.
  "('greed is good', after all)."
  You know, that was originally satire.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
41. Re:I gotta say... by eclectro · 2010-08-10 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  "greed is good", after all
  The character Gordon Gekko said that shortly before going to jail.
  
  --
  Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
42. Re:I gotta say... by greenbird · 2010-08-10 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  while customer and user satisfaction is still at the top of their list, nothing will ever be a higher priority than profit (as it should be with a business). This causes them to get sloppy, though...
  In a business where competition is rife and there is a near zero cost barrier for your customers to defect to the competition, customer and user satisfaction are essential to your profits. Lets hope the MBA's don't get control and cause Google to lose sight of this.
  
  --
  Who is John Galt?
43. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  No, Robin Hood took from the tax-gatherers because he was technically the lawful government, and the taxation was illegal.
44. Re:I gotta say... by Gerard+Ketuma · 2010-08-11 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Healthy profits are good but there has to be some reasoning and balance between profits and morals. Their principle is "do no evil", however, when you have shareholders who don't care about anything but profits, "do no evil" does not fly around them. Hedge fund managers don't like Google and they will openly tell you. They believe that Google should not have taken the moral ground and stood up to china, since it is shaping to be one of the biggest internet societies in the world. They see lost opportunities and a decline in market value. that's all that matters. however, Google knows how other companies have lost their souls in search for profits and they don't want to be known for that. so they have this tight rope that they need to walk.
  
  --
  http://weboven.blogspot.com
45. Re:I gotta say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-12 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  you are a fucking fag
Actual Document? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:00 · Score: 0

Where is the actual document? May this be linked with cryptome.org only a "403 Access Forbidden" at the moment?
Just speculating...
1. Re:Actual Document? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Where is the actual document? May this be linked with cryptome.org delivering only a "403 Access Forbidden" at the moment?
  Just speculating...
  Must... double... check... before... posting..
Sucky part about being a public company by AnonymousClown · 2010-08-10 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I ran over and glanced at the holding of GOOG to see if the insiders have much control. As far as stock ownership is concerned, management doesn't have that much direct voting power.
The key questions are:
1. Will some of the big holders get bitchy and want Google to start whoring they're data.
2. Does the management have enough backing votes to block other big shareholders from forcing the whoring.
When some of the shareholders get wind that Google is holding back to be "good", you can bet you asses that there's going to be some fighting and these are the times when founders and their values get thrown out the window.
What could save them is that most of the shareholders are mutual funds. Those guys are usually passive and are just along for the ride.

--
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
1. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by PatrickThomson · 2010-08-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, the two founders own more than 50% of the shares, but don't quote me on that as I can't find any current proof.
  
  --
  I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
2. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by bsDaemon · 2010-08-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  1. Will some of the big holders get bitchy and want Google to start whoring they're data.
  So long as that's all they're doing we're fine. Hell, even if they start whoring their data, that's ok. Just not our data. That would be too far.
3. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by AnonymousClown · 2010-08-10 01:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The link I posted shows Mutual funds holding 81% (more than enough to do anything they please) , Brin has only 79,000 shares and I don't even see Page on the list. In other words, if came down to a vote of share, the founders have no voting power.
  
  --
  RIP America
  July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
4. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Only some of the shares are "voting" shares. Brin, Page, and Schmitt together own the majority of those.
5. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by capnchicken · 2010-08-10 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  PAGE LAWRENCE 120,000 Jul 14, 2010
  
  --
  A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
6. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by Anubis350 · 2010-08-10 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't google have dual class stock? I don't know how much of the "A" class Brin and Page have, but I'm sure it's more than 19%
  
  --
  "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
7. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by Zerth · 2010-08-10 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Brin and Page only hold 49% of the voting class shares, but CEO Eric Schmidt holds an additional 12%. They've still got it locked down as along as the 3 agree.
8. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by m.ducharme · 2010-08-10 02:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As mentioned above, the class B shares Brin and Page and the other founders and execs hold are worth 10 votes each. I personally can't vouch for the truth of that, but if true it would explain how they can control with such a small proportion of shares.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
9. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by icebraining · 2010-08-10 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Shares of class B are worth 10 votes while class A shares are only worth 1 vote per share. Only the founders and executives.
  In 2007 at least, Sergey, Brin and Page controlled 67% of the voting power. I doubt they lost majority control in the last years, we would have known.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
10. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by dcollins · 2010-08-10 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Difference between A shares and B shares -- CNet.com article from earlier this year:
  
  Google created a dual-class stock structure when it filed for an initial public offering in 2004. Class A shares are the ones that were offered to the public, granting the owner the value of one vote for one share. Class B shares, owned by Brin, Page, CEO Eric Schmidt, directors, early investors, and key managers, grant their owners 10 votes per share.
  Page and Brin currently control 59 percent of the voting power of Google's stock, according to Friday's filing. By the time they have disposed of all the shares involved in the plan, they will control 48 percent of the voting power of Google's stock.
  This is in an article about a long-term stock-dispersal plan -- Page & Brin will still have over 50% of voting rights until 2014.
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10440005-265.html
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
11. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by Suhas · 2010-08-10 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  In 2007 at least, Sergey, Brin and Page controlled 67% of the voting power.
  Sergey, Brin and Page? So Sergey Brin are two people? Damn! The more you know......
12. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by h7 · 2010-08-10 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even see Page on the list.
  
  Are you blind? You can't even read a list of 5 items properly?
13. Re:Sucky part about being a public company by h7 · 2010-08-10 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even see Page on the list.
  
  Are you blind? You can't even read a list of 5 items properly?
I understand... by TheMidnight · 2010-08-10 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google's hesitancy to move into places where DoubleClick once trod with near impunity. I don't mind Internet ads on websites. What I hate are the scummy, one-flat-stomach rule, teeth whitening, acai berry, and other similar ads that show up on almost every website, major and minor. This says nothing of the older types of annoying ads, like audio, flashing banners and pop-ups. I don't even like seeing the graphics of these sorts of ads because they're so visually displeasing. These sorts of ads are why I use Ad-Block, not because I am opposed to all advertising. Cookies had a reputation similar to these ads, and that's why Google was so hesitant.
1. Re:I understand... by RivenAleem · 2010-08-10 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Now I'm not a big fan of ads myself, but I do wonder sometimes what would happen if google did actually deliver content relevant ads to the web pages I regularly visit, or based off interests I had in my facebook/google buzz or similar online profile. Then I wouldn't be delivered the one-flat-stomach rule, teeth whitening ads, but more likely WoW, PS3, Archery, movies etc ads that I might actually be interested in.
  I'm not saying that I'll suddenly start clicking on every ad I see as it would appear to be interesting to me, but I might actually look at them and not block them, as I feel that someday there might be something useful there.
  Then it might be possible for the people at Adblock to give a settings selection like no-script does, to white-list specific advertisers who deliver you relevant and unobtrusive ads.
  I know the current setting on Adblock allow for the disabling of certain filters, but it's not very user friendly.
2. Re:I understand... by VJ42 · 2010-08-10 01:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Then it might be possible for the people at Adblock to give a settings selection like no-script does, to white-list specific advertisers who deliver you relevant and unobtrusive ads.
  I know the current setting on Adblock allow for the disabling of certain filters, but it's not very user friendly.
  You already can white list in Adblock. You just need to add "@@" (without the quotes) before the expression you want to stop it blocking - add it to your filter and you're done.
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
3. Re:I understand... by UberMorlock · 2010-08-10 01:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You know, for a short time I ran ads on a feline-related site I am responsible for and kept waiting for the ads to be relevant to the content of the site. Three months in, they still were not relevant. So, I dumped all the ads and just kept the Google searchbox. If they can't even make the ads relevant to the content of the site, then why should I subject my visitors to the ads and why should I muck up the look of the site by displaying ads?
4. Re:I understand... by Zerth · 2010-08-10 01:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That is one useful thing about this article. I was unaware that Google would actually show you what information you had in their cookie.
  Not only that, they even let you edit it. Mine had some garden stuff in it that I deleted, then I added in some more categories I'd actually be interested in. I wish somebody had done that before.
5. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  No offense meant, but exactly how much advertising is targeted at online feline products? Do people really choose catfood brands learned from Internet advertising?
  
  People say they want AdSense to deliver relevant ads. It does, but people often times want them for niche (or non-existent) categories.
6. Re:I understand... by bluefoxlucid · 2010-08-10 02:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Now I'm not a big fan of ads myself, but I do wonder sometimes what would happen if google did actually deliver content relevant ads to the web pages I regularly visit, or based off interests I had in my facebook/google buzz or similar online profile.
  My facebook is full of college girls, and Facebook for like 2 months constantly delivered every other ad as "DATE A COUGAR!" I'm also single (I have NEVER had a girlfriend, EVER) and disinterested in relationships entirely; Facebook loves to show me expensive, multiple-diamond-encrusted engagement rings. Now seriously, I'm not LOOKING for the perfect girl, I'm AVOIDING it; if I met a girl I wanted to marry, she'd be something so special I'd get her a white gold engagement ring with a single beautifully set diamond, and some simple but beautifully carved wedding bands in white gold. Who buys a girl an ugly, gaudy, heart-shaped ring with 47 diamonds just crammed in there in the ugliest manner possible?!
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  You are insane. Ads are *annoying crap*. The level of brainwash a human has to go through to thing otherwise is astounding and apparently someone managed to do it to you.
8. Re:I understand... by MikeBabcock · 2010-08-10 03:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The guy whose girlfriend says "I want a gaudy, heart-shaped ring with 47 diamonds just crammed in there in the ugliest manner possible!"
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
9. Re:I understand... by bluefoxlucid · 2010-08-10 04:13 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  That is an unreasonable girlfriend! Getting married is a process of committing your life to someone; love should be enough.
  Think about it. You're going to give yourself to someone for like 40 years... decision made over a $2000, $5000, $10000 ring? Divorce proceedings will cost you more than that anyway, and the damage to your reputation... even if you get some money out of him. And if he's rich, fuck, why do you need a $10,000 ring anyway? You suddenly share his bank accounts! Or you could get a lot more by divorce! Nothing here makes economic sense!
  I mean really. You get a $700 ring, that's awesome. It looks nice, it goes good on you, and you have $4300 for the wedding or to drop on an early-2000s MX-5 that'll get a PPI, any needed maintenance, new Autocross STS2-spec suspension, a new paint job and clear coat, and repairing/replacing any damaged leather in the interior. The wife now has a hot little weekend cruiser she can use as a daily if she wants, $6000 total in it, lots of fun to drive. Way better than a dirty rock on a little strip of metal!
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
10. Re:I understand... by dcollins · 2010-08-10 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is an attitude (happy about more ads) that I only see on Slashdot, never in real life.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
11. Re:I understand... by cybernanga · 2010-08-10 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  I had a similar problem with my site, but found that you can mark/tag areas of the page that google should focus on.
  Once I did that, I found the ads displayed became much more focused very quickly, as they were now based on what I decided was content, and not on any other information that appears alongside it.
  
  --
  www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
12. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  You never see it on slashdot either. The only thing he was happy about was going in and picking "porn" instead of "gardening" on his interests.
  If you are going to get ads, then they might as well be for stuff you like.
13. Re:I understand... by gmhowell · 2010-08-10 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm beginning to understand why you've never had a girlfriend.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
14. Re:I understand... by mjwx · 2010-08-10 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Now seriously, I'm not LOOKING for the perfect girl, I'm AVOIDING it;
  You're doing it wrong
  
  (I have NEVER had a girlfriend, EVER)
  Erm, well maybe not.
  
  Facebook for like 2 months constantly delivered every other ad as "DATE A COUGAR!" I'm also single
  
  There's your problem, change your status to "It's complicated", "In a Relationship" or even "Widowed". Also under the basic information tab untick all boxes under "Interested In" and "Looking For".
  
  Or you can use Adblock like the rest of us.
  
  Personally I get ad's for "Find hot Asian women tonight". At first I took offence but then I realised I really am looking for hot Asian women, however the FB option is too expensive.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
15. Re:I understand... by deek · 2010-08-10 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  I know you said that jokingly, but that sort of comment just galls me. It's insulting to bluefoxlucid, and the many women out there who have no desire for a big diamond ring, nor a fancy wedding. His thoughts are valid, and there are females out there who will agree with him.
16. Re:I understand... by gmhowell · 2010-08-10 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know you said that jokingly, but that sort of comment just galls me.
  So? I should care because???
  
  It's insulting to bluefoxlucid, and the many women out there who have no desire for a big diamond ring, nor a fancy wedding
  Why insulting? If he's that thin skinned, then it's REALLY gonna be a while until he gets a date. Why should anybody give a shit what I say?
  
  His thoughts are valid, and there are females out there who will agree with him.
  I never said they weren't valid. I merely hinted that some of his thoughts and feelings were likely to be reasons that he hasn't dated anyone yet.
  There's far more going on here than meets the eye to most. The first is cost-benefit analysis of gifts. The vast majority of people out there aren't doing that. It's not deciding whether or not to buy a new machine tool for a factory or an operating system upgrade. It's a gift.
  Next is the absurd notion that there is some 'damage to reputation' as a result of a divorce. Maybe in a few fundie religious communities, but in the real world, shit happens and divorce is shit that happens to 50% of people out there.
  And the kicker is the nerdly obsession with the Miata. Hey, I get it. I used to own one. Largely as described. But the odds of finding a mate who will wax as rhapsodic? Sounds to me more like he wants the Miata.
  Having a spouse almost never doubles your toy budget.
  The entire tone and content of the post belies a lack of understanding of human mating and the fairer sex of such a degree that his lack of significant romantic relationships with women is not a surprise. If you don't see that, you're just about as obtuse as he is. If you take offense at that, sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.
  "The 40 Year Old Virgin" was cute and all, but it's still just Hollywood.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
17. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  You must be using Gnu/Linux then! Brush your teeth and get some exercise, Stallman!
18. Re:I understand... by radtea · 2010-08-11 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  What I hate are the scummy, one-flat-stomach rule, teeth whitening, acai berry, and other similar ads that show up on almost every website, major and minor.
  I surf at work with IE--no apb, no noscript--and near as I can tell if you removed those ads, there would be no ads at all.
  Could this be a product of anyone with a brain using Firefox/abp/noscript, so the entire audience for webads is so stupid they'll go for ads like that? Seriously: why advertise to intelligent people in a medium that allows intelligent people to block ads?
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
19. Re:I understand... by bluefoxlucid · 2010-08-11 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why insulting? If he's that thin skinned, then it's REALLY gonna be a while until he gets a date. Why should anybody give a shit what I say?
  I've had lots of hot girls ask me out, I've had a few cry when I told them no. Occasionally I get approached at a bar by a girl I'm not interested in (I don't get comfortable fast enough for one night stands anyway; the last girl I messed around with put it down right away but chattered with me for 3 days before we got actually down to it) and manage to cockblock the whole bar by coming off so cold to it that said girl just mopes and doesn't notice all the other guys hitting on her (it's an ego thing, not a totally-hot-guy thing; some people can't take being turned down).
  I'm very direct: I'm not interested in dating. My life is easy to manage single. It's not that I don't want kids... it's more like if I got a girl pregnant the child would never be born, because by the end of the gestation period this planet would be barren of life at my hands. I'd find some way to tear all life out of this little segment of the universe. So there's no advantage to getting married, and it's basically like becoming a quadriplegic: your life is fucked and you're just rotting on life support. It's the fastest road to hell.
  That being said, if I wanted a date I wouldn't want a greedy materialistic bitch whose eyes shine in the green din of money and the glint of shiny stones-- but only shiny stones that are actually expensive. Shiny rocks are placation: I give you a diamond, you just got something to hoard. Unless you're a complete psycho, you're not going to sit there stroking it for the rest of your life; you're going to want more. If I give you a Wii, or a car, or a bicycle, at least you can have fun with it.
  And would you marry a girl that you knew went into a relationship to pump a guy for money for a year or two and then divorce him and take his house? Seriously, she's either intent on staying, or she's intent on raping you for cash in a nearby divorce proceeding (in California this is almost immediate, while in MD you have to be married 10 years for spousal entitlement). If the girl's deciding factor on marrying you is whether you got her a pretty several hundred dollar ring or a pretty several thousand dollar ring, she is either stupid or she is readying to rape you for money; in the latter case, once she makes it clear she'll marry a guy to get at his money, why would any non-retarded man marry her?! In the former, she's completely whoring on materialistic things, and obviously doesn't understand or just doesn't care about the actual social structure relationships.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
20. Re:I understand... by deek · 2010-08-11 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  So? I should care because???
  Because the comment was snarky and impolite. Sure, the truth hurts, as you say, but there are many ways of speaking the truth. You chose a way which attacked the self-esteem of the person you were commenting about. That's what galls me.
  
  Why should anybody give a shit what I say?
  I like people to be considerate and constructive with their comments. Sure, what you said doesn't affect me directly, but I felt it necessary to voice my objection. Now hopefully others reading these comments may learn that it isn't the nicest thing to say.
  
  I never said they weren't valid. I merely hinted that some of his thoughts and feelings were likely to be reasons that he hasn't dated anyone yet.
  Your comment attacked his self-esteem. He may be thick-skinned, and can handle it, but that doesn't justify the comment. By saying that I believe his thoughts were valid, I was attempting to show that I support the way he thinks. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I support it.
  His point was, a diamond on a ring is not useful (well, unless you're MacGyver). He thinks it would be much nicer to get your partner something that they'd find of use. I can appreciate that point of view. I've met a few women who think that way as well. It's not beyond the point of possibility for him to meet a like-minded woman.
  First time I've ever been accused of possibly being obtuse. Interesting. You may have a point. I sometimes miss obvious details, which my partner at that time will gleefully correct me on. That's one thing I've noticed all women have in common. ;)
21. Re:I understand... by Walter+Carver · 2010-08-11 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Without wanting to troll you, maybe, just maybe, Facebook knows you better than yourself.
22. Re:I understand... by gmhowell · 2010-08-15 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'll grant you your points, but if you go back up a level and read his sibling comment, you'll see that this sounds like a rather troubled individual. Probably in need of help. I generally haven't found that the velvet glove approach works; sometimes the weight of an iron fist is required.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Paying not to see ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:05 · Score: 0

You mean like someone still can see those advertisements? Adblock+ and greasemonkey work already.
Time to split off the search arm? by petes_PoV · 2010-08-10 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Better to jump than be pushed. Maybe it's time for Google to consider splitting into 2 companies: all the search stuff in one and all the other (FB, docs etc.) in the second. That way they get to control their own destiny rather than have outside interests decide it for them.
You never know, a bit of a break-up may even be good for them.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
1. Re:Time to split off the search arm? by Missing.Matter · 2010-08-10 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The search arm makes makes 99% (not an exaggeration) of Google's revenue through ads, and is effectively keeping every other Google product on life support. You can't break them up or the other projects will die.
2. Re:Time to split off the search arm? by CeruleanDragon · 2010-08-10 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  But don't you remember the song? ./~ Breaking up is haaaard tooo doooooo. ./~
  
  --
  ad astra per alia porci
3. Re:Time to split off the search arm? by Monchanger · 2010-08-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting point but I wonder if that's actually true. It's certainly true that Google and its users have been very fortunate that it has had the ability to use search profits in tinkering quite freely and provide non revenue generating services. It's also true that breaking those services away from Google's advertising engine would be a huge blow if data and code were not shared with a splinter company.
  Still, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Google Docs being able to survive if it was forced to shift to advertising for revenue in order to keep the servers running with a balanced sheet. Other services (*cough* Wave *cough*) could not hope to survive, I agree, but perhaps the major ones could. Do you have information how profitable Gmail's ads might be at the moment?
4. Re:Time to split off the search arm? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  The search arm makes makes 99% (not an exaggeration) of Google's revenue through ads, and is effectively keeping every other Google product on life support. You can't break them up or the other projects will die.
  No, 99% is definitely wrong, because Google also makes a health amount of money from AdSense (which includes DoubleClick) and that does in fact generate money for other projects, such as gmail and youtube. Whether those projects are actually profitable by themselves is another question.
ironic by bluhatter · 2010-08-10 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does anybody else notice the irony here?

Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.

--

bluHatter
1. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Does anybody else notice the irony here? Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.
  You're assuming the document wasn't deliberately "leaked". If I wanted to make it look like I took my users' concerns seriously I'd certainly make an effort to pull off a stunt like this.
2. Re:ironic by ZeroExistenZ · 2010-08-10 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this will give them an idea of how it feels to have your privacy invaded.
  While I share your concerns and it's a hot debate the latest years consider this...
  The greater part of people go online these days and enter personal data, as a matter of fact, plenty of then do no other thing online as entering data on servers owned by others.
  These services these people enter data and content (gmail, google, facebook, slashdot, fora, flickr, twitter, ...) without needing to host or create a platform themselves in a 1990s online-experience.
  
  In return they have their data analyzed and shown "discrete ads".
  Seems a fair tradeoff in business terms and value-return.
  OTOH, google owes you nothing; you can always close your account and seek alternatives.
  
  --
  I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
So where's... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:22 · Score: 0

So where's the goddamn document? It got "leaked," didn't it?
I don't want to browse some shitty web-2.0 info-graphic, I want to read the primary source.
To be fair, I think the article is extremely well-written.
But a reliance on secondary sources is insufficient. Give us the source.
Also, get off my lawn ;)
A privacy-protecting search engine by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 01:23 · Score: 1

After reading that article, I hope some people are a little more hesitant about the evil Gorg. This part here I found particularly interesting:

Consider 26-year-old Ari Brand, an actor living in Manhattan's East Village. Google has access to the fact he paid $733 for a flat-screen TV, because he uploaded his budget to Google Docs, an online word processor and spreadsheet. It has access to the 23,000 emails he has sent through Gmail.

At this point I need to put in a plug for the Start Page Search Engine, which does not store your IP address.
1. Re:A privacy-protecting search engine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  You could try also try DuckDuckGo.com
2. Re:A privacy-protecting search engine by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  I started to use ixquick (which is the same) a long time ago. They also support TLS/SSL, and have their search form tells the browser to make POST requests rather then GET. This means that when I click on a link returned by a search, the target site doesnt know from the referrer what search terms I entered.
  The only drawback is that it's marginally slower, but after a month of using it you won't notice that anymore.
it will be hard to shut down by circletimessquare · 2010-08-10 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

the marketing assholes in the board room, but if google sticks by its loyalty to privacy, they will remain a respected and profitable company for a very long time
if however they break their commitments to privacy, they will, indeed, reap a flurry of greater profits. but at the cost of driving away customers. the problem in a business like google's is there is always another search website, and even if its not quite as fast or accurate as google, if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy, then it will even beat google, eventually
before there was google, there was altavista. before facebook, myspace. the king of the web does not have to stay the king of the web, and it can be quite sudden and amazing at how sudden and fast that fall can be. google better remember this

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:it will be hard to shut down by diegocg · 2010-08-10 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  if google sticks by its loyalty to privacy
  Too late.
2. Re:it will be hard to shut down by WillDraven · 2010-08-10 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy,
  
  Kind of like these guys?
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
3. Re:it will be hard to shut down by chris_7d0h · 2010-08-10 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just to be clear, Google's customers are the advertisers. We the users are their products.
  But yes, if their products evaporate it will be a might challenge to sell anything to their customers and the nickle-and-dime folks at Google will feel that.
  
  --
  In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
4. Re:it will be hard to shut down by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Google already has broken its commitment to privacy: Personalized Search for Everyone. As of last December, every computer that uses Google is opted in by default to being tracked, whether you're logged in or not.
5. Re:it will be hard to shut down by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  ...if however they break their commitments to privacy, they will, indeed, reap a flurry of greater profits. but at the cost of driving away customers.
  We search users are not Google's customers. We are their product.
6. Re:it will be hard to shut down by circletimessquare · 2010-08-10 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  soylent google is people!
  soylent google is people!
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
7. Re:it will be hard to shut down by icebraining · 2010-08-10 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  there is always another search website, and even if its not quite as fast or accurate as google, if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy, then it will even beat google, eventually
  Really? How is Ixquick doing?
  Privacy only wins markets whose costumers are composed of privacy-aware people, which are rare. For most people, what wins the market is:
  1) marketing (normal and "viral")
  1.1) Having a strong brand on one market that you can use to launch products in other markets
  2) use quality (faster loading, better results, non annoying ads).
  Privacy is something that most people don't even have a clear definition of, let alone govern they product choices. Only if it becomes unbearable will people react.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:it will be hard to shut down by TheGratefulNet · 2010-08-10 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  just to be clear, there IS NO commitment to privacy. the only commitment corporations have is to make money (each quarter, no less) for their investors and board.
  please stop the imaginary belief that companies EVER exist for the good of mankind.
  please. we're all adults here. stop with the bullshit fairytales.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
9. Re:it will be hard to shut down by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-11 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  the marketing assholes in the board room, but if google sticks by its loyalty to privacy, they will remain a respected and profitable company for a very long time
  if however they break their commitments to privacy, they will, indeed, reap a flurry of greater profits. but at the cost of driving away customers. the problem in a business like google's is there is always another search website, and even if its not quite as fast or accurate as google, if it makes a loud point of pledging to not rape your privacy, then it will even beat google, eventually
  bullshit. Understand that the people who use the products are not typical slashdotters. Theres minimal, if any, correlation between "commitment to privacy" and survival of google.
Where is de-Google? by pspahn · 2010-08-10 01:26 · Score: 1

A couple years ago, I had the idea for de-google. Don't like the results that come up when your name is searched?? For a fee, those results can be modified to hide embarrassing things (or whatever else). I thought it was a good idea, I'm still waiting to see it applied.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
1. Re:Where is de-Google? by Combatso · 2010-08-10 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  A couple years ago, I had the idea for ........., I'm still waiting to see it applied.
  you are a few ?????? away from Profit!
2. Re:Where is de-Google? by StripedCow · 2010-08-10 01:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It can be applied easily. Just make some script that posts random stuff with your name in it to thousands of forums. Then, when people search for your name, there will be so much noise that the results are useless. Noise is google's enemy.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
3. Re:Where is de-Google? by Rockoon · 2010-08-10 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hello, my name is [competing product to the company I represent] and I dont like the results that come up when people search for my name. You say that you can change the results for a small fee. Where do we...I mean I... send the check?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
4. Re:Where is de-Google? by Tim+C · 2010-08-10 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or in my case, have a famous namesake. Zero effort on my part, and any reference to me drowns in the sea of references to him.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
5. Re:Where is de-Google? by MikeBabcock · 2010-08-10 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I was suddenly faced with the same issue to a larger degree when some dip with my name became a famous hockey coach.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
6. Re:Where is de-Google? by bingoUV · 2010-08-11 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Noise is google's enemy.
  But unfortunately, Google is pretty good at fighting (and beating) noise. That is why so many people use Google as their one-and-only search engine.
  And forums (especially those which have a significant effect on Google results) have started to have pretty good captcha technology, and spam detection and elimination technology - in some cases powered by Google itself.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
And this is how... by Drakkenmensch · 2010-08-10 01:31 · Score: 1

... the Guild of Calamitous Intent was formed. When part of Col. Lloyd Venture's league decided THEY knew better what was best for the world and should profit from the power of the ancient orb themselves.
Yawn... by HuckleCom · 2010-08-10 01:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Such a well timed 'leak' of something after a shitstorm of privacy sensationalism. Nothing to see here, imho.
Targeted Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm not opposed to Ads on webpages, I understand this is how people make money off websites. So I turn off adblocker+ on any sites that I truly like (/., Ars, Wired, etc..) and leave it on to block all the other crude ads out there for sites that I feel don't deserve my money (FB) But if Google were to start selling my information to make more targeted ads I would have to start f'ing with them. Change my sex to female, spend 2 days searching stuff about the bible and Glen beck, then the next 2 days searching for stuff about the Koran and Micheal Moore. So at the very least their data on me would be crap!
1. Re:Targeted Ads by stanlyb · 2010-08-10 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Or you will be tagged as a terrorist?
Should Google Admit : +1, Revealing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:35 · Score: 0

it is a front for the N.S.A.?
Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout
Never in the history of American business by moxley · 2010-08-10 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Never in the history of American business has a company as large and powerful as Google NOT taken advantage of something this profitable and desired by those in control of the country.
I don't care what they say, or how many slogans they have that they sometimes follow and sometimes ignore - they're going to use this data. The only question is to wha extent - and given Eric Schmidt's recent statements on privacy and the future of the web (which were completely disgusting to me and likely to anyone else who values the internet as a place of freedom and growth), I expect that they will fully exploit all that they have.
I am not anti-Google, I love Google's products and I think their search engine is the best, and as far as large companies go they certainly aren't anywhere near the most evil - but the power and data they have, along with some of the places they've received funding from, combined with the attitude of their CEO is greatly concerning.
1. Re:Never in the history of American business by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  I completely agree. I'm a huge fan of Google's product from a usability and utility standpoint, but I use it with zero expectation of privacy. If it's a private matter, I'll use another form of communication. The balancing act is deciding what does and doesn't require privacy. When privacy counts, a stamp and envelope works just fine. The real issue with Google, or any similar service with archived data is that once their policy changes, it's immediately retroactive to day one of data retention.
"Confidential"? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 01:37 · Score: 0

Does anyone think that this "confidential" document was intended to be leaked?
1. Re:"Confidential"? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2010-08-10 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely.
  Google floated it out there to see the public's response.
  They did the same thing when the Google Verizon stuff was leaked to the New York Times.
  Its standard for businesses to float ideas out there as leaks, so that they can simply deny them and never follow through on those plans if public response is critical.
Problem... by mrops · 2010-08-10 01:42 · Score: 5, Informative

In traditional sense, shares of a company XYZ were meant to buy you, well exactly, "shares" of the company. Company made X amount of dollars, you got to share profits in accordance with what you own in that company. Company grew, the shares were worth more, however the idea was you got to share the profit. Sure you could sell your shares, however the concept got turned head over heals when shares themselves became trading commodities, so unless prices of shares rise, they are not valued, it does not matter if company is making a fixed X amount of profit year over year.
3 cheers for greed!
1. Re:Problem... by Coward+Anonymous · 2010-08-10 04:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It got turned on its head because of taxes on dividends.
2. Re:Problem... by cavebison · 2010-08-10 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  I know exactly what you're saying, but I think the real problem is elsewhere, not just in someone creating a market for something.
  You could say ideas/information should be free. But I could sell you the shit in my brain if *you* thought it was worth it. That's a natural transaction of perceived value. Is it greed? Of course, in a way. I could ask for more than you want to pay. Greed, yes, but if I find a buyer, it's suddenly sensible. Greed is a natural behaviour which, just by itself, doesn't do any harm (though any behaviour, if obsessive, is potentially harmful).
  *Other* behaviours, like lying, deceiving you out of your money, do harm. But that's not greed. That's leveraging another behaviour - deception - to achieve the goal. You could say deception is natural too, and necessary.
  So I think the problem is not in any particular market, it's in how that market *encourages people to behave*. Take prostitution. In many places it's legal, because who's to say a man (or woman - sorry Reg) can't offer someone money for sex, leaving it up to the other person to decide if it's worth it?
  However a problem arises when the exchange of money dictates behaviour. When someone is so impoverished that their only option is to sell sex when, all things being equal, they would rather not, then there's a real problem. The market is dictating behaviour. One would think it was the responsibility of government not to let things get to that stage. What else is government for, if not protecting people from themselves?
  For better or worse, most of us make a living now via the movements of small green pieces of paper. As opposed to small green things they can grow and eat, as well as sell. Maybe we should invent edible money?
  The failures are not in any market per se. The failures arise when the human beings engaged in a market are not properly cared for.
Will you use your super powers... by CeruleanDragon · 2010-08-10 01:44 · Score: 1

...for good? Or for awesome?

--
ad astra per alia porci
Where's the document itself? by ManiaX+Killerian · 2010-08-10 01:50 · Score: 1

Does anyone have a link to the original document? Most of the FA is useless drivel.
1. Re:Where's the document itself? by mwsw · 2010-08-10 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was about the ask the same thing. Two paragraphs about the document, with the rest about Google's history and possible future.
  Also, from TFA:
  "A person familiar with the matter called the vision statement a "brainstorming document" and said it wasn't presented to senior executives. Some of its ideas are "complete non-starters," this person said. Efforts to reach Mr. Weinberg weren't successful."
  So yes. Nothing to see here.
DoubleClick? by stanlyb · 2010-08-10 01:53 · Score: 1, Informative

It is funny that an article explaining the evil nature of DoubleClick and Microsoft, is actually using DoubleClick and MSN trackers, funny, ain't?
Just to put a finer point on profit. by whovian · 2010-08-10 01:57 · Score: 1

There is no legal time scale inherent in maximizing profit for shareholders. Is that profit to be done over...the long haul? Five years? One year? Financial anal cysts^W^Wanalysts do look at quarterly and annual increases and earnings per share. This information is used to set up shareholder expectations.
(rant)
I'll add that my derisive treatment of analysts is warranted, IMO, in how they project the idea that making a profit is not good enough if they believe the company could have done better. Also, there is nothing *in practice* (yes, there are laws and perhaps ethics against it, but this is the US) that is stopping them from making too high of expectations and profiting on that "information."
(/rant)

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
To see where the story has come since 2008... by dollarwizard · 2010-08-10 02:00 · Score: 1, Redundant

...you should see this blog post from Google: Personalized Search For Everyone.

Whether a computer is signed in or not, the Gorg is tracking everything the computer does, in order to "personalize" the search results for it.

It seems the concept of "opt in" is now gone forever, since tracking is the default. I wonder if privacy advocates even understand the implications, given how often Google is the Internet for so many people.

(By the way, for Google fanboys, a non-evil company would have a toggle on the search page saying, "Personalized Results: ON - OFF"... But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.)
1. Re:To see where the story has come since 2008... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  That blog post says you can click "view customizations" and turn them off.
  I've never seen this customizations link, presumably because I never saw any justification to allow cookies from a search engine in the first place!
  I use a different web than everyone else: all cookies treated like session cookies; most cookies denied even then; noscript; privoxy; no adobe plugins, but gnash for the simpler flash menus and what not. Given the recent discoveries about other history-based hacks, I've also reduced browser history retention to just a couple of days, so I can get a pretty clean and consistent browsing experience every time.
Google reality check. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2010-08-10 02:02 · Score: 1

Google, as a publicly traded company, only has one obligation: To make a profit for shareholders
Few companies set out to do bad deeds but most won't rule them out. Google was supposed to be different. Regarding "Don't be evil"(tm), CEO Eric Schmidt recently clarified the policy saying that it was simply meant as a conversation starter.

Here's Google from good to bad...
+7.1 - Philanthropy
Creating a foundation to fight poverty.
+5.3 - Coddling staff
Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.
-2.4 - Moral Triage
Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame
-4.8 - Immaturity
Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International for giving them a last place rank.
-6.7 - Screwing staff
Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.
-8.3 - Censorship
Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
Source: Wired 16.10
"Do no evil"? They should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else"
1. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  you gave them a minus for "assisted the police in a child porn case"?
  Or for obeying to China's censorship law when operating in China?
  
  I consider those less "evil" and more "obeying the law as every company should".
2. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  sometimes obeying laws can be considered evil
  regards
3. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I question that but ignoring the overarching ethical issue. Even if that's true, I don't think either of these cases qualify.
  
  The first is downright commendable and the second their options were
  A) Deny the Chinese people any Google at all and leave them to the local search providers who are equally censored
  B) Censor and maybe try to wiggle a bit to provide a bit of extra infomration
  
  They are, at worst, neutral in China.
4. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Really? You believe that every law is inherently good because it is a law?
  Or that one must obey every law to be good (even ones that you feel are evil)?
  Hmm.
  I mean, my whole statement was: sometimes obeying laws can be considered evil.
  I was really wondering whether to post what seems like such an obvious statement, but I guess it was correct, given your response.
  If you could, please let me know your reasoning behind "questioning" this.
  What questions do you have? Really, I am interested!
  I mean, in the degraded case my statement is obviously true. If the law says thay you cannot turn in pedophiles (since you appear to believe the reverse is commendable) is obeying that law evil or not? Or further degraded - consider "lawful" genocides - is obeying that law good?
  So, bring on your questions.
  Regards
5. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I question that a corporation complying with the law, even at the expense of its customers, can be considered evil.
  
  A civilian rejecting an unjust law perhaps, but a corporation on Google's scale I feel has an obligation to its employees and shareholders such that the penalty/risk of going against a law on moral grounds compared to the potential gain is not something they can do. It might not be GOOD for them to do it but I don't think you can go so far as to consider the action EVIL. Especially since a corporation consisting of people can have members replaced by somewhat unsavory means until they DO comply with whatever law is so unjust that obeying it would brand them evil.
6. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I question that a corporation complying with the law, even at the expense of its customers, can be considered evil.
  Wow. Complete moral free pass for corporations. Just wow.
  I guess I really have no other questions.
  Thanks.
7. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Free pass if they're doing something they have to do to comply with a law. Yes. honestly the only laws that complying with can put you in "evil" territory that I can think of were the companies forced to help the Nazis with the holocaust and if your government has reached that point I don't fault anyone for doing what they have to to survive.
  
  What laws are you thinking of specifically that you have to be evil not to break?
8. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Free pass if they're doing something they have to do to comply with a law.
  
  What laws are you thinking of specifically that you have to be evil not to break?
  Ah, I see. Hmm. I guess it depends on where you place "making more money" on the hierarchy of morality (that a company should have). You appear to place it right below "comply with the law" and somewhere above "respect human rights". I tend to place "making more money" below "respect human rights".
  So, pick your laws, there are plenty that abrogate various human rights that companies are complying with.
  Also, I was really more intereted in a corollary. As a 'hacker' i tend to like to see how things come apart.
  The quote is:
  
  corporation on Google's scale I feel has an obligation to its employees and shareholders such that the penalty/risk of going against a law on moral grounds compared to the potential gain is not something they can do.
  My beef with this is that too often "obligations to shareholders" are a scapegoat for doing evil. In other words "obligations to shareholders" comes above such things as "respect human rights" in those hierarchies. And I don't believe it or those hierarchies.
  A question that better captures my objection to this angle is - "Can a corporation comply with the letter of the law and still be evil?"
  And that depends on your hierarchy of morality. From your standpoint would that be impossible (since employees and shareholders trump morality)? If it's not impossible, how do you reconcile this with your statement I quoted above?
  Regards.
9. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that by complying with the law they company is inherently not evil. I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
  
  Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
  
  If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal. I would do the same if they asked me to and I had the ability to help. Now if Google went out of their way to help the government track down people who had unpopular views unconstitutionally that could be considered evil but that's falling into the Nazi laws territory which I feel is too extreme to use as a comparison for anything Google is currently engaged in.
10. Re:Google reality check. by mcgrew · 2010-08-10 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  But their motto isn't "do no evil", it's "don't be evil." A difference without much distintion, tru, but a difference nevertheless.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
11. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
  And I disagreed. As I stated, I don't believe a corporations right to profit trumps human rights, no matter the laws of any particular country.
  
  Again, with the exception of Nazi Germany where you HAD to sell out people who were in one of the groups slated for death I can't think of many laws make you evil by sheer compliance with them.
  I see where you are coming from. Again I disagree. Read my previous post about human rights vs shareholder rights. There are any number of unjust laws that corporations comply with due to profit motives. I think that makes them evil.
  
  If the government's law officials request or order Google to hand over information, that's not evidence that Google doesn't respect user privacy, it's merely evidence that Google is being law abiding citizens and helping the police track down a criminal.
  And when that "criminal" is a member of Falun Gong (as their crime)? After all it's the law, so Google is just being a law abiding citizen. Bollocks, I say. Google would be evil in this specific case, in my mind.
  So, here we have a specific example. You declare it would not evil (as I understand it), I declare it would be. Do you still stand by your broad statement?:
  
  I'm saying that you can't call a company evil for doing something they are legally required to.
  Your posts also seem to presuppose that what a company is trying to do cannot be classified as evil if it is legal due to shareholder rights issues. I would still like you to sort out that from the previous posts.
  I guess this is a more important point (at least for me) than the edge case of wondering if a corp is evil only considering actions it is legally required to take in order to profit in that country.
  To your point of view, is a company that complies with import/export restrictions not evil, even if procuring 1,000 tasers that will be used for torture? Based on your previous posts I would have to conclude you think that's not evil.
  For what it's worth, I don't believe Google's actions in the Brazil case to be evil and their actions in China, as you said, at worst neutral.
  Their actions as shown through the leaked doc also seem neutral, at worst, at the moment.
  Regards.
12. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  I still want to know what laws you are referring to that require the violation of human rights to not break.
13. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  And I still want to know if you believe profit trumps morality or answer any of those questions I put to you.
  China requiring Yahoo to give information about political dissenters? Is that close enough or do you want another?
  Regards
14. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  profit doesn't trump morality. Legality does. A corporation based in a country with Draconian laws has to comply with those laws or face draconian punishment. If you aren't based in that country and you don't agree with their politics don't do business with them, but once you have a strong foothold in a country and providing salaries for that countries people you're damned in you do and you're damned if you don't
  
  Even if the corporation only gets fined X million dollars for violating something of questionable ethics: that money has to come from somewhere and it's probably going to be in the form of cutbacks. A couple thousand people suddenly out of a job with possibly nothing to fall back on is a major moral issue as well. Is what you're doing worth impoverishing hundreds of people and severely setting back hundreds more? And if they just up and leave the country it's the same issue. Every job that corporation provided is now gone. How do you reconcile the burnden of this with the burden of potentially immoral actions?
  
  It has nothing to do with their "right to profit", it has to do with looking after the people they employ.
  
  And then you need to balance THAT against what good defying the government will actually do. Even if you manage to get out with minimal cost and nobody getting arrested: will someone else immediately show up and provide the exact same service but even more in line with the government and even more cut throat?
  
  The cost, for a corporation, of breaking the law is more than just dollars in the vault.
15. Re:Google reality check. by HeckRuler · 2010-08-10 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I have to side with you jvk. I came to call bullshit on the ancestor's "one obligation". The founders still have the controlling vote, so they don't have to do jack shit when the board tells them to jump. And for publicly traded companies that are truly publicly controlled, the CEO can still justify NEARLY ANYTHING as being good for profit.
  Fire everyone? Reducing cost.
  Double the payroll? Aggressively cornering the market.
  Scrapping the product and making something new? Re-inventing the company in a bold new direction.
  Using the same old shit as last year? Providing a stable and well-known product.
  So even if profit is paramount, it doesn't mean anything when it comes to determining how a company is run. But profit all by itself isn't (or at least shouldn't) be paramount. I'd prefer long-term viability. Day traders want instant profits. I want my 401k to be worth something in 40 years.
  
  But EasterBerry does have a point. I just think he takes it too far. Companies whose competition uses morally questionable but legal practices face financial pressure to do likewise. Companies that are required by law to do questionable actives have a very difficult decision.
  
  But if cops come by and force a company to do blatantly evil things, the company is at risk of being evil complicity. For being evil through inaction.
16. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  profit doesn't trump morality. Legality does.
  
  Now wait a minute. I thought we had established that there exist a class of "immoral" laws.
  I seem to recall that you used Nazis as an example of that (or was that just to cut the thread dead? :) )
  I thought that you pressing me for laws that are currently in force that are immoral was trying to argue that no such laws currently exits.
  I admit that you now have me confused.
  Which is it? Does legality trump morality as you now state, or not, as you stated in previous posts?
  
  Every job that corporation provided is now gone. How do you reconcile the burden of this with the burden of potentially immoral actions?
  This appears to be a rift in our respective logic patterns.
  I don't consider companies that do immoral things to be actually "looking after" their employees. In fact, they are making employees morally culpable for the actions of the corporation to some degree by the fact that the corp employs them. Perhaps they should look after their people by not doing immoral things or not have any people to look after. So yes, pull out. If more companies acted this way I believe you would find a sea change in the sets of immoral laws.
  The rest of your argument boils down to "well, other people do it!", which isn't really a very valid argument when talking about morality. All you are saying is that there exist quite a few immoral companies. At least if they pull out they are not making their other employees morally culpable.
  So, you still haven't answered my questions about legal actions that are immoral. Do you believe they exist?
  I'll give you another hypothetical. What if there was a corporation that lobbied for laws to increase it's profits? Happens all the time, legal (and legality trumps morality in your book) so therefore morality doesn't need to be taken into account?
  On a less hypothetical level, how would you feel if it was the prison industry, and the laws they are lobbying for are laws designed to incarcerate a higher percentage of the population, and this fact is the basis for their lobbying? Still moral since it is legal? By the way, this example is actually true, and happened in the US. Sick and twisted IMO.
  Regards.
17. Re:Google reality check. by jvkjvk · 2010-08-10 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  But EasterBerry does have a point. I just think he takes it too far. Companies whose competition uses morally questionable but legal practices face financial pressure to do likewise. Companies that are required by law to do questionable actives have a very difficult decision.
  Creating a company is hard, creating a sustainable company harder still. I agree that companies have a hard road. But I would posit that this is their burden - not an "out". That is, perhaps they should be lobbying to make the morally questionable practices illegal instead of adopting them. Or advertise based on this difference - after all would you trust a company that was morally questionable? Etc.! However, that takes work and brains. It is certainly much easier to just "get along". But perhaps not right.
  I have a private company. If I was required by law to do questionable activities I would rather shutter my doors than comply. I, myself, do not want the moral burden AND I do not want to make my employees morally culpable by complying, either. I must admit, though, that if legally required to perform some action and closing wasn't an option to skirt it that I might weigh my freedom or life more highly than the action. I'm not really sure where that line is for me (what actions I would/would not perform to stay free/alive), but I must admit it is there.
  Regards.
18. Re:Google reality check. by easterberry · 2010-08-10 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  I thought I did answer that question. Of course there are legal but immoral actions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot, a sociopath or a liar. If I say something to someone that I know will upset for no other reason than my own amusement that is legal but immoral.
  
  Personally I feel that morality is based on end result. If you refuse to kill someone knowing full well if you don't kill them they'll definitely kill at least 2 people I consider what you did wrong.
  
  The problem with your "moral culpability" argument is that a lot of people don't care. I don't consider myself morally responsible for the bad things my boss/employer does.
  
  "someone else will it anyways, but worse" is a perfectly logical way of looking at it. Again, go back to my first example. Someone wants you to murder someone (assume you're guaranteed to get away with it). If you don't do it then they'll have someone else do it who you know, for a fact, will brutally rape the person below slowly and painfully murdering them. I consider you morally responsible to kill the person yourself. You may think it's a sick, unpleasant, terrible thing to do but morality is not about doing what makes you feel good or right. It's about doing whatever will reduce the most suffering and create the most happiness.
19. Re:Google reality check. by mjwx · 2010-08-10 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Wired left out a few things.
  
  + 8 advancing the I.T. worlds technology and freedom
  Supporting open source by contributing time of paid developers to open source projects as well as opening some of their own code.
  
  Now to fix some of Wired's errata.
  -0 for complying with the laws of the nations in which they operate.
  Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography. It was give us the data or we'll take it by force
  
  -0 for complying with the laws of a nation in which they operate.
  Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. China's laws apply to everyone, even Google
  
  Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
  U.S. laws only apply to the US. Chinese laws only apply to China, but if you expect to do business in China you have to follow Chinese laws in China. Unless you are suggesting that I can circumvent U.S. laws by founding my company in Malaysia.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
20. Re:Google reality check. by HeckRuler · 2010-08-11 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. Ultimately I guess you're right. But it depends on how you look at it.
  
  Say if you have a bell curve of people based on their Evil Quotient. You put an evil activity in front of them with some reward and/or financial/social/legal pressure to perform it. At some point on the curve, there will be a threshold where the better people will refuse, and the worse people will comply. Increase the pressure and you'll see that threshold move. Increase it enough, and both you and I will comply, while the people better then us will refuse.
  
  So two things. First, yeah, you're right, these people below the threshold ARE evil. Relative to the people above them. We judge people (and companies) based on their actions. To do otherwise is to simply throw out rational judgment, and that's dangerous.
  Secondly, there's really no such thing as evil. It's just different people with different levels of desperation and fear, or susceptibility to various forces.
  
  But this is straying into a philosophical debate on the nature of man. Or in other words: useless. Stick to reality, companies do evil things, punish them accordingly.
Privoxy by grikdog · 2010-08-10 02:35 · Score: 1

Privoxy is pretty fair at killing ads (even Slashdot's), and costs zip. You do need to be smart enough to guess how to set it up correctly, but after that, plain sailing.

Google has gotten worse at basic mission (finding stuff) over the years, until the in-your-face privacy invasions have reached a level of such cavalier disdain for private users it's insulting.

What a screwball business model: Deliver value to advertisers by trying to satisfy individuals it could care less about. Just like newspapers!

--
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Excerpts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 02:49 · Score: 3, Informative

They don't seem to have actually posted the document, only excerpts. And to be extra annoying, they embedded them in some stupid flash interface. Here they are:
Vision Statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text1.png
Interest Targeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text2.png
This section pertains to Google's plans to sell ads targeted to users' interests across the Google Content Network (GCN) -- the more than one million websites on which it sells display ads. It argues that Google can better identify users' likely interests than competitors through sophisticated analysis and richer data.
Retargeting: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-retarg.png
Document discusses targeting ads at users who have already visited a particular website, known as retargeting. It notes that smaller ad companies have referred to such technologies as the "holy grail" of behavioral targeting, known here as "BT," but have struggled because they don't see users across enough sites. Google has since launched the feature across its display ad network.
Search: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text5.png
This section discusses how Google could begin to use its knowledge about what individuals have searched for to determine what graphical ads to show the person as they browse around the web.
Google Services: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text6.png
The excerpt identifies how Google could use data from services it owns to target ads across the web. Of those listed, YouTube is the only site where Google uses some data about what pages users visit to target ads on its display ad network.
"Wacky" Ideas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text8.png
Once Google had the technology to be able to target ads to individual web browsers, it contemplated a range of ideas, including letting individuals pay not to see ads, block individual advertisers or share data about themselves in exchange for a discount on their Internet service bill. At least one idea, the Larry Page ad, was never pursued.
Advertising Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text9.png
Google planned to limit use such data about what websites people visited for targeting on sites where it sold ads, known as the Google Content Network, or GCN. Over time, allowing other ad buyers and sellers to use its data to identify people to target could boost business.
Data Exchange: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text10.png
The document contemplates how Google could build a new data marketplace, where companies could trade lists of web users they wanted to target with ads.
Unlinked Excerpts:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text3.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLEDOCS1008-text4.png
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/info-GOOGLE
The numbers add up... by rickb928 · 2010-08-10 03:24 · Score: 2, Funny

You should pay to not see ads.
In 2009, Google earned about $0.1016 per visitor. So pay them about $37 a year and never see an ad.
There. Next question?
Anyways, the math:
620 million visitors per day.
23 billion yearly revenue.
$37.0968/visitor. .1016/day/visitor.
Actually, subscription search services are sounding like they are practical. This adds $3.09/month to your Internet bill. Add in obscene escalators for ludicrous groth in revenue, and this isn't much worse than your current ISP's rate increases, certainly not as bad as the TV bill.
Wow. And we could let the advertisers torture those too cheap to pay. Nice.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This is the reason I'm dumping gmail and by Stan92057 · 2010-08-10 03:24 · Score: 0

This is the reason I'm dumping gmail and any google products. Free from google is a cost to great. And i don't have a problem with them showing adverts with search results that a fair deal. But google goes too far beyond that and saves everything i do,go say,see,write,receive. Once i leave google.com google has no business in my business.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Beta by 605dave · 2010-08-10 03:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't worry, any evil policies are only in beta.

--
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
Eric Schmidt is the problem by affenhund · 2010-08-10 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

In my opinion, the problem is Eric Schmidt. I trust both Larry Page and (even more so) Sergey Brin that they really try to live by "don't be evil". But Eric Schmidt transforms the company more and more into a profit-oriented, shareholder-controlled, greedy mess. I'm afraid that it will get a lot worse once Page and Brin lose give up control over the company. After all, most shareholders are concerned with return of investment, not things as silly as ethics. "By 2014, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will have sold enough of their stock to give up majority control of the company, Google announced Friday evening." http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10440005-265.html Not something I'm looking forward to.
Vernor Vinge by Cajun+Hell · 2010-08-10 04:14 · Score: 1

From Rainbows End:

He searched on the name, shed collisions and obvious myths; the Friends of Privacy piled the lies so deep that sometimes it was hard to find the truth.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Pay to Not See Ads by juancnuno · 2010-08-10 06:46 · Score: 1

Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?
Yes
if a commitment to privacy by circletimessquare · 2010-08-10 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

results in more customers, or a perceived lack of one results in less customers, than a privacy policy directly translates into dollars, plus or minus, at some point
meaning, what i am saying and writing is not idealism, and is in fact in better touch with capitalist principles that you allude to but apparently understand less than i do
anyone can regurgitate simpleminded cynicism. what you write is even more useless than the airheaded idealism you dislike
it is unfortunate that so many loud boorish people think that their typical easy cynicism is a replacement for actual intelligence. frankly, its worse than the intolerant blind idealists out there. at least they can be interesting sometimes, no matter how flawed
but cynics are simply a dime a dozen, boring, and utterly useless, but unfortunately, always very loud and insistent on entering the conversation loudly announcing what everyone already knows as if it is some grand epiphany they think they have a monopoly on
lowest common denominator cynicism is not a replacement for intelligence. please, some of you shut up and think for once, then try to say something interesting for once

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:if a commitment to privacy by bingoUV · 2010-08-11 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  if a commitment to privacy results in more customers, or a perceived lack of one results in less customers, than a privacy policy directly translates into dollars, plus or minus, at some point
  I completely agree, because
  ( if(false) then false ) == true
  But the statement, though true, does not mean much, because the predicate (a commitment to privacy results in more customers ...) is expressly false. Number of facebook users, amount of time they spend on facebook, amount of personal information they put on facebook and facebook's privacy policy together proves it.
  
  --
  Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
We've seen this story before by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-08-10 08:20 · Score: 1

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Adblok is a RESULT of abuse of ads. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 08:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Adblok is a RESULT of abuse of ads. What was evil was the continuing attempts to make adverts MORE Than the content. Popups. Then when people stopped that, popunders. Then blaring flash ads. Then even more scurrilous ads.
Until it became MANDATORY to have adblock, because without it your computer is hijacked by ad companies.
And those ad companies don't own the website. So when they're busy and running slow, the site you WANT to see is waiting for the ads. But the adfarm is fine because it WANTS to be busy!
Without flashblock, noscript and other advanced techniques, the site you WANT to see is blank while doubleclick.net is falling down.
1. Re:Adblok is a RESULT of abuse of ads. by Kireas · 2010-08-10 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  I've never had AdBlock, and my internet works fine, thank you very much. No delays, no overwhelming adverts, no popups, no flash adverts, and certainly no annoyance whatsoever.
  If a site has a ton of truly annoying adverts, then that site probably isn't one worth visiting anyway. Punish the bad sites, not the good ones seeking the revenue.
  
  --
  To much anime is bad for the brain...desu.
  
  Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Your business doesn't exist without customers by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 08:59 · Score: 0

Your business doesn't exist without customers. Doesn't matter if the owner exists or not: you can change owners much easier than you can customers.
The food pyramid of a business (ANY business) is:
1) Customers. #1. Without these you have no business
2) Workers. #2. Without these you have nothing to give your customers
3) Owners. #3 and a long way down. The ones who decide what to give to customers
4) Managers. #4 and another long drop. You can manage completely well for decades without managers. Maybe managers would make the workers more efficient, but without the workers, you have no goods.
5) Directors. Completely superfluous. But nice to have to wave at the competition.
Let's think about this properly - the implications by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-10 09:19 · Score: 0

What about when you surf the internet on your work laptop in the evenings for the latest in over-the-counter meds for some disease you don't pubicly admit to having, then, the next day, boss over your shoulder, you Google for some work-related stuff. Do the adverts for creams from the chemists show now, twelve hours or so after they could have come in handy? Whatabout those employment law solicitor adverts that pop up? Then all of those ads about laser eye correction surgery, just because you looked up the wikipedia article on it because a friend had it done. Theoretically, your shoulder-surfing boss could read you like a book, just picking up on the ads that show as a result of your out of work surfing. You might not like that if you has something to hide.
IP tracking too? by cekander · 2010-08-10 10:29 · Score: 1

So does google track your IP when you log out of gmail, and continue to log your google queries and clicks? Methinks yes, especially after the latest wifi snooping scandal. I bet they even go as far as to have an inference network for public computers, so if you're googling, and then you log into your gmail within, say 5 minutes of the search, then they apply let's say a 50% confidence, or higher depending how closely the "anonymous" queries match your general profile. I know I would do that if I were google, and I were evil, which they are.
Only seven pages? by cavebison · 2010-08-10 17:50 · Score: 1

When I was in high school, seven pages worth of vision would have been considered deep.
Do we still talk about "vision statements" these days? I thought that went out with Myers-Briggs.
Webcam creepiness by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-11 05:16 · Score: 0

I was just reading my blogs on Google reader when my webcam light blinked twice. Creepy.