Google Blacklists CNet Reporters

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

Schmidt, 50, was worth an estimated $1.5 billion last year. Earlier this year, he pulled in almost $90 million from sales of Google stock and made at least another $50 million selling shares in the past two months as the stock leaped to more than $300 a share

Google should be proud

All that article really did was prove how powerful Google really is. They should use it as a marketing tool.
"Google, so powerful you can find information about ANYBODY!"

What's Good for the Goose?

If the author's point was to show how Google can be used to invade privacy, I'm not sure why Google would throw a hissy fit.

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.

I'm not feeling sorry

Google was angered by an article published earlier by Cnet where all sorts of personal information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt was included.

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

> You put it on the Internet and its fair game.

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:

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign. The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants.

Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

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

And what if I didn't put it on the Internet? What if it was just email?

Um, you do realize that email goes... through... the... Internet, right?

Re:I'm not feeling sorry

Your address,
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 ... most of that stuff is on there because I want it to be. You've not found anything novel. But there is something to be said about an AC posting all this.

This is a good thing.

Anything involving the reduction of scope for C/Z/net to grow is good. Rarely in my life have I ever come across such a poor source of information.

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.

Seriously, what the hell are [C|Net/ZDNet] actually good for? Biased reviews, news available elsewhere, and alleged 'gurus' writing columns that are either blindingly obvious or hilariously incorrect.

That's big talk coming from a man posting to Slashdot of all sites.

Re:This is a good thing.

That's big talk coming from someone who has 1800+ posts [slashdot.org] and an active journal [slashdot.org].

Pick and choose

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]

How is this "censorship"?

Okay, we all enjoy the self-righteous feeling of anger we get when we see the little man with his mouth taped over. But this doesn't qualify as "censorship" - it's a business decision taken by a publicly-held company, not Big Brother cracking down on what you can or cannot say.

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"?

In reality we are governed far more by economical considerations than by political considerations. It stands to reason that to the extent that economy governs our lives, it should be democratized.

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.

The Beginning of The End?

Well, the end of Google as a "do no evil" company, anyway. With that many damn cooks in the kitchen, it's only a matter of time (IMNSHO) before someone spoils the recipe.

Are they hungry?

"In ar article about the search company looking for new executive chefs..."

So I guess Google is branching out into the food business?

It's not Google's fault information is available

I have to say I side with Google on this one. Google simply indexes information. It's not possible (or desirable) for them to filter and screen the content of what they index.

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.

Real Reason for Ban?

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.

1. The personal information wasn't that personal (stock filings, appearance at Burning Man and wife's name).
2. The tone of the article is almost fear mongering as it focuses on the privacy issues surrounding Google services and not simply search.
3. Both a sidebar and large print quotes were used to highlight the danger with none of the mitigating text found in the article given such prominent treatment.
4. The correction implies that the original article had some significantly incorrect information damaging to Google.

Read the linked article, and...

...uh...they didn't really list anything 'personal' about the CEO at all. He lives somewhere, he makes money, he attended a political fundraiser. None of that is particularly private information, unless my expectations of 'privacy' are really skewed.

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...

Re:RTA - It's good

Have you read their IPO filing with SEC? They specifically state following 'do no evil' will lead to long term gains. They will not be influenced by near-term shareholder value.

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.

It's time for Google to boycott Slashdot

Sergey and Larry in a hot tub:
http://www.google-watch.org/gifs/hottub4.jpg [google-watch.org]

Sergey in drag:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.j pg [stanford.edu]

Larry taking a final in "Computers and Social Ethics" at Stanford:
http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/larry5.jpg [gmail-is-too-creepy.com]

Larry on a Segway:
http://www.google.com/googledance2003/images/g0681 .jpg [google.com]

Eric's house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=366+Walsh+Rd,+Athert on,+CA&spn=0.002889,0.005137&t=k&hl=en [google.com]

Google outs Valerie Plame:
http://www.google-watch.org/valerie.html [google-watch.org]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%2520079.JPG&imgrefurl=h ttp://www.nathanslunch.com/PhotoPage.htm&h=1536&w= 2048&sz=661&tbnid=AN0nR-46KkoJ:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150& hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalerie%2Bplame%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG [google.com]

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search

Man, you are the king of restating the article summary aren't you?

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_.

Oh the Irony

Article's pulled off, so here's the Google cache [64.233.161.104].

Eric's Home Address

ZabaSearch [zabasearch.com]

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:I can only agree.

Well, if a newspaper reports something that you don't like, then I do not consider breaking ties with that newspaper as ethical.

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:Well if it's there

I think they might be using the "personal information" as a guise for what really upset them about the article.

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.