Interesting People mailing list archives
more on more on Google refuses to speak with news organization after critical story... for one year [fs]
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:16:53 -0400
I clearly agree with Lauren . djf Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: August 7, 2005 7:38:50 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>, lauren () vortex comSubject: Re: [IP] more on Google refuses to speak with news organization after critical story... for one year [fs]
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu> Date: August 7, 2005 6:20:16 PM EDT ... Is CNET being targeted because they published data on Schmidt, or because they said the emperor -- emperors, really; they note that A9, MSN, Yahoo, etc., have similar issues -- have no clothes.
Dave, Steve, et al., There has been a flurry of articles over recent months -- some in major venues -- finally beginning to illuminate Google privacy issues. AP ran an excellent one just a couple of weeks ago: http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/business/12156336.htm Some of us have been pointing out these problems even longer, as readers of IP know. The one big difference in the CNET story does appear to be the "personalization" of the discussion to include a Google executive. Whether or not that's actually what triggered Google's action against CNET only Google knows, but it does seem to be in character. When it comes to privacy issues, Google still operates much as if it were still a pile of PCs on a folding table at Stanford -- which it was not so many years ago. Google continues to behave as if good intentions alone are enough to provide true privacy protections, and, if the reaction against CNET is as reported, like a petulant child when crossed too personally. Google not only doesn't have an independent privacy panel, they don't even seem to have a formal privacy officer -- remarkable for a very large firm holding such masses of privacy-critical information in this day and age. It seems as if they just don't want to let go of any control in any manner, and they continue to assume that useful services, a smiley-face image, and a "Do No Evil" slogan should satisfy us all. Here's a prediction. If Google doesn't clear out their tin ear, and get their act together when it comes to privacy, they will end up being a catalyst for extreme legislative actions that they, and the rest of us, may regret in significant ways. Related legislation may come anyway -- some is sorely needed -- but Google is setting themselves up to take a dramatic public relations fall. Already, you can hear many folks who used to consider Microsoft to be the "evil empire," softening their views about the software giant when compared to some of Google's activities. For Google, there can't be any clearer a warning than that. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () eepi org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, EEPI - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on more on Google refuses to speak with news organization after critical story... for one year [fs] David Farber (Aug 07)