Google Blacklists CNet Reporters 377
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet News.com is reporting that Google is no longer talking to Cnet reporters. In an article about the search company looking for new executive chefs, the article states: 'Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.' Apparently, Google was angered by an article published earlier by Cnet where all sorts of personal information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt was included. The information was obtained from Google searches."
people are very touchy when it comes to money (Score:3, Informative)
Google should be proud (Score:5, Interesting)
"Google, so powerful you can find information about ANYBODY!"
What's Good for the Goose? (Score:5, Funny)
Are they saying you shouldn't use Google to invade privacy? If so, don't allow it in the first place.
Or is he just afraid people will learn he likes Elton John.
Re:What's Good for the Goose? (Score:3, Funny)
I never did that. So, I took your advice. Seems that I actually appeared in an old Francis Ford Coppolla movie. I guess I never knew....
I'm not feeling sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
You put it on the Internet and its fair game.
Of course, there is a lot of our information on the Internet that we didn't put there, which is why we need better laws regarding dissemination of personal information.
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:2)
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:2)
And yes, CNET isn't exactly the gold standard in journalism.
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:2)
But it is a dangerous way to be heading, trying to bully news people into submission.
But then they started doing evil with Google Groups 2
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:5, Informative)
And what if I didn't put it on the Internet? What if it was just email?
What if, during the public comments period, I wrote a letter to the DOJ years ago regarding the suit against a large software company who was later found guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly. And the DOJ put all the comments on the Internet and now when someone Google's my name, it comes up. The company I now work for recently became a strategic partner with that very company, which could make things uncomfortable.
What if I gave money to a politician running for president, and as part of a fundraiser, my name was attached with another two dozen people to an invitation. Then someone not associated with the campaign spammed a mailing list with that invitation, and it was posted on a public site as an example of spamming. Now when you Google my name, my name shows up as supporting that candidate. Not to mention looking in places like opensecrets.org.
Why does this matter now? Well, if I start applying for jobs, one can quickly find quite a bit about in the 20 seconds it takes to Google my name. And some employers (even just a rogue HR person) may have a problem with supporting particular candidates or saying something negative about a powerful company.
And we're seeing a worse trend. Earlier this year, the Bush administration, as many may recall, banned Kerry supporters from attending a non-partisian worldwide telecommunications forum:
So, like in Russia years ago and in other countries, we can quickly move to the point where not having the "right" political beliefs (that is, not sharing the beliefs of whoever is in power) will result in losing your livelihood. As a result, people will stop expressing their political beliefs. And there are many powerful people who would love that to happen.
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:2)
You gave information to the government, you should expect that it would be part of publi
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:4, Funny)
Um, you do realize that email goes... through... the... Internet, right?
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:3, Informative)
Outlook Express had a PGP plugin in the 1990s to support signing and encryption and just about every email program today (certainly any remotely popular commercial one) support
Re:I'm not feeling sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
121 N. Maple Ave.
Cincinnati Ohio
Correction
Fairborn, OH 45324
You attend Wright State University in Dayton but seeing as you are originally from Ohio it can be inferred that you have not traveled far from home in your meager 21 years.
I've lived in Tiffin, Attica, Kent, Stow, Clinton, and Willard -- all in Ohio.
You are still a college student and from a working class family. You are resentful at those who have money because they could afford a better secondary education, which you could not afford as you paying for your education largely by yourself via federal loans and grants.
Close enough
You like to involve yourself in political discussion about world issues yet get all your facts from sources that are just as bias as the sources the right wing people you enjoy calling "idiotic" get their facts from.
Depends how old your info is. I enjoy Paul Krugman's economic columns. I tend to stay away from the mainstream. I read the Daily Kos for humor value, etc.
You are a pseudo-intellectual and like to quote Voltaire.
I might have quoted Voltaire a few times. I prefer the stylings of Mikhail Bakunin these days.
See, all sorts of info is easily obtainable from web. And all this in just the pass 15 minutes. Imagine if I put a little effort into it.
Have fun
This is a good thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, what the hell are they actually good for? Biased reviews, news available elsewhere, and alleged 'gurus' writing columns that are either blindingly obvious or hilariously incorrect.
If I were Mr. Google, I'd refuse to talk to them purely because they're rubbish, never mind any previous articles and privacy concerns.
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:5, Funny)
That's big talk coming from a man posting to Slashdot of all sites.
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:2)
Sorry about that.
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:3, Funny)
http://slashdot.org/~snopes [slashdot.org]
Get a job
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually this sort of thing is very bad for Google (Score:2)
The moral juggling act goes on (Score:2, Insightful)
Executive Chefs? (Score:2, Funny)
Pick and choose (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah Drew Barrymore won't speak to me either despite all the flowers, postcards, and pictures I send.
Seriously. When did anyone have an obligation to do an interview?
__168+ New Funny Clips Added [laughdaily.com]
Re:Pick and choose (Score:2)
It's ok, we giggle about them whenever they come!
Re:Pick and choose (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I consider it a problem when large corporations use their power to control what the media writes.
How is this "censorship"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government telling you you're not allowed to say certain things, under penalty of law: censorship.
A company deciding it's not going to do business with another (in this case, a press) company: not censorship.
Re:How is this "censorship"? (Score:2)
Whoa. For a second there I was trying to figure out why you would get angry at safe-sex porn... until I realized it's been a long time since I had images turned on for the front page articles.
Re:How is this "censorship"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this "censorship"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the government is slowly moving into irrelevance and that the coprs are fast becoming like local kings and dukes, the actions they make become less and less like those of private individuals and more and more like those of governments (and I am including monarchy and fascism as types of government).
So, it's not a big stretch to call "censorship" what some corps do with the information. This is particularly true of news media.
Re:How is this "censorship"? (Score:3, Informative)
It's nit-picking, but it's an important word and it's important to know that not only the government can censor. Google, however, is only censoring its own employees against talking to C|Net. They are not censoring C|Net itself, who is
The Beginning of The End? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Beginning of The End? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether it's justified or not is another matter, but I think you're blowing the issue a bit out of proportion if you proclaim that this is the end of them being (or trying to be) the "good" guys.
Re:The Beginning of The End? (Score:2)
Most companies would respond by removing Cnet from their search results and taking them to court. Cnet, run-of-the-mill crud reporters that they are don't deserve to talk to Google.
Re:The Beginning of The End? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other stockholders also depend on Google to "earn" them more by manipulating the press. Thus it would be a breach of Google's fiduciary responsibility to fail to do s
Re:The Beginning of The End? (Score:3, Interesting)
Spot on! All the other posters missed this, which is very likely the true cause of the hissy fit. For some reason Google can do no wrong, you see, because ... because ..
Re:The Beginning of The End? (Score:2)
I'm not convinced. The information they note as being "collected" by Google has not yet been shown to be being used for any purpose other than personalising or improving ones services, or targetted advertising (which, in the latter case, the more sensitive information like email is only processed by machine, and not accessible to employ
Are they hungry? (Score:4, Funny)
So I guess Google is branching out into the food business?
It's not Google's fault information is available (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can use Google to track down a distressing amount of personal information about some people, but this is a function of the information being made available by third parties. Google just makes it easier to find all these sources quickly.
People that gripe about (or sue) Google based on their indexing "bad" things, need to step back and think of the Web as more of a library, with each page as a book. Google serves as a card catalog, helping you find the books that have the information you are interested in. If somebody goes to the library and looks up a bunch of personal information on you (which is possible, just slower) you don't get mad at the makers of the card catalog. Your anger should be directed first at the person who singled you out. Next, if the books contain something which shouldn't be public (unlike major stock sales, and other things from the article, which should be public) you ought to take it up with the author/publisher of the books.
cNet took a cheap shot at Google, and did it in a fairly childish way. The point they were trying to make is both obvious, and better made in a more mature fashion. That being said, I don't exactly think Google's response is "mature", but if they want to respond in kind, I don't blame them.
Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (Score:2)
Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (Score:2)
Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (Score:2)
Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (Score:2)
Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (Score:2)
I've read it and I can't imagine why you think it was childish. Not original or particularly insightful, but not childish.
And fair enough too (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a great number of things one can do, that are not necessarily what one should do. There are even many both easy and legal things one can do that are ethically reprehensible.
I see no hypocrisy in Google's actions. Why deal with a group of people who have demonstrated they have no scruples?
Cnet behaviour (Score:2)
I think that is the most responsible way to do it.
No Obligation To Talk With Press (Score:2)
Linking an alleged breach of privacy to this is, obviously, ironic. But that's not the point.
Re:No Obligation To Talk With Press (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe with one notable exeption: governments. If governments would start to favor certain newspapers and blacklisting others, it would be highly inappropriate.
Re:No Obligation To Talk With Press (Score:2)
>> press, period."
> Maybe with one notable exeption: governments. If governments
> would start to favor certain newspapers and blacklisting others,
> it would be highly inappropriate.
A second notable exception: public corporations. It is the nature of a publicly traded corporation to have full-disclosure to shareholders and potential shareholders. And since it is impossible for a company to share information with millions of share
Re:No Obligation To Talk With Press (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, Google is throwing a hissy-fit after someone demonstrated how their own service "invaded" their CEO's privacy. It's an excellent article, and an excellent example. Google is being completely asinine about it, which is very amusing.
CEOs (Score:2)
Seriously, whats the problem here? Hell, google.ca is a public company. This is a pure hissy fit, nothing more, nothing less. Another good example of the transformation from cool, private R&D firm to huge money making public bohemouth.
Real Reason for Ban? (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the CNET's claim of being banned for release of personal information (or perhaps even Google's claim) I wonder if the ban wasn't instituted more for how the other information in the article was presented.
Good reasons? (Score:2)
Read the linked article, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I guess Google is really being the asshole here.
The thing that the article is pointing out -- rightly -- is that Google appears to be on the road toward becoming a major information clearinghouse. And the information is, rather than most similar things, information about everything. They have manifested a desire to aggregate this knowledge and use it in certain ways (i.e., targeted ads by reading the content of your email), and for now they are behaving as a 'good netizen'.
The thing is, as soon as these two idealistic PhD guys get fed up and cash in and decide to buy an island in the South Pacific and go live there, I fear that so will go Google's ethos of being the good guy, and the marketing weasels and fucking lawyers schmucks will pervert Google amazing technology to do some Seriously Evil Shit (tm).
It's really just a matter of time...
RTA - It's good (Score:2)
It is also clear about google following their own "do no evil" policy in the past. But now after their IPO they have a duty to maximize shareholder value.
For the next few years I think the management will continue to stick to ethical behaviour, but there are no guarantees.
Re:RTA - It's good (Score:4, Insightful)
So not only do they plan on doing no evil in search, they also plan on doing no evil financially (i.e. maximizing current profit over long term). Certainly, it would NOT maximize shareholder value in the long run to 'do evil'.
The most successful companies in history have had similiar policies. For example, Wal-Mart has always advocated continually dropping prices, regardless of current profit maximization. In the long term, this maximizes profits by keeping their market penetration and fostering a culture of cost-cutting.
A taste of Google's own medicine? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is yet another of those situations where responding mildly or not at all would have been the best way to handle this -- it's embarassment -- the more you fight it, the worse it becomes. The quicker you leave it in the past, the quicker it is forgotten.
Somebody had to do it. (Score:2)
It sounds like C|Net was out of line -- but I would prefer a lawsuit over blacklisting. Google has the power to do it, being the most interesting tech company as of late. Wired is now going to get
Should be more worried about Microsoft than Google (Score:2)
Type in a bogus website? Microsoft knows. Look up a word to be translated in Office 2003? Microsoft knows. Windows XP, Office 2003, Visual Studio, Encarta etc are all closely linked to the web services. With Microsoft Live Meeting they could know all about your business meetings as it is hosted offsite.
If one wanted to be paranoid (like the author of tha
It's time for Google to boycott Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg [google-watch.org]
Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.
Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jp
Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g068
Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Ather
Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html [google-watch.org]
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www
Re:Well if it's there (Score:2)
Re:Well if it's there (Score:5, Interesting)
It exposed the fact that they collect enormous amounts of personal information from their users, and all we can do is trust them and their employees.
Reassuring isn't it?
The article does point out that Google is not alone in this practice.
Re:Well if it's there (Score:2)
Yes, and as a matter of fact, the article points out that Google takes a very minimalistic approach towards information collection (especially compared to MSN and Yahoo), and has explicit agreements with its users that information will remain private.
Re:Well if it's there (Score:2)
On the Intraweb, that's referred to as self-ownage :p
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:4, Funny)
For once could you at least attempt to impart an original thought rather than regurgitation the article? Sheesh, this one is just regurgitating the article _summary_.
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2, Insightful)
It gives me the creepy vibe of a tabloid mag..
Just feels immature that thay would do that...
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:3, Insightful)
The information has already been published on the WWW; this is how Google indexed it.
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:3, Funny)
Would it really have been that difficult to type six more letters? You went to all the trouble of typing up an entire comment saying nothing, and then you want to save on six keystrokes. You could have used a comma and periods instead of the useless ellipses and come out almost even.
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:3, Funny)
Once they're gone your done.
Jus because I'm a nice guy, I'm sending you some extra ones I ad lying about. Use them wisely.
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz
abc def ghi jkl mno pqr st
I can only agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is private information, and there is public information - and everything that has been ever published is public, no matter how personal it may seem.
You can't unspill water, and you should have no expection of everyone else hiding what already is public - Cnet cannot be faulted at all.
Hey Google - what about your 'do no evil' ? Don't become so hypocritical - it won't benefit you.
Re:I can only agree. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, you can argue whether or not they're getting a bit to huffy about something that's a minor deal. Information may be available to the public, but that doesn't mean it's particularly friendly or polite to publish it widely. It's not illegal to be an jerk,
Re:I can only agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can only agree. (Score:2)
I don't know what CNet's financials look like, but Google has a lot of extra cash sitting around since their IPO. Could they put a small percent of a percent of their money into giving CNet a hard time? It wouldn't be unprecedented in the world of business.
Re:I can only agree. (Score:3, Interesting)
If something false was claimed, then they would have moral grounds for avoiding that newspaper - but I read that article, and it's nothing bad at all!
The reaction seems a one man's childish, overblown reaction - and the fact that this man is a CEO of a major company just makes it seem even more ridiculous.
Re:I can only agree. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're saying that you've never decided to break ties with someone because they did something you didn't like? That's almost the only reason you do break ties with someone. Why should Google continue to associate with them if they don't like them?
Re:I can only agree. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because some of this can be looked up in a phonebook doesn't mean CNN should be reporting on that part of it.
Re:I can only agree. (Score:2)
If some agency (say, the phone company) gave out my address to CNN, then this agency (not CNN) would be breaching my privacy and this would be bad. But if it's already public, as in this Google case, then it's public and that's it.
Re:I can only agree. (Score:2)
You aren't an avid Harry Potter reader, huh?
Because actually it's quite simple, you just pull your wand and... er, well! nevermind...
Oh the Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Eric's Home Address (Score:5, Informative)
He's the first Eric E. Schmidt on zabasearch. The issue is that he needs to get over the fact that privacy does not exist, unless you accidentally fill out false Change of Address [usps.com] forms every month.
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why journos have codes of conduct. Because it may not be illegal and it may not be that hard to do, but it can still be wrong.
J.
Not reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't agree there. There's public, obscure information that wouldn't occur to anyone to search for, and then there's nicely packaged, published information. Prior to publication, few people knew, and after, many did.
Yes it's security through obscurity - but since it's absolutely impossible to get actual identity security, t
Re:Not reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not reasonable (Score:2)
It is possible! If you don't want being subject to data mining or getting in the picture make sure you don't get a big name, make sure you don't get private i
Re:Not reasonable (Score:2)
But how much of a punishment is that really?? Anything that Google does publically is likely to be available online in a very short time, and CNet will get it from there. OK, so CNet can't claim "First Post!!", but that really doesn't matter a whole lot these days. I mean, if a story about Google appears in Yahoo News, then appears in CNet news a short time later, and if I read CNet before I read Yahoo, then I'll perceive the story as comi
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
The point is, that information on the web is not "freely" available. It takes time to aggregate it, and that effort is not free. Making the effort to aggregate all the information about someone on the web into one place, and then putting it in your online publication is an invasion of the privacy of that person.
Eric Schmidt is probably enough of a celebrity that he has less of a right to expect privacy than most people, but this was still a
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
And http://www.answers.com/topic/invasion-of-privacy [answers.com]
invasion of privacy The tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
Just curious: where did you get that from? The only information I can find is the little note in the linked CNet article: "Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story."
If I trusted this reporter, I might read it the way you do. But I really don't, and that sentenc
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
Legally there's no right of appeal, yes, but there's also nothing to compel the company to speak to those sorry excuses for 'journalists' either...
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
Yes, the privacy issue is that they suggest Google are just big and evil. They didn't like that.
www.fuckedgoogle.com already knew this (Score:2, Insightful)
seriously folks, most people on slashdot have such a congnitive dissonance going with regards to Google that there would be 500 posts defending Google if somehow the corporation itself were caught in bed with a dead, 14 year old hooker and a bag full of colombian flake.
just because Google isn't microsoft is no reason to automatically assume Google is some sort of deity.
in fact, why do you people have this innate longing to fall in love with ANY company? they sell TEXT
Re:www.fuckedgoogle.com already knew this (Score:2)
Is it so hard for people to see that nothing in this world is black or white, but that it's always a shade of grey?
Neither microsoft nor google will ever have a completely clean past, but atleast google has been trying real hard from the start to avoid doing evil, and microsoft seems to be trying to do less evil to these days.
And to be honest, they'll never be able to do good in everybady's eyes, since there's always some guy who
From the article again.. (Score:2)
Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (Score:2)
Re:bot of course! (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just Wrong (Score:2)
Social behaviour and other details of influential people is also often reported on. I was shocked about the amount of detail released on Bush after his last medical exam.