Slashdot Mirror


Google Caught Misbehaving By Kenyan Startup

An anonymous reader sends in an interesting story from Mocality, a company that painstakingly built a business directory in Kenya. When they discovered that somebody was systematically harvesting the contact information they'd collected (and after a few very odd phone calls from confused Kenyan business owners), they set up a sting to see what was really going on. They swapped out the phone numbers listed for a few businesses with phone numbers in their own call centers, and then waited to see who called. Mocality was shocked to discover it was Google Kenya, who falsely claimed a business collaboration with Mocality, and then lied about Mocality's business practices.

37 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Do no evil indeed by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTFA:

    On this call (first 2 minutes) you can clearly hear Douglas identify himself as Google Kenya employee, state, and then reaffirm, that GKBO is working in collaboration with Mocality, and that we are helping them with GKBO, before trying to offer the business owner a website (and upsell them a domain name). Over the 11 minutes of the whole call he repeatedly states that Mocality is with, or under (!) Google.

    If the allegations in this article are true, this is where they really cross the line. Harvesting a publicly available database and then contacting those businesses to sell them something is fine (though a little sleazy for a mainstream business like Google). But then trying to claim that you're working with that company when you're not is just plain fraud. It would be like some random insurance company calling people up and saying "Hi, we're working with your mortgage holder, Bank of Topeka, and would like to offer you a special insurance deal...in conjunction with Bank of Topeka."

    In fact, Mocality found out about this whole scam when customers started calling them up and asking for support for their new websites (thinking Mocality were the ones who had sold them the sites). I guess it never occurred to Google that this would happen and that Mocality would want to know why.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Do no evil indeed by antitithenai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually no, Google's Indian call centers are involved too, so this is obviously coming outside Google's Kenya's offices. On top of that, Google as the company is fully responsible for all their offices practices. You can't just point out that some other department did it.

    2. Re:Do no evil indeed by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Note the key word "Google." When it's your name being used, you have to take the bad as well as the good. It's not "Everything good is done by Google, everything bad is done by lone employees who do not really represent Google."

    3. Re:Do no evil indeed by Tufriast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The corporate offices in Google CA were traced to this issue; check his IP logs he has. I might be foggy on this, but from what I saw, this came from California as well.

      --
      Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
    4. Re:Do no evil indeed by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note the key words, "Google Kenya" - this is a branch office where some employee is taking a shortcut. This is hardly a condemnation of Google as a company unless and until it's demonstrated that this is either more than an isolated incident or was based on instructions received from corporate overlords.

      As other responses pointed out, this went beyond Google Kenya, so your point is invalid. Moreover, even if it were simply Google Kenya, I find your attitude to be terribly naive. If we don't hold parent companies/politicians/military leaders/whatever responsible for the actions of their subordinates and default to the notion that every negative act is that of a rogue, corrupt underling, we nearly eliminate the concept of institutional responsibility. The burden of proof in this sort of situation should be on the institution - there's no reason to assume that an incident was out of line with company policy until proven otherwise.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    5. Re:Do no evil indeed by Synkronos · · Score: 5, Informative

      OrgName: Google Inc.
      OrgId: GOGL
      Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
      City: Mountain View
      StateProv: CA

      That just indicates that the network is registered under Google CA, not that any authorisation for the activity going over that network is. The only thing we can really infer is that the operation is larger than _just_ the Kenyan office, but whether that's some Kenyan dude calling his buddy in India to do him a favour, or the CEO of Google personally masterminding an eeeeeevil takeover of everything, is anybody's guess. Probably somewhere in between.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    6. Re:Do no evil indeed by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're absolutely right. If the allegations are true, then Google is at fault and should be taken to task for this.

      However, when things like this happen, it's usually worthwhile to figure out whether the bad behavior was isolated to a single person, a single department, a single branch, or whether it's a common part of the company's internal culture, or even a company-wide policy. The point being that if we can reliably determine that it was a small subset of the company behaving badly, and the company removes the offending parties, then you can reasonably keep interacting with the company (albeit with more vigilance than you were before). If, on the other hand, it's clear that this was part of a company-wide pattern, then you should reasonably stop trusting the company as a whole.

      To be clear: it's not a matter of absolving the parent company from responsibility (they are indeed responsible for everything their subsidiaries and employees do). It's about coming up with valid predictions about how likely this company is to be a repeat offender.

    7. Re:Do no evil indeed by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note the key words, "Google Kenya" - this is a branch office where some employee is taking a shortcut.

      Doesn't matter. If some McDonalds somewhere in the world is serving people maggoty burgers, the parent company is going to want to know who and shut them down right away. There are certain responsibilities you get when you let other people use your name, specifically it's still up to you to protect your reputation by not making franchise agreements with arse-holes.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Do no evil indeed by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A subordinate's excuse is, "I was just following orders."
      A superior's excuse excuse is, "I was out of the loop."
      Neither is acceptable.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    9. Re:Do no evil indeed by Synkronos · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not defending anything. I merely stated that the mention of Mountain View CA in the whois information is not proof of anything other than the registration being in Google CA's name, rather than what the earlier posted thought it implied.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    10. Re:Do no evil indeed by alexosaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that's something we should really let them get away with -- Union Carbide did that, too, arguing that they didn't have any responsibility for what happened in Bhopal because it was some subsidiary of theirs.

      Set aside questions of branding and PR, and set aside whether or not some mysterious, shadowy figure in Mountainview signed the order to go ahead. That it happened at all either suggests that Google's corporate culture is so venal and corrupt that Google-Kenya thought that it was acceptable, or that Google is so incompetent and muddled that they're not capable of articulating their legitimate culture to their own employees and contractors.

      With the Google Chrome advertising dustup a couple weeks back, it could be either, but neither is particularly good and neither should free them of "condemnation of Google as a company."

    11. Re:Do no evil indeed by Archimagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think anyone is saying that Google shouldn't be held responsible. Just that it's probably not Google trying to be evil, but some random employee breaking the law. If corporate deals with it accordingly I don't see how you can condemn the company as a whole for it. If the dude making your burger at the local burger hut spits on your burger does that make the whole burger hut corporation an evil business for having their employees spit in burgers? No, it makes the guy a jerk who doesn't follow corporate policy.

    12. Re:Do no evil indeed by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that Google as a whole is responsible for the actions of its individual branches, but it's how Google responds to the accusation that determines whether Google condones the behavior, not whether Google was able to proactively micromanage branch offices.

      I don't buy your theory that because an Indian call center was involved, this automatically makes it an action blessed by corporate. Branch offices have their own budgets and discretionary spending. Maybe it was Eric Schmidt himself who told them to do this. But we really have no way of knowing, and it's a simpler explanation that one or a few employees were engaged in taking shortcuts than that Google corporate issues orders to branch offices which involve instructions to illegally misrepresent a business relationship.

      Or maybe it was the Indian call center themselves who took this "initiative" and decided to lie about the relationship (that would certainly be consistent with when we fired a call center for overtly lying to our customers to shorten call times).

      I'll side with Occam's Razor on this. If corporate wanted this information this badly, they'd have paid for it. The bad press and legal repercussions would outweigh the licensing costs.

    13. Re:Do no evil indeed by antitithenai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you even read the article? It was a huge operation and on some days they manually scraped and called over 2500 businesses. No single employee can do that. And there was also other Google branches involved, like Google India.

    14. Re:Do no evil indeed by a2wflc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My fortune 100 company has branches, subsidiaries, and employees all over the world. We have fired VPs of a region for things like this going on in their geographic area. There are many things we don't allow anywhere globally even though they are legal or the only way to get things done in some countries.

      I can't stand all of the business practice, ethics, and legal training I have to go through every year (along with 10s of thousands of other employees) at a pretty high cost to the company. But everyone from the top down to new hires knows that stuff like this won't be tolerated and that responsibility doesn't stop with the person doing the unethical behavior (so the VPs insist on everyone under them being aware of corporate policy and follow it, and you do need the push from that level).

      So I know it's possible to control and have have no problem blaming "Google" as well as "Google Kenya". I don't know all the facts here, so google may very well have similar policies to my company and someone high up will be fired. But, if they haven't been making an effort to stop things like this from the corporate level, I will put some blame on them.

    15. Re:Do no evil indeed by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I field calls from companies claiming to be Google at least once a week. They aren't Google, they're people wanting to intermediate between a customer and eg Adwords. It's a scam, pure and simple. Whether this is the case here I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if it was official Google policy.

    16. Re:Do no evil indeed by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly I don't see much difference between Google and Microsoft's corporatism and anti-competitive practices, except that Microsoft has had a 20 year head start.

    17. Re:Do no evil indeed by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No and that isn't what he said. Any organisation with tens of thousands of employees will at some point have one do something that is evil/wrong/unethical etc. The difference betweena good and a bad organisation is how they react, whether they consider it when hiring, how diligent they are in checking and how they reward and promote employees.

    18. Re:Do no evil indeed by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In some ways, it kinda does indict the entire organization.... the entire brand anyway.

      The personality and integrity of a company is an important and even critical asset and must be guarded and maintained. If Google made the mistake of using the people behind this problem, they put their brand and image in serious jeopardy. Like it or not (call it racism if you want) certain parts of the world exist where lies and deceit are built-in to the game. China is built around bribes and crap like that and US companies are routinely called onto the floor for "doing business" with Chinese people in the way the Chinese people expect.

      Sometimes competition is a race to the top. Sometimes, it's a race to the bottom... it's a race to whatever practice yields the best results.

    19. Re:Do no evil indeed by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither is acceptable

      Except that each those is often exactly true. In the "just following orders" situation, you go up the food chain until you find out who issued them. In the "I was out of the loop" scenario, you go down the food chain until you find out where the loop's boundaries are.

      What does "unacceptable" mean to you? If someone subordinate to you does something of which you would not approve, and about which you did not know ... what, should your entire organization, all the way to the top of the org chart be destroyed? Really?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:Do no evil indeed by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes.

      sometime a group; in a large organization will do something wrong. sometime by accident, sometime on purpose. How the company overall handles it is the critical issues, as well as the behavior going forward.

      ti's not an excuse, its reasonable.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Do no evil indeed by shitzu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is the 20 year head start thing again. To do so, helps Google gain market share NOW. Come back with this talk in 20 years. My prediction is, that by 2020 we hate Google more than we hate msft now.

  2. Outright fraud by antitithenai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This wasn't just misbehaving. What Google did was outright illegal. Not only did they falsely claim that they have business partnership with Mocality, they also claimed that Mocality is engaging in bait-and-switch practices to try and charge businesses up to $200 for their listing. Mocality said they have never charged businesses and never will.

    Such blatant lies aren't just misbehavior, they are pure fraud. Google is trying to destroy their competitor in any way possible and in turn profit from lies. This is not a new practice to Google - they haven't been able to gain market share in social space because Facebook and Twitter got there first (of who did it well), and it's seriously injuring their currently. They are desperately trying to change that with Google+ but they know they're unable to do so because they weren't there at the right time. Google is also facing serious competition in Russia, China, South Korea and a few other countries where local search engines have the largest market share and Google is unable to compete as again, they weren't there at the right time.

    Google has a long history of scraping other websites and then dropping them lower in search in favor of their own sites. They have been doing this for ages with hotels, restaurants and similar information. They're also trying to do it with flights information. All of these practices will net Google enemies and most likely antitrust issues. But Google doesn't care - they know how important timing is and they will abuse their position whenever they can to get there. It's a long term goal and Google has managed to get the position where no one can really touch them even if they misbehave. Seriously, they were also found out polluting search engines with paid links. After that they blame someone else and try to seem like a good guy. The most hilarious thing is that most geeks believe them just because they use open source (while ironically their products are all proprietary).

    And note that this isn't just Google's Kenyan office misbehaving. They also received calls from Google's Indian call centers engaging in similar practices, so this is a practice accepted from Google's HQ.
    On top of that, EPIC has said they will try to get antitrust investigation into Google's introduction of Google+ into search results. People are finally starting to wake up to see how bad Google is and how it abuses other companies.

  3. Re:Legal ? by antitithenai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes it is illegal in the US, and FTC should really look into Google's practices. Thankfully that is in the works, as privacy watchdog EPIC has complained to FTC and asked them to look into all of misbehaviors of Google.

  4. Real or fake? by happylight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So is the person calling actually from Google? Or is it just some scammer claiming to be from Google?

    1. Re:Real or fake? by antitithenai · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, because later there is Google Indian call centers calling and visits from Google's net ranges.

      There were no further accesses from the IP address 41.203.221.138 after 4pm 23rd December. Co-incidence? or had someone realised we were onto them?

      However, there were some NEW strange messages from business owners- theyâ(TM)d apparently been contacted by a call centre in India with the same promise of a website.

      NetRange: 74.125.0.0 - 74.125.255.255
      CIDR: 74.125.0.0/16
      OriginAS:
      NetName: GOOGLE

  5. Re:Can we get a better source? by Synkronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the Mocality blog, blogging about Mocality's own investigations, into things that were done to Mocality. How much closer to the source do you want?

    --
    Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  6. Re:That is Google KENYA's responsibility. by antitithenai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if Google creates single department that does all their evil stuff, they're still not evil company? How far will you go to defend Google and not see through their bullshit?

  7. To the people stating this is fake... by Tufriast · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd hate to pour some cold water on your hot heads - the man has proof, recorded proof. In addition he has IP logs and tracebacks to Google HQ. He has enough evidence to stand in a court of law and press charges against Google inside of the United States. He's checked with ISPs and double-checked over a period of many months. This is no fake; and this is a huge, huge, blow to Google.

    --
    Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
  8. revised motto: by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Don't be caught being evil"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  9. Re:Can we get a better source? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

    How much closer to the source do you want?

    I won't believe it until I get to read it in the original Klingon.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  10. Re:Can we get a better source? by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This is a rumor posted on a blog."

    And this is just an unmoderated discussion posted on a website. What's the problem?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  11. Ip's can be hijacked by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Informative

    IP address ownership, sadly, doesn't prove anything. Anyone with a BGP connection can hijack any IP address for large parts of the world. And before you say "but surely Google can prevent this" :

    Read this

    I've been the admin on 3 networks which were IP hijacked now. In two cases it was accidental, in a third case it was not. The situation is bad in North America, seriously disappointing in Western Europe, and beyond outrageous everywhere else. Basically, outside of North America and Europe you can pretty much assume anyone can hijack anything they want. Inside "the West" you have to be a carrier, a transit provider with a few hundred customers. Which sounds good, until you realize there's over 500 such organizations in North America alone.

    1. Re:Ip's can be hijacked by hhw · · Score: 4, Informative

      The majority of transit providers use a BGP prefix list to limit what IP addresses you are permitted to advertise to them either through manual management of the list or by using a routing registry, so it's not nearly as common as you're implying. The exception is when it comes to peering, but there aren't that many networks that do a significant amount of peering. And if any of your peers catch you IP hijacking, they're likely to de-peer pretty quickly if they discover you're hijacking IP's. Yes, there are a few transit providers who don't follow this properly (the few instances I recall of IP hijacking usually revolved around Sprint), but it's false to assume that just anyone with a BGP connection can just hijack anyone's IP address.

      --
      http://astutehosting.com/
  12. Re:Can we get a better source? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be fair, that's actually way too close to the source for my comfort.

    I'm not saying they did, and I'm quite sure they did not, but Mocality could completely make up everything in this story. I'd much prefer a traditional news organization to have done the research on this so I have some third party confirmation rather than trusting the self-declared harmed party.

    I believe in cloud-sourcing the news as much as the next guy, but this is when investigative reporting is most valuable. Serious accusations require serious and skilled reporting.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  13. Speaking about fraud by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well ... That depends, don't you agree ?

    Apparently facebook is ("was") paying people for bad-mouthing google. I am not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it's certainly a datapoint to consider.

  14. Re:Response by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes. The Register asked them and they said:

    "We're aware that a company in Kenya has accused us of using some of their publicly available customer data without permission. We are investigating the matter and will have more information as soon as possible."

    Note that they are already trying to duck the fraud and focus on the less serious "use of publicly available information" part.