Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Blacklists CNet Reporters

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the no-talkie dept.

Censorship 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."

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Live by the Search, die by the Search (-1, Redundant)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 9 years ago | (#13248580)


Fom TFA:
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.
Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here. All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

The fact that the information was gathered using the Google search engine is just icing on the cake.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (3, Funny)

GeckoX (259575) | about 9 years ago | (#13248617)

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_.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (2, Insightful)

Chaotic Spyder (896445) | about 9 years ago | (#13248618)

That's true.. but just because the info is there and avl does not mean it needs to be published..
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 (3, Insightful)

pairo (519657) | about 9 years ago | (#13248717)

It already _was_ published, on the Intarweb! The fact that they spent the time to gather it doesn't make them immature. Nor a tabloid.

I can only agree. (1, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | about 9 years ago | (#13248634)

I can only agree.

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. (2, Interesting)

cowscows (103644) | about 9 years ago | (#13248809)

They're not doing anything evil, they're just showing their disapproval for another company in the proper way. If they were evil, they'd have sued them, instead they're deciding to just not do business with them, which is certainly within their rights.

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, but sometimes it's not the best idea, and there are often consequences. I know journalists like to pretend that they're somehow exempt from any consequences, but that's not how it works.

Re:I can only agree. (2, Insightful)

pairo (519657) | about 9 years ago | (#13248821)

Sued them? On what grounds? "Using our services for things we don't approve of!" is not something that will win you any lawsuit.

Oh the Irony (5, Funny)

cloudness is x (598249) | about 9 years ago | (#13248670)

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

Eric's Home Address (4, Informative)

dsginter (104154) | about 9 years ago | (#13248673)

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:Live by the Search, die by the Search (1)

JerMe (905388) | about 9 years ago | (#13248685)

Google dropping affiliation with (C|Z)Net was probably attributed more so to CNet's article badmouthing Google, than to anything else. Why would you want to do to business with anyone that hurts business?

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (1)

Momoru (837801) | about 9 years ago | (#13248772)

Because those business give you publicity? You usually just take the good with the bad. If you are Paramount and Entertainment Weekly gives one of your movies a bad rating, you can't just black list them. Because they probably help your cause more often then hurt it. CNET has wrote many good articles about Google. Blacklisting them for one article is immature.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (2, Insightful)

aug24 (38229) | about 9 years ago | (#13248689)

There's an issue for me in putting private information that could be found if someone actually looked for it onto a forum that thousands of people read (even if they only read it cos they don't know any better).

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 (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 9 years ago | (#13248693)

Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here. All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.

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, that's all we have these days.

Also note that the slashdot crowd went nuts when O'Gara did this to Pamela Jones.

Also, Google's not suing - they're punishing cNet for playing dirty. If CNet expected a different response from the article, they're retarded. If they don't want to talk to someone since they did something that wasn't nice, that's their right.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 9 years ago | (#13248704)

I think most people *do* have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

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 an invasion of his privacy, and he has every right to refuse to cooperate with someone who violated it.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (1)

bluelip (123578) | about 9 years ago | (#13248710)

"Fom TFA:

        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.

Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here. All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there."

Just because it's available on the internet doesn't mean that's a reason to publish it.

I support Google's ability to not report to whoever they like. If cnet wants to continue to act like a supermarket tabloid, it would be in Google's best interest not to speak w/ them.

Re:Live by the Search, die by the Search (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | about 9 years ago | (#13248741)

All the information Cnet obtained about you was freely available on the Web, and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there.
Legally or morally?

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 (1)

Snaller (147050) | about 9 years ago | (#13248764)

Sorry, Eric, but 'privacy' isn't the issue here

Yes, the privacy issue is that they suggest Google are just big and evil. They didn't like that.

privacy schmivacy (1)

fifedrum (611338) | about 9 years ago | (#13248581)

or what's good for the Goose isn't good for the Gander?

Re:privacy schmivacy (1)

hcob$ (766699) | about 9 years ago | (#13248642)

Not if the goose needs a Hysterectomy.

You ratted me out! I am SO not talking to you ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248583)

What is this, high school?

Well if it's there (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 9 years ago | (#13248585)

If I can find that persons information through Google (his own company), compile a story out of it and publish it, then why are you mad? Why is your personal information on the internet anyway?

Re:Well if it's there (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 9 years ago | (#13248601)

Someone's personal information is on the internet? That's amazing! The next thing you know, you'll be able to look at naked boobies right on your computer screen...

Re:Well if it's there (4, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | about 9 years ago | (#13248619)

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.

Re:Well if it's there (1)

derEikopf (624124) | about 9 years ago | (#13248778)

The article does point out that Google is not alone in this practice.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248736)

Why is your personal information on the internet anyway?


Well clearly because he put it there himself. Surely you're not suggesting that his bank (or stock broker, or doctor, or city/state of residence, or credit reporting company that he's never even heard of) might have boneheadedly put his private, personal information on the internet for all to see. Companies would never do that.


Besides, if the information is there, obviously he wanted it there. Otherwise, he would have deleted it. We all know how easy it is to delete something off of the innernet.

Re:Well if it's there (1)

bbzzdd (769894) | about 9 years ago | (#13248765)

The information was obtained from Google searches."

On the Intraweb, that's referred to as self-ownage :p

people are very touchy when it comes to money (3, Informative)

kekec (901056) | about 9 years ago | (#13248589)

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

Re:people are very touchy when it comes to money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248660)

I don't know why that would be the reason, considering you can get all that information from any stock information website. You can lookup that "insider" trading information on any public company. I'd think there's more to it than what we can all guess is the reason

Google should be proud (5, Interesting)

TurdTapper (608491) | about 9 years ago | (#13248590)

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? (5, Funny)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 9 years ago | (#13248591)

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.

Re:What's Good for the Goose? (1)

Grantmillie (899785) | about 9 years ago | (#13248635)

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.

Hasn't everyone googled their own name? Like he didn't know what was out there was out there. If he was going to throw a power fit why didn't he just block the sites from google searches.

Re:What's Good for the Goose? (2, Funny)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 9 years ago | (#13248708)

Hasn't everyone googled their own name?

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 (4, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | about 9 years ago | (#13248592)

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 (1)

discordja (612393) | about 9 years ago | (#13248757)

Putting it on the internet is, in fact, fair game, but CNET including it in a published work that would disseminate over a large population is pretty clearly well outside an accepted code of conduct for any respecting 'news agency.' Tho, I don't suppose many consider CNET more than half assed journalism hacks.

Re:I'm not feeling sorry (1)

stinerman (812158) | about 9 years ago | (#13248774)

I agree that posting the actual information was over the top (they could have just said we found out x, y, and z off a google search), and Google is well within their rights to refuse interviews to anyone, but I think they're blowing the whole deal out of proportion.

And yes, CNET isn't exactly the gold standard in journalism.

Re:I'm not feeling sorry (1)

Snaller (147050) | about 9 years ago | (#13248787)

Slashdot is speculating as to the reason Google don't want to talk to CNet - but they offer no proof. Yes the article mentions Eric Schmidt, but it says a lot of other things as well, which is more likely to have annoyed them.

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

ahhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248595)

in soviet russia Communist-NET blacklists Google..

This is a good thing. (5, Funny)

mrRay720 (874710) | about 9 years ago | (#13248596)

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. (1)

hhghghghh (871641) | about 9 years ago | (#13248623)

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.

3...2...1..

"You must be new here!"

Re:This is a good thing. (4, Funny)

generic-man (33649) | about 9 years ago | (#13248625)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248637)

And of course some would say the fact that CNET has M$ as a partial owner is not coincidental.....

Re:This is a good thing. (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 9 years ago | (#13248681)

I don't know about other things they cover, but I know their coverage of Mozilla has always been extremely negative, looking for "angles" when none existed and always thinking the worst. I recall that CNet was regarded with almost the same contempt as "MozillaQuest" for producing profoundly ignorant articles on the browser and goings on.

Re:This is a good thing. (1)

joeybagadonuts (849172) | about 9 years ago | (#13248752)

Sorry...for a minute there I thought you were talking about /.

Re:This is a good thing. (2, Interesting)

DenDave (700621) | about 9 years ago | (#13248756)

Well I actually thought the article was pretty good... I find Google's response to be lacking in sportsmanship and style. I thought the author's style was rather tongue in cheek and I suspect this is how cnet expected google to respond.

MS-Cnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248600)

What do you expect from Microsoft reporters - Mr Bill does not like google, and his reporting team at Cnet is making him happy.

No loss to google.

More google arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248602)

I am sick and tired of the shit google has been pulling since they IPO'ed. Now that yahoo search and mail has been much improved, I think I'll stop using google shit and start giving yahoo a few more page hits from now on.

The moral juggling act goes on (2, Insightful)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 9 years ago | (#13248604)

Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..

Re:The moral juggling act goes on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248760)

Only two balls, but ... awfully hard to juggle.

Clearly, you're not looking at the right porn.

Re:The moral juggling act goes on (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | about 9 years ago | (#13248773)

Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..

Mine, too, that is why I stick to highly paid, highly trained professionals.
BTW, kudos to you, sir. I just call mine Dangly and Hairy, your names are WAAAAY more clever!

Well, they're not mine (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 9 years ago | (#13248823)

They belong to Uncle Sam. Wait, I think I just made it worse XD

Bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248606)

How about a story not written by CNET?

I mean come on, you might as well consider it a press release and call it "credible."

They can hire me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248611)

And I'll pass the story along to CNet then. Piece of crap two-faced pieces of crap.

They don't care about other people's personal info spread all throughout their cache...but when it comes to one of their execs, they try and pull this crap.

heh

Executive Chefs? (2, Funny)

neo5064 (822494) | about 9 years ago | (#13248614)

Why not just promote from within the company? Is the food really that bad?

Re:Executive Chefs? (1)

GozzoMan (808286) | about 9 years ago | (#13248713)

Why not just promote from within the company? Is the food really that bad?
Even if it is, I don't think that cooking executives will be any better... thay tend to be rather towy.

Pick and choose (4, Funny)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | about 9 years ago | (#13248616)

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 (1)

Epistax (544591) | about 9 years ago | (#13248718)

*looking ovr the flowers*
It's ok, we giggle about them whenever they come!

How is this "censorship"? (5, Insightful)

Percent Man (756972) | about 9 years ago | (#13248622)

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"? (1)

Amoeba (55277) | about 9 years ago | (#13248659)

Okay, we all enjoy the self-righteous feeling of anger we get when we see the little man with his mouth taped over.

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"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248672)

Hah! If Microsoft did this -- say, MSN stopped linking to a certain news source because of an article about Bill Gates -- you'd be up in arms.

Sheesh, the endless double-standards of Slashbots and their groupthing...

Re:How is this "censorship"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248679)

Who said it was censorship? CNET didn't. The Slashdot article summary didn't.

What it is is extremely weird. For an article on the privacy issues raised by Google (which are way overblown IMO), CNet does a story where they see how much info. they can find on a high-level Google employee using Google itself.

For Google to boycott CNET is absurd. If it pissed them off that much, they should boycott their own search engine.

Re:How is this "censorship"? (3, Insightful)

Crapshoot (880704) | about 9 years ago | (#13248682)

It isn't, but that's a simplistic understanding that seems to be beyond many. Google can do what it wants - no harm, no foul here.

Re:How is this "censorship"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248738)

Just because Slashdot has a limited selection of topic headings doesn't mean that anyone actually feels like this IS censorship.

FOOOOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248628)

I didn't know Google's getting into catering? Executive chefs?

Censorship of My Rights??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248630)

What exactly does Google not talking to CNET have anything to do with me or my rights?

Has slashdot turned to thinking whatever google does affects my rights?

The Beginning of The End? (3, Insightful)

beavis88 (25983) | about 9 years ago | (#13248636)

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.

Re:The Beginning of The End? (2, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | about 9 years ago | (#13248662)

Huh? Why? Because they decided not to talk to CNet anymore? Tough for CNet, but there's no legal or even moral obligation for them to do so.

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? (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about 9 years ago | (#13248743)

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.

bot of course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248639)

Would YOU want your public and stockholders to know your high tech search company was "looking for new executive chefs"? Would you eat at a google restaurant? Heck no, do let CNET get ahold of that!

Re:bot of course! (1)

Momoru (837801) | about 9 years ago | (#13248808)

Actually Google issued that Executive Chef's crap as a press release, the free food is like 90% of their recruiting drive (knowing us programmers are fat bastards). Once they start offering free beer, maybe i'll be interested.

Are they hungry? (3, Funny)

sehryan (412731) | about 9 years ago | (#13248648)

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

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

Re:Are they hungry? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248791)

Google has its own (super) food court for its employees. I think all the food is free too.

It's not Google's fault information is available (4, Insightful)

Halo- (175936) | about 9 years ago | (#13248652)

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.

Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (1)

reallocate (142797) | about 9 years ago | (#13248725)

Very good point. Google woudln't return any search results if it didn't have publicly accessible data to index.

   

Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248745)

It's not possible (or desirable) for them to filter and screen the content of what they index.

China seems to do it. As does a particular Canadian ISP. So, it seems that it is desireable depending on who/what you are.

Re:It's not Google's fault information is availabl (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248769)

Cnet was using Schmidt as an example of how Google is used thousands or millions of times a day to research people's backgrounds, including all sorts of personal stuff. The defense that Google is merely indexing what's already out there applies equally well to the Cnet article.

I thought the reporting job was a rather clever idea and nicely executed.

Confused (1)

SolarCanine (892620) | about 9 years ago | (#13248653)

Wait a sec - if Google has implemented a policy not to talk to CNet reporters (which, IMO, is their right, as it is any organization's right not to speak to the press, regardless of how the press gets snotty about it), then how did this info get passed on to CNet for their inclusion in this article?

"Hey, pass this note to CNet. We're not talking to them."

Seriously, though. Freedom of the Press is a freedom designed to allow the press to print/publish/broadcast information that they find. It is not a license to be used to force people to talk to them, so if Google chooses not to talk to CNet, so be it - go out and find information elsewhere, just like reporters have been doing for centuries. The news media in general has gotten lazy and expect companies to comply with every request, and that's why the press is so information-challenged these days.

At least, that's how I see it.

Strange place for such an announcement (1)

NerdHead (35767) | about 9 years ago | (#13248654)

Why does CNet state that Google won't speak to them on the bottom of an article about Google hiring chefs? Kinda sneaky if you ask me. I would like to know Google's side of the story.

mmmm...lunch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248665)

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

I guess the lunch menu needed revision...

he search company looking for new executive CHIEF (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248674)

This place is retarded.

And fair enough too (2, Insightful)

HalfFlat (121672) | about 9 years ago | (#13248687)

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?

No Obligation To Talk With Press (1)

reallocate (142797) | about 9 years ago | (#13248691)

No one has any obligation to talk with any member of the press, period. Press freedom does not encompass compelling people to answer questions.

Linking an alleged breach of privacy to this is, obviously, ironic. But that's not the point.

Re:No Obligation To Talk With Press (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | about 9 years ago | (#13248724)

"No one has any obligation to talk with any member of the press, period."

Maybe with one notable exeption: governments. If governments would start to favor certain newspapers and blacklisting others, it would be highly inappropriate.

CEOs (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about 9 years ago | (#13248700)

Many times the wealth of a politician, and with none of that fussy public accountability crap!

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.

See no Evil, Hear no Evil,Speak no evil (1)

speights_pride! (898232) | about 9 years ago | (#13248707)

Is this the Google policy as opposed to "Do no evil"? Or is it: Don't speak to the evil ;-)

So much for don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248712)

So much for don't be evil... apparently it's "don't be evil unless it suits your money making propoganda". Not that we didn't already all know this, but hopefully it cemented that idea for everyone who might've thought google wasn't just another money grubbing mega-corporation.

Good for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248726)

Right on, Google. I say do what you want. Interview with whom you want. Don't speak to those you don't like. Seriously, this "moral obligation" thing gets pulled out anytime someone sees someone make a personal decision. Hell, it's their bloody company. This "we have to be fair to everyone who wants to speak to us" is BS. If I owned the company, and some writer wrote a dickhead report on what I built and who I am.... it'd be my damn right to never speak to them again. Go Google. Make a bazillion. No, make two. You give me Alexandria's library at my finger tips, for free. Do what the hell you want.

ohhh!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248728)

ohhh i can see it all now!! Elinor Mills is soooooo FIRED

Just Wrong (1)

boredofthesane (717063) | about 9 years ago | (#13248734)

The issue isn't that the information was freely available, it's that Cnet chose to diclose the information to the masses. While most people can go out and look up this information themsleves, they aren't going to publish it in a newspaper or magazine article.

Real Reason for Ban? (4, Interesting)

IEEEmember (610961) | about 9 years ago | (#13248739)

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.

Serves Bill Right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248740)

Hahahaha! Down with the evil empire! Bill Gates DESERVES to have all his personal info post.... Oh wait, google? Man CNet sucks. Boycott CNET!

Good reasons? (1)

xiando (770382) | about 9 years ago | (#13248742)

I will never talk to you again if you break your word, steel from me, publicly insult me or prove to be disloyal. It is never a good idea to insult someone if you want to talk to them, which Cnet now learned...

Filter CNET! (1)

alucinor (849600) | about 9 years ago | (#13248748)

If I were Google, I'd filter both CNET and their swashbuckling "ar articles", too ... filthy pirates.

One Piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248750)

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

From this I can gather that you are a pirate and that Google is moving into the food industry

Only proves that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248753)

Not only in soviet russia google searches you!

Read the linked article, and... (4, Insightful)

suzerain (245705) | about 9 years ago | (#13248754)

...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...

Yes they mean CHEFS (1)

Zunni (565203) | about 9 years ago | (#13248755)

Damn, the number of people who flippantly assume a typo when they should take a moment and read the article is surprising... Seriously, if you don't even bother reading the article then don't bother commenting. As for the article itself, I think it's childish of CNET to even mention the issues they may be having with Google. Google is under NO obligation to give any information to CNET. In fact it's commonplace for this very thing to happen in TV/Radio/Print all the time. Why CNET would choose to stick that information at the end of the story doesn't make any sense to me, it has nothing to do with the story and is simply a cheap shot in Google's direction.

Trust (1)

Brent_Litzer (627434) | about 9 years ago | (#13248762)

This is why you should Google yourself regularly. And do what you can to control the information. Google responded this way because it shows the power of Google to dig into information that is not immediately obvious. I everyone knew the true power of information that is internally and externally collected by Google, everyone would be scared. This is why I will NEVER have a gmail account, and advise people against it. Allegedly, it is all public information, but the aggregation of it can bother people and cause the average reactionary to shoot up their skirt on privacy issues.

Look out, Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13248766)

...Don't say anything bad about Google, or they might also stop talking to Slashdot...umm...reporters....

Never mind.

AR! AR! says the pirate (1)

lbmouse (473316) | about 9 years ago | (#13248767)

Typo:
In ar article about...

Kind of a useless debate. (1)

TheSneak (904279) | about 9 years ago | (#13248804)

Google doesn't have any obligation to talk to Cnet, and Cnet obviously published an article made to show google in a bad light.

At the same time Google could very well be trying to mask their true intention of not speaking to a newsgroup that "put them down".

I say just take it all with a grain of salt. It's just bad press for Cnet and google at the same time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>