Just a thought, but how do you tell the difference between "groupthink" and "a bunch of intelligent people who've independently reached the correct opinion"?
Obviously, not all opinions are equal - everyone's entitled to their own one, but "I think all black people should be rounded up and deported" should obviously be given less credence than "I think 1 + 1 = 2".
Therefore certian opinions are more "correct" than others - they more accurately reflect objective reality, or have a more rational/logical base.
If lots of intelligent people agree on a particular conclusion, it could just be because that conclusion's the right one. Or at least, the best one suggested yet.
In this example, Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial, factual resource, or at least as close to that ideal as possible. Marketing (and especially covert marketing) has exactly the opposite agenda, by definition - it's inherently biased, since it's sole purpose is to convince you that something's great or true, regardless of its actual quality or veracity.
An objective, factual article on the reality game is still advertising it - it's still spreading awareness and propagating the meme. Given this, if/when a company is proven to have pissed in the communal well for private gain, I'd consider it appropriate to remove all content directly related to said spam, since even a factual article left behind still represents some benefit to the company.
The lesson here is simple: Submit good, factual content and it'll stay, bringing some small benefit both to Wikipedia (additional content) and your company (subtle, low-key advertising). Attempt to subvert Wikipedia by spamming or posting biased articles, and have the entire meme you're trying to push excised from the site. This way Wikipedia wins ("no content" is better than "deliberately misleading content"), and your company loses (no advertising whatsoever, even low-key factual articles).
Ok, in this case the deletion request was posted before the re-write, and the submitter turned out (apparently) to be a private individual rather than an "official" BBC employee, but I think the principle is sound - when spammed, delete the spam page complately, and subsequently accept re-writes if they're deemed impartial enough, taking into account any connection between the spammer and the new submitter.
Sorry - I know that doesn't fit in with the standard trendy "site X is t3h suXX0rZ! T3hy i5 t3h gr0uP7h1nK!!!111!!!1one!!11!1" whinge, but I'd like to think that's because it's maybe slightly closer to objective reality...;-)
"Except for the address, I bet all those facts are in Wikipedia. Would you consider them to be a one-stop-privacy-invasion-shop?"
Nope. The address was pretty much what I was objecting to. I wouldn't have been overly impressed had they just stuck with his wife's name, his hobbies and the like, but it would have been within the bounds of "acceptable", to my mind.
Posting information about his real-world location is beyond the pale. I think you'll find this is a pretty common position - why else do most phonebook CDs allow you to resolve addresses to numbers but not the other way around?
"Try reading it again. They even mention that it's not just Google, but that Google is quickly growing to be the biggest one."
Indeed they do, but the entire main thrust of the article is Google - "Goole allows X. Google makes Y possible. Google is encouraging Z. (Oh yeah, and BTW every other engine on the net also allows it, but we're still going to go on talking about Google instead)".
The fact is (According to the last stats I read) Google only has 20-30% more of the search market than (for example) Yahoo. And Yahoo has many, many more webmail users. Yahoo also had integrated search and webmail (and all their other offerings) cookies before Google even launched GMail. Why not write a story on (again, for example) Yahoo? Why make it all about Google?
That's my point - Google isn't the only one in this position, it hasn't been doing it longest, and it isn't even definitely the worst offender. Yet the entire article is written about Google, with a few caveats thrown in in a single paragraph half-way through...
"I don't know what you mean by "a private individual", but the way I've always heard the term used the CEO of Google is far from one."
Private individual. IE, not a public servant. Not a corporation. Someone who has any right to expect any kind of privacy at all.
"Exposing people and "their details" is one of the main purposes of journalism. I'd hardly call it unprofessional."
Actually, no. Reporting on news stories and publicising information that it's in the public interest to know is the job of a journalist. They should never publish personal or private information unless it's essential in the furthering of those aims.
Exposing people's private information != journalism. You've made the same mistake as paparazzi and tabloid "journalists" all over the world.
"Right of Reply is bullshit in my opinion."
Mmmm, eloquent.
Would you care to explain why letting someone have their say on a contentious issue that concerns them is "bullshit"? Especially when a journalist can speak directly to thousands or even millions of people, and a private individual can't? Given that kind of imbalance, I'd say the right to reply is fucking essential - it's the only thing that prevents one-sided and biased pseudojournalism like the article in question.
It's also considered fair, when writing about someone, to get their side of the story. If they have a good reason for what they're doing you might decide they're right, or at least write the story differently. If you hear their side and it's not persuasive, you can still write a story where they're the bad guy, but at least you're sure you haven't got the wrong end of the stick. In fact, you can actually write a better story, because you can tackle and demolish their arguments directly, instead of relying on your (possibly incorrect) understanding of their position, and accidentally demolishing a strawman.
If you don't ever speak to them you automatically write a biased story, and news is supposed to be impartial, or at least fair. Again, this is what separates "proper" journalism from shitty biased tabloid rumour-mongering - the idea that you should write a fair and balanced story.
I apologise for jumping straight into the debate - I was under the impression that you understood the point of journalism, and the reason
We're sick and tired of your lame attempts to drum up traffic to your shitty website by spamming Slashdot comments.
Spamming scum like you are the lowest of the low, happily pissing in the communal well because you think it might get you a couple more hits on your low-rent tedious site.
The best bit it that you've picked the most retarded choice of target - Slashdot is generally frequented by technical types, and we're exactly the types who:
Know every lowlife spammer trick currently in use
Are constantly on guard against spamming fuckwits like you
Are likely to react strongly against spam and obnoxious advertising in general
Aren't fooled for a second by a tiny selection of sock-puppet accounts, and
Have the technical wherewithall to find out who owns your site, who provides the hosting, who's your technical or abuse contact, and exactly how to take the fucking thing off-line if it gets annoying enough
In short, you're not doing yourself any favours by spamming anywhere, but most especially here. You're more likely to just get yourself boycotted or DOSed than to get a massive amount of traffic, and the majority of people I know who've noticed your spam have already boycotted your site.
In short (for anyone who hasn't already realised), OVERHEARDINTHEUK.COM is conducting a spam advertising campaign - please mod down any posts by the accounts mentioned in the previous sibling post, and do not under any circumstances visit OVERHEARDINTHEUK.COM, unless you happen to have a spare botnet kicking around with nothing better to do...
Google (and other search engines) also provide possibly the single most essential tool used in navigating the web apart from the web browser and TCP/IP stack.
If you can think of a way for Google to automatically filter out every single piece of "information that anyone in the world finds objectionable, and that it isn't in the public interest to disclose even so", patent it and make millions. It's impossible.
Yes, Google could filter pages matching credit card or SSN numbers, but then criminals start using ROT13, and you're fucked again.
In addition, did you ever think that by including these pages Google actually makes it easier for Law enforcement (or concerned citizens) to find these gangs, and prosecute them?
Offhand I can't think of a better system for the criminals than Google blocking all "dodgy" pages like this - the criminals working in these areas will still be able to find them by word-of-mouth, but the police (lacking such contacts) will have almost no chance of locating them or using them as evidence.
You know what? I would have defended them just as vociferously. I don't particularly like Microsoft, or their behaviour, but this is about more than just one company and one search engine.
This is fundamentally a debate about society, and how we deal with the incresing transparency that our technology is pushing upon us. It's about how we balance transparency (a Good Thing) and personal privacy (another, diametrically-opposed Good Thing), or how we choose to give up one or the other totally.
This debate has been brewing for a while now in techie circles, and I was looking forward to an intelligent and informed debate when it hit the more mainstream media.
Unfortunately, thanks to CNet's tabloid sensationalism and lack of journalistic ethics, the entire debate has been sidetracked into gossiping about which company's the Bad Guy and who's been the most childish.
The simple answer is that this situation is not Google's fault - it's an inevitable consequence of any half-decent search engine, and half-decent search engines are essential for the survival and usefulness of the web. We can either lobotomise the web (and Progress) to protect personal privacy, or we can move on with Progress and select to punish the actual people who invade our privacy, rather than the systems which make it possible as a by-product of their essential function.
Just to clarify, had the article been written about "search engines" in general, and happened to mention Google was (potentially) the worst of the bunch, I would have had no problem.
It was the fact that Google was overwhelmingly the subject of the article, the person singled out was the CEO of Google, and all other search engines and webmail systems were pretty much relegated to a single paragraph that suggested to me it might be a bit personally motivated.
When you follow this with ZDNet's incredibly childish response, it looked to me like CNet's editors have a problem with Google, and are using the article to stir up controversy and get advertising revenue.
I agree that Google has to potential to commit massive infringement of privacy, and I'm careful to not search while signed-in and to delete cookies regularly (amongst other things). However, my mild, unproven suspicions weren't enough to forgive what I see as such a blatant hatchet-job and such execrable journalistic ethics.
This appears to be a common position. I'm pretty sure I've completely refuted it over here and over here - if you can find a fault with my arguments please do so.
"You're confusing what I said. I never commented on whether or not the dual-class structure was a good thing overall. But now that I have thought about it, I still don't think it's a good thing for society. Dictatorship, even benevolent dictatorship, is not an appropriate way to control power."
My apologies if I misunderstood your position. I agree that dictatorship isn't the best way to control power, but I'd argue that a benevolent dictatorship (or triumvirate, as it actually is) is heaps better than a democracy composed exclusively of people whose only aim is to maximise profits to themselves, at the expense of everyone else...
Apart from a few minor recent incidents, Google is generally regarded as a pretty "enlightened" company, as companies go - isn't this evidence in favour of the above?
"If they intentionally made the coffee so hot that it was undrinkable, I might."
I don't want to side-track us onto this old debate, but I (personally) find when most people make coffee for themselves they make it hot - hot enough that it'll hurt if they pour it over themselves. Therefore if I buy coffee and pour it over myself and it hurts, I'd call that pretty much expected. Whether it's hot enough to cause first-degree burns or third-degree doesn't bother me that much - it's hot, I knew it was, I chucked it over myself, and I should take the consequences, end of story.
"Well, first of all, they are refusing to talk to the entire company, not just that one reporter. And secondly, by not talking to someone you pretty much guarantee that the situation is only going to escalate."
Well yeah, but the editor had to approve the article, and the company's making advertising money off the controversy. If you could somehow deal with the company and in no way reward the individuals responsible for the article, I have no doubt they'd do it. Since that's impossible, I'd say it's barely an over-reaction (if at all) to refuse to deal with the company.
"CDNet has fought this out in the press. If Google did that, I'd appreciate it."
And yet you've just slated Google for allowing it to escalate...?
"As for all those other things, I agree they'd be worse, but I disagree that they'd be in any way "sinking to their level". While we're at it let's mention that Google's CEO didn't bomb the CDNet headquarters. Cause that would have been worse, too."
Indeed, but many other posters are reacting as if he had. Besides, I doubt very, very much that Eric Schmidt took the action of cutting off CNet with no kind of consultation with the rest of Google - Serguei and Brin, at least.
Simply walking away fro mthe argument and informing CNet (privately, and discretely) that they weren't going to deal with them for a year strikes me as a pretty good way of getting something back but keeping it low-key.
CNet then splashed the news all over its site, keeping the controversy (and lovely advertising dollars) rolling in.
"To me, the CEO is being unethical by fighting a personal fight using shareholder rights."
That's a fair reading, but unless Google's share-price takes a nose-dive as a result you haven't lost anything, so why complain?
"Something that wasn't already public knowledge would have been a start. And they didn't post his address. They linked to a page which had it"
That is a good point, but they've still collected and collated a vast number disparate facts into a single convenient one-stop-privacy-invasion-shop page.
They also did it in an extremely unprofessional way:
Google isn't the only search engine in the world, so to suggest (as they did all throughout the article) that it's solely (or even mainly) Google's fault is irresponsible.
They also chose a private individual as the target of their privacy-invasion. It doesn't matter he's the CEO of Google - Google isn't solely (or even mostly) responsible for the fact that search engines make searching easy, so picking on him is unjustified. In fact, having just blamed his company for all the evils of society, to then publish his details and home address is practically an incitement to action against him.
They exposed him and his details to public scrutiny without his permission, and without even informing him first. This is a gross violation of etiquette, and highly unprofessional journalistic behaviour.
They prevented him from exercising his right of reply before the article was published (note how there's not even a standard "Eric Schmidt/Google were not immediately available for comment" attached to the end of the article) - Right of Reply is like Rule #1 in journalistic ethics.
ZDNet's childish and inflammatory "apology" afterwards makes it blatantly clear that all CNet's interested in is whipping up as much controversy as possible, and reaping the benefits of all that lovely juicy free advertising. You'll note how the entire debate's been "Should CNet have done this?", not "What are we going to do about the increasing transparency of our information-society?". I think that says a lot - if they were trying to start up the second debate, they've failed miserably.
All these things indicate a sensationalist and biased article that seriously misrepresents fault for the situation, posted at least partly out of a cynical and self-serving desire for free publicity and controversy.
"I'd be pissed, but I'd be much more pissed at the congresscritters who passed the campaign finance laws which required me to make my address public than at the news agency that pointed it out."
Funnily enough, I'd support this kind of legislation because of the increased transparency it causes. I see having parts of my personal information scattered around the net like this as inevitable and pretty unavoidable (albeit not ideal) - I only really object when someone collects them together into a ready-made harrassment-pack and publishes it on a high-traffice website, without asking my permission or even letting me know first and simultaneously blaming me and my company for a general trend of society.;-)
"Not however they like, but for news purposes certainly, especially for a "public figure" such as the CEO of Google."
Who decides who's a "public figure"? Ok, you're a public figure if you're a celebrity, but who defines celebrity? I run a small private company - does that make me a "public figure"? I'd say not. How about if the company goes public - am I automatically a celebrity then? I think we need to rigidly define "public figure" and "celebrity" before we start using that as an excuse to invade people's privacy. And celebrities have sued peope who published or disseminated their private information, so even they have some right to privacy, right?
"Image rights don't apply to public figures nor to use in newsworthy purposes."
Good point, but it wasn't required to use Schmidt as the basis for the story - it could just as easily have been the reporter himself, or a colleague. Permission should also have been obtained, or at least notification given.
In addition, using such a "public figure" (as you call him) is also a bit sensationalist - most peop
Obviously I'm not afiliated with Google in any way, but I couldn't help thinking in their position I'd react exactly the same.
I really can't understand why so many people are overlooking CNet's incredible lack of journalistic ethics or integrity, and are so ready to spin this as Google finally "doing evil" and turning on an innocent news-source.
Is this the beginning of the Great Trendy Slashdot Backlash against Google?
Now you're talking, but unfortunately you've made the common mistake in this discussion - "Google" is actually spelled "every search engine ever produced".
The real issue here is what do we do about the increasing transparency of our information society? This kind of easy access to information is a by-product of easy searching. Since easy searching is essential to the very existence of the web, compromising it compromises the usefulness of the web.
The usefulness of the web has lead directly to its popularity, and its popularity is what's allowed it to have such a profound (and I'd say beneficial) impact on our society.
We can either ban search engines outright, and hence effectively eliminate the world wide web, or (like every other dual-use technology we have) live with the potential for abuse but come down hard on the actual perpetrators.
In fact, several things did - they're called search engines. Google seems to be copping all the flack, but you could make exactly the same case for MSN Search/Hotmail's handling of personal information, and we already know Microsoft will do anything for a buck.
Search engines are also an essential part of the web if the web is to be any use at all. If you can suggest a single mechanism whereby Google can filter out material that anyone in the world could possibly find objectionable, we're all ears.
Instead, most of us realise that Google (and other search engines) are basically essential to the existence of the web. It can be used for a million things, only one of which is privacy infringement. Since it's an all-or-nothing approach, most of us are content to let Google offer the potential, and only come down hard on the perpetrators as-and-when someone violates privacy using it.
Basically, would you rather ban all knives and live on soup, or allow knives, live on steak and only punish people who actually stab each other?
Society's already made this choice a million times already, so sitting there blaming the knife or the guys who manufactured the particular one used for a particular stabbing is shortsighted and irrational, at best.
I don't know what's going on here, but this article's comments seem to have been invaded by hordes of... um... exceedingly thoughtless people. Many people are blaming Google (exclusively!) for indexing public information, but not one person has come up with an alternative that would help the situation one bit, and doesn't involve making the web utterly useless (neatly lobotomising our culture and entire technological development).
To the "G00gle ind3xeS teh w3b? Th3y aRe t3h 5uXX0rZ!!!!1!!!1!" brigade, kindly stop throwing your toys out of your pram and suggest a singe viable alternative, or STFU.
Or, you know, there's absolutely no chance it's at least partly motivated by CNet's self-serving sensationalist style, and their stunning lack of journalistic integrity or profesional ethics?
They publish a biased hatchet-job article, exclusively blaming Google (when it could equally apply to Yahoo, MSN or any other search engine/webmail company) for the consequences of a society-wide trend towards transparency.
They publish personal information about someone (ok, Google's CEO, but I'd be just as disgusted if it was anyone), including his age, wife's name, political affiliations and home address. Finally, they don't even attempt to let him exercise his right of reply, which is practically Rule #1 in journalistic ethics.
In response Google doesn't demand the article's withdrawn, threaten legal action, de-list the pages concerned or de-list CNet. In fact, all they do is state that they don't think CNet meets the minimum level of journalistic responsibility, and so (temporarily!) aren't worth talking to.
I don't know why some people are spinning this as a personal attack - it strikes me as a perfectly fair response to a childish vendetta on CNet's part.
"A good thing for society, maybe, but I was considering it as a shareholder."
Wow, really? I wouldn't even consider putting my trivial personal stake above what was good for society. In my opinion small personal gain is very secondary to maintaining ethical responsibility in our culture.
For example, I'm not going to sue McDonalds because I stupidly pour hot coffee in my lap. I take personal responsibility for my actions, and suing them (while I'd probably win and get rich) cheapens the entire legal system and slowly but inevitably increases the litigatiousness and corruption of our entire society.
"If you asked me before I found out about this move by the CEO, I would have said that I trust him to run the company in my best interests. But now I'm not so sure."
First off, apologies for characterising it as a "hissy-fit";-)
Secondly, how does refusing to talk to someone who's basically "out to get you" (and who, from their previous writing, is pretty much guaranteed to misrepresent what you tell them anyway) acting against the interests of the company?
TBH, I'd be more likely to invest in them now, since the CEO hasn't: sunk to their level (especially ZDNet's execrable "apology"), demanded the article be withdrawn, threatened legal action, de-listed the sites concerned or de-listed CNet, all of which he could easily have done.
To me this proves Google's "provide impartial information" and "Do No Evil" morals are intact.
Mind you, your opinion appears to be (forgive me if I misrepresent) that you don't care about their ethics as long as they're making you money through your stocks...?
That's utterly irrelevant - are you seriously suggesting it doesn't matter what CNet does, Google should always be forced to pander to them? Why?
I'll talk to anyone, but that's my personal choice. If I see someone demonising me, misrepresenting my position and who is clearly prepared to lie or mislead because of a personal grudge against me, damn straight I'm not going to talk to them any more - that's my right.
Likewise Google, seeing CNet's complete lack of professional ethics and journalistic integrity, publically refuses to acknowledge they're worth talking to.
If Google was the government, or any other public body, you'd have a point - the government works for us, so it and its members fucking well should be answerable to us. Google is a company - it only has to answer to its owners and shareholders.
Oh yeah, and regarding the example above, George Bush has for most of his presidency refused to appear at anything other than carefully-scripted "press conferences", with carefully vetted journalists hand-selected from the right-wing media. Journalists have been denied access for writing perfectly true, accurate stories that the Bush administration merely would rather weren't publicised, and there's surprisingly little furore because nobody dares risk their access by pushing the story.
Given this, why should you hold a private entity to higher standards than your own president, who actually owes you the right and consistently refuses to allow you it?
In general, I'd agree - "linking to" isn't as bad as "hosting" information. However, the thing I object to about this is the invasion of privacy and blatant personal agenda.
CNet wrote a very biased article that basically held Google up as solely responsible for potential invasion of privacy - instead of, as it should, showing that this is just an inevitable consequence of the greater transparency of an information society.
They then linked-to and posted several pieces of personal information about an individual, including his full name, age, wife's name, hobbies, political affiliation and home address. Give this guy was the CEO of the entity they'd just got through blaming for all of society's ills, this is a pretty unethical thing to do - it's practically an incitement to have a go at him. They also gave him no chance to exercise his "right of reply", which is totally against journalistic ethics. This is why you often get "X could not immediately be reached for comment" at the bottom of an article - it's considered "only fair" to allow the subject to respond if he wishes. Not doing so clearly indicates an unprofessional breach of journalistic ethics, and a clear personal motive.
Look, I don't mean to flame, but this is really, really simple - I can't believe people can't fucking get it, but it's really starting to get irritating.
Is there any way Google can automatically filter for "personal information that the specific subject doesn't want publicised, and that the subject has a right to expect isn't published", for every page and every subject in the world? No, clearly not.
Is it feasible to offer the facility for people to request the de-listing of pages that contain their personal information? How do you prove (without a lengthy and expensive investigation every single time) that you're the person specified? How do you prove you have a right to request the withdrawal (some things are a matter of public record, or in the public interest)? What about the rights (sometimes, livelihood) of the person who owns the page, who might not even realise the information isn't ok to publish? Clearly, then, the only way to manage this is for you to take it up with the webmaster concerned, not with the impartial middle-man.
Should we immediately ban Google and every other search engine, since they can (simply by virtue of their function) be used irresponsibly? Fine, if that's what you'd like, but search engines are what makes the web usable - without search engines kiss goodbye to the entire web, and all the good it's done for our society and culture.
Are you seriously suggesting we abolish the world wide web, or did you just not think about the implications of your own arguments?
Short answer: Search engines are automatic, impartial and an essential part of the web. Human journalists (supposedly) understand things like "ethics", "professionalism" and "invasion of privacy". This is why we can castigate people for invading privacy, but accept search engines allowing the potential for it as a necessary evil.
It's very simple - it's completely and utterly impossible to filter for any information that anyone, anywhere might not want publicised. This would involve personally asking every single person in the world if it was ok to return every single page for every single search query ever conducted. That's obviously impossible.
Even if you merely allowed some form of de-listing request form, what would you like Google to do? De-list any page that contains your personal information?
How do you prove it's your information? What about the rights of the webmaster whose page or site Google would be de-listing? What about the thousands of other search engines in the world?
How about banning all search engines? Well, that makes the web next to useless. And with it, the internet. Whoops, there goes the biggest driving influence of our modern culture.
Very, very obviously the only way to handle situations like this is for you to approach the webmaster of the site hosting the information, not Google itself (which is just an impartial, but essential, middleman).
There is a question of what to do (as in this case) where information in the public realm is merely collated and republished - currently we have no strict rules for what violates an individuals privacy, but I'd submit that thirty pieces of information scattered randomly across the whole internet is a lot less privacy-invading than a journalist collecting the whole lot and publishing them on one, high-traffic web page. Especially while implicitly blaming them for a cultural trend that's been going on since we were proto-hominids.
Basically, it's currently left up to individual responsibility. CNet exhibited complete irresponsibility, as well as a total lack of journalistic ethics, and as a result Google has merely refused (temporarily!) to talk to them. Can't say I blame them, frankly.
Funny thing - others have held this up as a good thing, since it (theoretically) ensures that Google continues to follow the vision of its founders, rather than being forced (post-IPO) to drop all ethics and morals and chase the almighty buck for its shareholders.
TBH, it just sounds like someone's throwing a hissy-fit because they did inadequate research before investing. Buyer beware.
I'd say the tone of the article, and the indication it was more to court controversy and generate advertising for CNet is "lowbrow".
The deliberate collating and publishing of personal information about an individual, without their permission, without warning them, and while simultaneously and erroneously holding them up as the bad guy? I'd call that unconscionable.
Personally, just because he's the CEO of one of many search engines that (as an unstoppable side effect) make this kind of invasion of privacy possible, I don't think that removes his human right to privacy...
Accusations of corporate fellatio aside, you really need to go back and read the article again.
"And I do mean trivial. Truly personal information, like an actual street address, or phone number, or where the man's kids went to school, was never revealed in the article. Ever."
Click on the "affluent" link in the second paragraph, and it'll link to a page detailing Schmidt's full name, political affiliation, the amount of money he's donated and his street address.
Who feels stupid now?
"It was just a demonstration of some of the things you could find with Google, the implication being that perhaps this isn't always a good thing."
Indeed, and increasing transparency is something society as a whole is going to have to think about and deal with. Unfortunately, thanks to their exploitative, hatchet-job tabloid style the entire debate is over whether or not CNet should have posted the article (mmmmm, taste that lovely free advertising for CNet), not what the article was supposedly about.
"The CEO threw a hissy fit."
As would you, if someone, without permission, or even warning you, collated and published a great deal of personal information on a site as widely-read as CNet.
I suppose that getting upset with (for example) a pararazzi who'd looked through your window and taken a picture of you in the shower, then published it in a newspaper would be throwing a "hissy fit" too, would it?
Hissy Fit != Unjustified
"Which made the situation even more amusing because it outlined both the capabilities of his search engine AND the probable reaction of most folks if they knew that the search engine could be used to collect both vital facts and trivia on their lives."
Indeed. However, this is hardly Google's fault - any search engine would have done as well. And without search engines the web is pretty much useless. And without the web, the internet (probably the single most influential aspect of our present culture) would still be a pokey little backwoods academic network.
This is a direct result of our entire culture's technological progress, not the fault of a single one of thousands of search engines. So trying to blame the whole thing on them is uninformed, sensationalist scapegoating.
"The tantrum just made it clear that while Google muckety-mucks had no problem with this being done to OTHER people, it was a whole different story if it happened to THEM."
Bullshit. Has Google de-listed the pages concerned? Has it de-listed CNet? Has it sought the retraction of the article? Has it (to anyone's knowledge) even threatened legal action?
Has it, in fact, done anything other than temporarily refuse to talk to a news outlet that's shown itself to be unethical, sensationalist, self-promoting and (with ZDNet's "apology") deeply childish? Nope.
Again, CNet has no right to expect Google to talk to it. If it was the government or a political figure, that would be entirely different - they're supposed to work for the public, so they have no right to refuse access to anyone. Oh, except that the president now refuses to appear in public to anything other than scripted (and heavily vetted) press conferences - that's something to get pissy about. Private organisations don't have to talk to anyone - it's utterly their own choice.
Well, since I have extensive body-hair, masculine genitalia and I like girls, maybe I'm really a homosexual woman with a really serious hormonal problem?
But seriously, that was possibly the worst attempt at a troll I've ever read - congrats!
First off, the article was extremely badly-written. As many people have pointed out in other threads, it confuses two entirely different stories - Google's sketchy data retention policies and internet search engines allowing us to locate and correlate disparate pieces of information quickly. One is a question that Google should be pushed to answer. The other is a direct consequence of technological progress, and as such is for society to address - blaming it on any one company is counterproductive, misleading and ill-informed.
These are both very important issues, but the article basically confused both issues and then deliberately sensationalised the resulting mess, ensuring sensible productive debate wouldn't happen as a result. Journalism should be about informing people and inciting debate on an issue, not confusing and scaring people. Note how the debate so far has been almost exclusively "Should CNet have done this?" (lovely juicy PR for CNet), not "Should Google be doing this?" or "How are we, as a culture, going to deal with the increasing transparency of living in an information-society?".
The article hasn't inspired debate on the issues it ham-fistedly "tackled" - it's just got a reaction from Google, and has lots of people talking about CNet. And given the way the article was written, this was clearly the intention. Oh yeah, and just to make doubly sure, ZDNet (a CNet subsidiary) then jumped on the bandwagon, posting what's quite possibly the most inflammatory and childish response I've ever seen a mainstream "news" outlet post, throwing fuel on the fire and ensuring everyone was talking about ZDNet, too.
The article also unnecessarily demonised Google for what's an essential by-product of internet search engines - I could have done exactly the same "research" using Yahoo, MSN or Altavista, but the article tries very hard to make it look like it's Google's fault that people can do this.
Finally, your post completely misses the huge infringement of privacy on Eric Schmidt - how would you feel if someone, unprovoked, posted an article to CNet listing all sorts of personal information about you? In the first paragraphs alone they revealed his age, personal wealth (broken down by source), his wife's name, their home address, his political contributions and his hobbies.
Once again, just because pieces of information are theoretically publically available, that doesn't make it ok to collect and collate them, then publish the whole lot on an internationally-read website, especially as part of a biased hatchet-job article. Information's usefulness (or threat) rises exponentially with the number of pieces of information.
The simple test is this: Would you be happy for someone to post that kind of personal information on CNet for anyone in the world to see, without your prior knowledge or permission?
"You probably don't see him because he's at my mall though, so he can't be in yours... I mean... he's Santa, but he still can't be in two places at once, right?"
Bilocation? No, that's Jesus, and we all know he's a myth...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Just a thought, but how do you tell the difference between "groupthink" and "a bunch of intelligent people who've independently reached the correct opinion"?
;-)
Obviously, not all opinions are equal - everyone's entitled to their own one, but "I think all black people should be rounded up and deported" should obviously be given less credence than "I think 1 + 1 = 2".
Therefore certian opinions are more "correct" than others - they more accurately reflect objective reality, or have a more rational/logical base.
If lots of intelligent people agree on a particular conclusion, it could just be because that conclusion's the right one. Or at least, the best one suggested yet.
In this example, Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial, factual resource, or at least as close to that ideal as possible. Marketing (and especially covert marketing) has exactly the opposite agenda, by definition - it's inherently biased, since it's sole purpose is to convince you that something's great or true, regardless of its actual quality or veracity.
An objective, factual article on the reality game is still advertising it - it's still spreading awareness and propagating the meme. Given this, if/when a company is proven to have pissed in the communal well for private gain, I'd consider it appropriate to remove all content directly related to said spam, since even a factual article left behind still represents some benefit to the company.
The lesson here is simple: Submit good, factual content and it'll stay, bringing some small benefit both to Wikipedia (additional content) and your company (subtle, low-key advertising). Attempt to subvert Wikipedia by spamming or posting biased articles, and have the entire meme you're trying to push excised from the site. This way Wikipedia wins ("no content" is better than "deliberately misleading content"), and your company loses (no advertising whatsoever, even low-key factual articles).
Ok, in this case the deletion request was posted before the re-write, and the submitter turned out (apparently) to be a private individual rather than an "official" BBC employee, but I think the principle is sound - when spammed, delete the spam page complately, and subsequently accept re-writes if they're deemed impartial enough, taking into account any connection between the spammer and the new submitter.
Sorry - I know that doesn't fit in with the standard trendy "site X is t3h suXX0rZ! T3hy i5 t3h gr0uP7h1nK!!!111!!!1one!!11!1" whinge, but I'd like to think that's because it's maybe slightly closer to objective reality...
"Except for the address, I bet all those facts are in Wikipedia. Would you consider them to be a one-stop-privacy-invasion-shop?"
Nope. The address was pretty much what I was objecting to. I wouldn't have been overly impressed had they just stuck with his wife's name, his hobbies and the like, but it would have been within the bounds of "acceptable", to my mind.
Posting information about his real-world location is beyond the pale. I think you'll find this is a pretty common position - why else do most phonebook CDs allow you to resolve addresses to numbers but not the other way around?
"Try reading it again. They even mention that it's not just Google, but that Google is quickly growing to be the biggest one."
Indeed they do, but the entire main thrust of the article is Google - "Goole allows X. Google makes Y possible. Google is encouraging Z. (Oh yeah, and BTW every other engine on the net also allows it, but we're still going to go on talking about Google instead)".
The fact is (According to the last stats I read) Google only has 20-30% more of the search market than (for example) Yahoo. And Yahoo has many, many more webmail users. Yahoo also had integrated search and webmail (and all their other offerings) cookies before Google even launched GMail. Why not write a story on (again, for example) Yahoo? Why make it all about Google?
That's my point - Google isn't the only one in this position, it hasn't been doing it longest, and it isn't even definitely the worst offender. Yet the entire article is written about Google, with a few caveats thrown in in a single paragraph half-way through...
"I don't know what you mean by "a private individual", but the way I've always heard the term used the CEO of Google is far from one."
Private individual. IE, not a public servant. Not a corporation. Someone who has any right to expect any kind of privacy at all.
"Exposing people and "their details" is one of the main purposes of journalism. I'd hardly call it unprofessional."
Actually, no. Reporting on news stories and publicising information that it's in the public interest to know is the job of a journalist. They should never publish personal or private information unless it's essential in the furthering of those aims.
Exposing people's private information != journalism. You've made the same mistake as paparazzi and tabloid "journalists" all over the world.
"Right of Reply is bullshit in my opinion."
Mmmm, eloquent.
Would you care to explain why letting someone have their say on a contentious issue that concerns them is "bullshit"? Especially when a journalist can speak directly to thousands or even millions of people, and a private individual can't? Given that kind of imbalance, I'd say the right to reply is fucking essential - it's the only thing that prevents one-sided and biased pseudojournalism like the article in question.
It's also considered fair, when writing about someone, to get their side of the story. If they have a good reason for what they're doing you might decide they're right, or at least write the story differently. If you hear their side and it's not persuasive, you can still write a story where they're the bad guy, but at least you're sure you haven't got the wrong end of the stick. In fact, you can actually write a better story, because you can tackle and demolish their arguments directly, instead of relying on your (possibly incorrect) understanding of their position, and accidentally demolishing a strawman.
If you don't ever speak to them you automatically write a biased story, and news is supposed to be impartial, or at least fair. Again, this is what separates "proper" journalism from shitty biased tabloid rumour-mongering - the idea that you should write a fair and balanced story.
I apologise for jumping straight into the debate - I was under the impression that you understood the point of journalism, and the reason
We're sick and tired of your lame attempts to drum up traffic to your shitty website by spamming Slashdot comments.
Spamming scum like you are the lowest of the low, happily pissing in the communal well because you think it might get you a couple more hits on your low-rent tedious site.
The best bit it that you've picked the most retarded choice of target - Slashdot is generally frequented by technical types, and we're exactly the types who:
In short, you're not doing yourself any favours by spamming anywhere, but most especially here. You're more likely to just get yourself boycotted or DOSed than to get a massive amount of traffic, and the majority of people I know who've noticed your spam have already boycotted your site.
In short (for anyone who hasn't already realised), OVERHEARDINTHEUK.COM is conducting a spam advertising campaign - please mod down any posts by the accounts mentioned in the previous sibling post, and do not under any circumstances visit OVERHEARDINTHEUK.COM, unless you happen to have a spare botnet kicking around with nothing better to do...
Many thanks for your time.
Google (and other search engines) also provide possibly the single most essential tool used in navigating the web apart from the web browser and TCP/IP stack.
If you can think of a way for Google to automatically filter out every single piece of "information that anyone in the world finds objectionable, and that it isn't in the public interest to disclose even so", patent it and make millions. It's impossible.
Yes, Google could filter pages matching credit card or SSN numbers, but then criminals start using ROT13, and you're fucked again.
In addition, did you ever think that by including these pages Google actually makes it easier for Law enforcement (or concerned citizens) to find these gangs, and prosecute them?
Offhand I can't think of a better system for the criminals than Google blocking all "dodgy" pages like this - the criminals working in these areas will still be able to find them by word-of-mouth, but the police (lacking such contacts) will have almost no chance of locating them or using them as evidence.
Freedom of information cuts both ways, you know.
You know what? I would have defended them just as vociferously. I don't particularly like Microsoft, or their behaviour, but this is about more than just one company and one search engine.
This is fundamentally a debate about society, and how we deal with the incresing transparency that our technology is pushing upon us. It's about how we balance transparency (a Good Thing) and personal privacy (another, diametrically-opposed Good Thing), or how we choose to give up one or the other totally.
This debate has been brewing for a while now in techie circles, and I was looking forward to an intelligent and informed debate when it hit the more mainstream media.
Unfortunately, thanks to CNet's tabloid sensationalism and lack of journalistic ethics, the entire debate has been sidetracked into gossiping about which company's the Bad Guy and who's been the most childish.
The simple answer is that this situation is not Google's fault - it's an inevitable consequence of any half-decent search engine, and half-decent search engines are essential for the survival and usefulness of the web. We can either lobotomise the web (and Progress) to protect personal privacy, or we can move on with Progress and select to punish the actual people who invade our privacy, rather than the systems which make it possible as a by-product of their essential function.
There - that's my $0.02.
Just to clarify, had the article been written about "search engines" in general, and happened to mention Google was (potentially) the worst of the bunch, I would have had no problem.
It was the fact that Google was overwhelmingly the subject of the article, the person singled out was the CEO of Google, and all other search engines and webmail systems were pretty much relegated to a single paragraph that suggested to me it might be a bit personally motivated.
When you follow this with ZDNet's incredibly childish response, it looked to me like CNet's editors have a problem with Google, and are using the article to stir up controversy and get advertising revenue.
I agree that Google has to potential to commit massive infringement of privacy, and I'm careful to not search while signed-in and to delete cookies regularly (amongst other things). However, my mild, unproven suspicions weren't enough to forgive what I see as such a blatant hatchet-job and such execrable journalistic ethics.
Touché. I'll concede this point.
;-)
And nice metaphor about noses - almost had me ROTFL. I think I might have to steal it if ever an appropriate occasion presents itself
Or should that be ; ) ?
This appears to be a common position. I'm pretty sure I've completely refuted it over here and over here - if you can find a fault with my arguments please do so.
"You're confusing what I said. I never commented on whether or not the dual-class structure was a good thing overall. But now that I have thought about it, I still don't think it's a good thing for society. Dictatorship, even benevolent dictatorship, is not an appropriate way to control power."
My apologies if I misunderstood your position. I agree that dictatorship isn't the best way to control power, but I'd argue that a benevolent dictatorship (or triumvirate, as it actually is) is heaps better than a democracy composed exclusively of people whose only aim is to maximise profits to themselves, at the expense of everyone else...
Apart from a few minor recent incidents, Google is generally regarded as a pretty "enlightened" company, as companies go - isn't this evidence in favour of the above?
"If they intentionally made the coffee so hot that it was undrinkable, I might."
I don't want to side-track us onto this old debate, but I (personally) find when most people make coffee for themselves they make it hot - hot enough that it'll hurt if they pour it over themselves. Therefore if I buy coffee and pour it over myself and it hurts, I'd call that pretty much expected. Whether it's hot enough to cause first-degree burns or third-degree doesn't bother me that much - it's hot, I knew it was, I chucked it over myself, and I should take the consequences, end of story.
"Well, first of all, they are refusing to talk to the entire company, not just that one reporter. And secondly, by not talking to someone you pretty much guarantee that the situation is only going to escalate."
Well yeah, but the editor had to approve the article, and the company's making advertising money off the controversy. If you could somehow deal with the company and in no way reward the individuals responsible for the article, I have no doubt they'd do it. Since that's impossible, I'd say it's barely an over-reaction (if at all) to refuse to deal with the company.
"CDNet has fought this out in the press. If Google did that, I'd appreciate it."
And yet you've just slated Google for allowing it to escalate...?
"As for all those other things, I agree they'd be worse, but I disagree that they'd be in any way "sinking to their level". While we're at it let's mention that Google's CEO didn't bomb the CDNet headquarters. Cause that would have been worse, too."
Indeed, but many other posters are reacting as if he had. Besides, I doubt very, very much that Eric Schmidt took the action of cutting off CNet with no kind of consultation with the rest of Google - Serguei and Brin, at least.
Simply walking away fro mthe argument and informing CNet (privately, and discretely) that they weren't going to deal with them for a year strikes me as a pretty good way of getting something back but keeping it low-key.
CNet then splashed the news all over its site, keeping the controversy (and lovely advertising dollars) rolling in.
"To me, the CEO is being unethical by fighting a personal fight using shareholder rights."
That's a fair reading, but unless Google's share-price takes a nose-dive as a result you haven't lost anything, so why complain?
"Something that wasn't already public knowledge would have been a start. And they didn't post his address. They linked to a page which had it"
;-)
That is a good point, but they've still collected and collated a vast number disparate facts into a single convenient one-stop-privacy-invasion-shop page.
They also did it in an extremely unprofessional way:
Google isn't the only search engine in the world, so to suggest (as they did all throughout the article) that it's solely (or even mainly) Google's fault is irresponsible.
They also chose a private individual as the target of their privacy-invasion. It doesn't matter he's the CEO of Google - Google isn't solely (or even mostly) responsible for the fact that search engines make searching easy, so picking on him is unjustified. In fact, having just blamed his company for all the evils of society, to then publish his details and home address is practically an incitement to action against him.
They exposed him and his details to public scrutiny without his permission, and without even informing him first. This is a gross violation of etiquette, and highly unprofessional journalistic behaviour.
They prevented him from exercising his right of reply before the article was published (note how there's not even a standard "Eric Schmidt/Google were not immediately available for comment" attached to the end of the article) - Right of Reply is like Rule #1 in journalistic ethics.
ZDNet's childish and inflammatory "apology" afterwards makes it blatantly clear that all CNet's interested in is whipping up as much controversy as possible, and reaping the benefits of all that lovely juicy free advertising. You'll note how the entire debate's been "Should CNet have done this?", not "What are we going to do about the increasing transparency of our information-society?". I think that says a lot - if they were trying to start up the second debate, they've failed miserably.
All these things indicate a sensationalist and biased article that seriously misrepresents fault for the situation, posted at least partly out of a cynical and self-serving desire for free publicity and controversy.
"I'd be pissed, but I'd be much more pissed at the congresscritters who passed the campaign finance laws which required me to make my address public than at the news agency that pointed it out."
Funnily enough, I'd support this kind of legislation because of the increased transparency it causes. I see having parts of my personal information scattered around the net like this as inevitable and pretty unavoidable (albeit not ideal) - I only really object when someone collects them together into a ready-made harrassment-pack and publishes it on a high-traffice website, without asking my permission or even letting me know first and simultaneously blaming me and my company for a general trend of society.
"Not however they like, but for news purposes certainly, especially for a "public figure" such as the CEO of Google."
Who decides who's a "public figure"? Ok, you're a public figure if you're a celebrity, but who defines celebrity? I run a small private company - does that make me a "public figure"? I'd say not. How about if the company goes public - am I automatically a celebrity then? I think we need to rigidly define "public figure" and "celebrity" before we start using that as an excuse to invade people's privacy. And celebrities have sued peope who published or disseminated their private information, so even they have some right to privacy, right?
"Image rights don't apply to public figures nor to use in newsworthy purposes."
Good point, but it wasn't required to use Schmidt as the basis for the story - it could just as easily have been the reporter himself, or a colleague. Permission should also have been obtained, or at least notification given.
In addition, using such a "public figure" (as you call him) is also a bit sensationalist - most peop
Erm, cheers?
Obviously I'm not afiliated with Google in any way, but I couldn't help thinking in their position I'd react exactly the same.
I really can't understand why so many people are overlooking CNet's incredible lack of journalistic ethics or integrity, and are so ready to spin this as Google finally "doing evil" and turning on an innocent news-source.
Is this the beginning of the Great Trendy Slashdot Backlash against Google?
Now you're talking, but unfortunately you've made the common mistake in this discussion - "Google" is actually spelled "every search engine ever produced".
The real issue here is what do we do about the increasing transparency of our information society? This kind of easy access to information is a by-product of easy searching. Since easy searching is essential to the very existence of the web, compromising it compromises the usefulness of the web.
The usefulness of the web has lead directly to its popularity, and its popularity is what's allowed it to have such a profound (and I'd say beneficial) impact on our society.
As I see it we have one of only two alternatives
We can either ban search engines outright, and hence effectively eliminate the world wide web, or (like every other dual-use technology we have) live with the potential for abuse but come down hard on the actual perpetrators.
Thoughts?
No, something did.
In fact, several things did - they're called search engines. Google seems to be copping all the flack, but you could make exactly the same case for MSN Search/Hotmail's handling of personal information, and we already know Microsoft will do anything for a buck.
Search engines are also an essential part of the web if the web is to be any use at all. If you can suggest a single mechanism whereby Google can filter out material that anyone in the world could possibly find objectionable, we're all ears.
Since it's completely impossible your point is moot. Read the link. Refute one argument. Please.
Instead, most of us realise that Google (and other search engines) are basically essential to the existence of the web. It can be used for a million things, only one of which is privacy infringement. Since it's an all-or-nothing approach, most of us are content to let Google offer the potential, and only come down hard on the perpetrators as-and-when someone violates privacy using it.
Basically, would you rather ban all knives and live on soup, or allow knives, live on steak and only punish people who actually stab each other?
Society's already made this choice a million times already, so sitting there blaming the knife or the guys who manufactured the particular one used for a particular stabbing is shortsighted and irrational, at best.
I don't know what's going on here, but this article's comments seem to have been invaded by hordes of... um... exceedingly thoughtless people. Many people are blaming Google (exclusively!) for indexing public information, but not one person has come up with an alternative that would help the situation one bit, and doesn't involve making the web utterly useless (neatly lobotomising our culture and entire technological development).
To the "G00gle ind3xeS teh w3b? Th3y aRe t3h 5uXX0rZ!!!!1!!!1!" brigade, kindly stop throwing your toys out of your pram and suggest a singe viable alternative, or STFU.
Well? I'm listening?
Or, you know, there's absolutely no chance it's at least partly motivated by CNet's self-serving sensationalist style, and their stunning lack of journalistic integrity or profesional ethics?
They publish a biased hatchet-job article, exclusively blaming Google (when it could equally apply to Yahoo, MSN or any other search engine/webmail company) for the consequences of a society-wide trend towards transparency.
They publish personal information about someone (ok, Google's CEO, but I'd be just as disgusted if it was anyone), including his age, wife's name, political affiliations and home address. Finally, they don't even attempt to let him exercise his right of reply, which is practically Rule #1 in journalistic ethics.
In response Google doesn't demand the article's withdrawn, threaten legal action, de-list the pages concerned or de-list CNet. In fact, all they do is state that they don't think CNet meets the minimum level of journalistic responsibility, and so (temporarily!) aren't worth talking to.
I don't know why some people are spinning this as a personal attack - it strikes me as a perfectly fair response to a childish vendetta on CNet's part.
"A good thing for society, maybe, but I was considering it as a shareholder."
;-)
Wow, really? I wouldn't even consider putting my trivial personal stake above what was good for society. In my opinion small personal gain is very secondary to maintaining ethical responsibility in our culture.
For example, I'm not going to sue McDonalds because I stupidly pour hot coffee in my lap. I take personal responsibility for my actions, and suing them (while I'd probably win and get rich) cheapens the entire legal system and slowly but inevitably increases the litigatiousness and corruption of our entire society.
"If you asked me before I found out about this move by the CEO, I would have said that I trust him to run the company in my best interests. But now I'm not so sure."
First off, apologies for characterising it as a "hissy-fit"
Secondly, how does refusing to talk to someone who's basically "out to get you" (and who, from their previous writing, is pretty much guaranteed to misrepresent what you tell them anyway) acting against the interests of the company?
TBH, I'd be more likely to invest in them now, since the CEO hasn't: sunk to their level (especially ZDNet's execrable "apology"), demanded the article be withdrawn, threatened legal action, de-listed the sites concerned or de-listed CNet, all of which he could easily have done.
To me this proves Google's "provide impartial information" and "Do No Evil" morals are intact.
Mind you, your opinion appears to be (forgive me if I misrepresent) that you don't care about their ethics as long as they're making you money through your stocks...?
That's utterly irrelevant - are you seriously suggesting it doesn't matter what CNet does, Google should always be forced to pander to them? Why?
I'll talk to anyone, but that's my personal choice. If I see someone demonising me, misrepresenting my position and who is clearly prepared to lie or mislead because of a personal grudge against me, damn straight I'm not going to talk to them any more - that's my right.
Likewise Google, seeing CNet's complete lack of professional ethics and journalistic integrity, publically refuses to acknowledge they're worth talking to.
If Google was the government, or any other public body, you'd have a point - the government works for us, so it and its members fucking well should be answerable to us. Google is a company - it only has to answer to its owners and shareholders.
Oh yeah, and regarding the example above, George Bush has for most of his presidency refused to appear at anything other than carefully-scripted "press conferences", with carefully vetted journalists hand-selected from the right-wing media. Journalists have been denied access for writing perfectly true, accurate stories that the Bush administration merely would rather weren't publicised, and there's surprisingly little furore because nobody dares risk their access by pushing the story.
Given this, why should you hold a private entity to higher standards than your own president, who actually owes you the right and consistently refuses to allow you it?
In general, I'd agree - "linking to" isn't as bad as "hosting" information. However, the thing I object to about this is the invasion of privacy and blatant personal agenda.
CNet wrote a very biased article that basically held Google up as solely responsible for potential invasion of privacy - instead of, as it should, showing that this is just an inevitable consequence of the greater transparency of an information society.
They then linked-to and posted several pieces of personal information about an individual, including his full name, age, wife's name, hobbies, political affiliation and home address. Give this guy was the CEO of the entity they'd just got through blaming for all of society's ills, this is a pretty unethical thing to do - it's practically an incitement to have a go at him. They also gave him no chance to exercise his "right of reply", which is totally against journalistic ethics. This is why you often get "X could not immediately be reached for comment" at the bottom of an article - it's considered "only fair" to allow the subject to respond if he wishes. Not doing so clearly indicates an unprofessional breach of journalistic ethics, and a clear personal motive.
Look, I don't mean to flame, but this is really, really simple - I can't believe people can't fucking get it, but it's really starting to get irritating.
Is there any way Google can automatically filter for "personal information that the specific subject doesn't want publicised, and that the subject has a right to expect isn't published", for every page and every subject in the world? No, clearly not.
Is it feasible to offer the facility for people to request the de-listing of pages that contain their personal information? How do you prove (without a lengthy and expensive investigation every single time) that you're the person specified? How do you prove you have a right to request the withdrawal (some things are a matter of public record, or in the public interest)? What about the rights (sometimes, livelihood) of the person who owns the page, who might not even realise the information isn't ok to publish? Clearly, then, the only way to manage this is for you to take it up with the webmaster concerned, not with the impartial middle-man.
Should we immediately ban Google and every other search engine, since they can (simply by virtue of their function) be used irresponsibly? Fine, if that's what you'd like, but search engines are what makes the web usable - without search engines kiss goodbye to the entire web, and all the good it's done for our society and culture.
Are you seriously suggesting we abolish the world wide web, or did you just not think about the implications of your own arguments?
Short answer: Search engines are automatic, impartial and an essential part of the web. Human journalists (supposedly) understand things like "ethics", "professionalism" and "invasion of privacy". This is why we can castigate people for invading privacy, but accept search engines allowing the potential for it as a necessary evil.
What is so freaking hard about this?
It's very simple - it's completely and utterly impossible to filter for any information that anyone, anywhere might not want publicised. This would involve personally asking every single person in the world if it was ok to return every single page for every single search query ever conducted. That's obviously impossible.
Even if you merely allowed some form of de-listing request form, what would you like Google to do? De-list any page that contains your personal information?
How do you prove it's your information? What about the rights of the webmaster whose page or site Google would be de-listing? What about the thousands of other search engines in the world?
How about banning all search engines? Well, that makes the web next to useless. And with it, the internet. Whoops, there goes the biggest driving influence of our modern culture.
Very, very obviously the only way to handle situations like this is for you to approach the webmaster of the site hosting the information, not Google itself (which is just an impartial, but essential, middleman).
There is a question of what to do (as in this case) where information in the public realm is merely collated and republished - currently we have no strict rules for what violates an individuals privacy, but I'd submit that thirty pieces of information scattered randomly across the whole internet is a lot less privacy-invading than a journalist collecting the whole lot and publishing them on one, high-traffic web page. Especially while implicitly blaming them for a cultural trend that's been going on since we were proto-hominids.
Basically, it's currently left up to individual responsibility. CNet exhibited complete irresponsibility, as well as a total lack of journalistic ethics, and as a result Google has merely refused (temporarily!) to talk to them. Can't say I blame them, frankly.
Funny thing - others have held this up as a good thing, since it (theoretically) ensures that Google continues to follow the vision of its founders, rather than being forced (post-IPO) to drop all ethics and morals and chase the almighty buck for its shareholders.
TBH, it just sounds like someone's throwing a hissy-fit because they did inadequate research before investing. Buyer beware.
I'd say the tone of the article, and the indication it was more to court controversy and generate advertising for CNet is "lowbrow".
The deliberate collating and publishing of personal information about an individual, without their permission, without warning them, and while simultaneously and erroneously holding them up as the bad guy? I'd call that unconscionable.
Personally, just because he's the CEO of one of many search engines that (as an unstoppable side effect) make this kind of invasion of privacy possible, I don't think that removes his human right to privacy...
Still, everyone has their own opinion...
Accusations of corporate fellatio aside, you really need to go back and read the article again.
"And I do mean trivial. Truly personal information, like an actual street address, or phone number, or where the man's kids went to school, was never revealed in the article. Ever."
Click on the "affluent" link in the second paragraph, and it'll link to a page detailing Schmidt's full name, political affiliation, the amount of money he's donated and his street address.
Who feels stupid now?
"It was just a demonstration of some of the things you could find with Google, the implication being that perhaps this isn't always a good thing."
Indeed, and increasing transparency is something society as a whole is going to have to think about and deal with. Unfortunately, thanks to their exploitative, hatchet-job tabloid style the entire debate is over whether or not CNet should have posted the article (mmmmm, taste that lovely free advertising for CNet), not what the article was supposedly about.
"The CEO threw a hissy fit."
As would you, if someone, without permission, or even warning you, collated and published a great deal of personal information on a site as widely-read as CNet.
I suppose that getting upset with (for example) a pararazzi who'd looked through your window and taken a picture of you in the shower, then published it in a newspaper would be throwing a "hissy fit" too, would it?
Hissy Fit != Unjustified
"Which made the situation even more amusing because it outlined both the capabilities of his search engine AND the probable reaction of most folks if they knew that the search engine could be used to collect both vital facts and trivia on their lives."
Indeed. However, this is hardly Google's fault - any search engine would have done as well. And without search engines the web is pretty much useless. And without the web, the internet (probably the single most influential aspect of our present culture) would still be a pokey little backwoods academic network.
This is a direct result of our entire culture's technological progress, not the fault of a single one of thousands of search engines. So trying to blame the whole thing on them is uninformed, sensationalist scapegoating.
"The tantrum just made it clear that while Google muckety-mucks had no problem with this being done to OTHER people, it was a whole different story if it happened to THEM."
Bullshit. Has Google de-listed the pages concerned? Has it de-listed CNet? Has it sought the retraction of the article? Has it (to anyone's knowledge) even threatened legal action?
Has it, in fact, done anything other than temporarily refuse to talk to a news outlet that's shown itself to be unethical, sensationalist, self-promoting and (with ZDNet's "apology") deeply childish? Nope.
Again, CNet has no right to expect Google to talk to it. If it was the government or a political figure, that would be entirely different - they're supposed to work for the public, so they have no right to refuse access to anyone. Oh, except that the president now refuses to appear in public to anything other than scripted (and heavily vetted) press conferences - that's something to get pissy about. Private organisations don't have to talk to anyone - it's utterly their own choice.
Heh.
Well, since I have extensive body-hair, masculine genitalia and I like girls, maybe I'm really a homosexual woman with a really serious hormonal problem?
But seriously, that was possibly the worst attempt at a troll I've ever read - congrats!
First off, the article was extremely badly-written. As many people have pointed out in other threads, it confuses two entirely different stories - Google's sketchy data retention policies and internet search engines allowing us to locate and correlate disparate pieces of information quickly. One is a question that Google should be pushed to answer. The other is a direct consequence of technological progress, and as such is for society to address - blaming it on any one company is counterproductive, misleading and ill-informed.
These are both very important issues, but the article basically confused both issues and then deliberately sensationalised the resulting mess, ensuring sensible productive debate wouldn't happen as a result. Journalism should be about informing people and inciting debate on an issue, not confusing and scaring people. Note how the debate so far has been almost exclusively "Should CNet have done this?" (lovely juicy PR for CNet), not "Should Google be doing this?" or "How are we, as a culture, going to deal with the increasing transparency of living in an information-society?".
The article hasn't inspired debate on the issues it ham-fistedly "tackled" - it's just got a reaction from Google, and has lots of people talking about CNet. And given the way the article was written, this was clearly the intention. Oh yeah, and just to make doubly sure, ZDNet (a CNet subsidiary) then jumped on the bandwagon, posting what's quite possibly the most inflammatory and childish response I've ever seen a mainstream "news" outlet post, throwing fuel on the fire and ensuring everyone was talking about ZDNet, too.
The article also unnecessarily demonised Google for what's an essential by-product of internet search engines - I could have done exactly the same "research" using Yahoo, MSN or Altavista, but the article tries very hard to make it look like it's Google's fault that people can do this.
Finally, your post completely misses the huge infringement of privacy on Eric Schmidt - how would you feel if someone, unprovoked, posted an article to CNet listing all sorts of personal information about you? In the first paragraphs alone they revealed his age, personal wealth (broken down by source), his wife's name, their home address, his political contributions and his hobbies.
Once again, just because pieces of information are theoretically publically available, that doesn't make it ok to collect and collate them, then publish the whole lot on an internationally-read website, especially as part of a biased hatchet-job article. Information's usefulness (or threat) rises exponentially with the number of pieces of information.
The simple test is this: Would you be happy for someone to post that kind of personal information on CNet for anyone in the world to see, without your prior knowledge or permission?
I'd be fucking livid.
"You probably don't see him because he's at my mall though, so he can't be in yours... I mean... he's Santa, but he still can't be in two places at once, right?"
;-)
Bilocation? No, that's Jesus, and we all know he's a myth...