As you may have read elsewhere, News.com — our sister publication in the US — recently published a story concerning Google and online personal privacy. In it staff writer Elinor Mills used Google itself to find out public information about Google chief executive Eric E. Schmidt, which she then published. In response, Google has decided not to talk to any reporter from News.com for a year.
We cannot speak for News.com, although we are proud to march under the same CNET banner. However, we cannot avoid responsibilities for our own actions. Acting under the mistaken impression that Google's search engine was intended to help research public data, we have in the past enthusiastically abused the system to conduct exactly the kind of journalism that Google finds so objectionable.
Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts, let alone in capriciously using them to illustrate areas of concern. We apologise unreservedly, and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role just as soon as it feels capable of communicating to us how it wishes that role to be seen.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to ascertain this. Google UK has told us that we'll have to talk to Google US to find out whether we too have fallen under the writ of excommunication. As we share all information with our American brethren it is hard to see how it could be any other way, but we humbly await news of our fate.
Google UK's inability to explain the local implications of the decision could be read as the results of an angry, irrational action dictated in isolation from the top of a large and disparate organisation, an action whose ramifications were not fully taken into account.
We seek at once to distance ourselves from that perception, at odds as it is with Google's name as a byword for enlightened, engaged wisdom, a new model of corporatism which seeks to do well by doing good. It is certainly something that would be impossible to square with the quality of management required to successfully run an $80bn multinational company.
And forgive us too for any effect Google's righteous wrath will have on our coverage of issues affecting the company. Although we have plenty of other sources to help us report and analyse the many intriguing and important issues involved, Google's voice may be absent. We can only encourage our readers to make up their own minds about what may really be going on inside the company — while abjuring them from using a search engine in their quest.
It's wrong. Don't do it. Google says so.
Talkback
My snarkiness meter's going nuts!
That's not an apology, that's a slap in the face. If Google had sent this to ZDNet UK, we'd have an international incident on our hands with talking heads on both sides of the pond yelling for blood.
Well said. Speaking as a US technology worker with over twenty (yes, I'm getting grey) years in the field, it is good to see someone who is not afraid of pointing out the obvious despite the current PC environment within which we dwell. When a company which is so vocal about it's "goodness" does something so at odds with the PR department's propaganda, someone should have the courage to pint it out. Since that is not going to happen on this side of the pond, it's good to see that our ancestral homeland still supports both critical observation skills, and a bit of witty writing.
Cheers!
Regards,
Jon
I really enjoy the conditions that you put on your apology, excellent writing.
Perhaps, it might be better to use Yahoo search for researcing Google topics, at least your history woulldn't be available to the company you are researching,
Only the Brits could come up with an apology that bitch slaps the org. they’re apologizing to. We in the USA would either be too pigheaded to do anything or make it worse by adding fuel to the fire. (Even if Google is wrong)
While the orginal published article about chief executive Eric E. Schmidt was not intentially targeted towards him personally, but only to show how easy it was to gain detailed information on someone with a little bit of time, it does not excuse your actions.
Hold on know let me explain.
Orginally the article was to show how easy it is to gain this info and how the info could potential be used for any purpose, such as blackmail, faud, ransom or whatever. I personally think the idea for the article was in the right place but the execution of it was not. This is because you did target a specific person and not a company. If you wanted to target a specific person to show what you intended for the article then writer Elinor Mills should have had the common sense, and plain decentsy to do a search on herself. The fact she did not shows her lack of professionalism because she toke the same action that she was trying to tell everyone about, but did it on someone else without that specific persons knowledge. Now if she had done this using herself as the target there would be no problem. For those reading this ask yourselves: What if she did a search on you, your name, and then published it all without your knowledge or consent. Now do you see my point?
This is why Google U.S. is angry it was not the action taken but how it was taken. "The end does not justify the means" as Nicolò Machiavelli once said. But considering the so called "Apology" I just read you just do not believe in that. Instead you would rather sit on your high horse and try and justify your lack of professionalism, common sense, and plain disregard for all those in the field, and show your @$$ at the same time.
Oh wow, Cnet really is showing it's true colors. Why doesn't the author of this "Leader" put his/her name to this so-called apology? Is it therefore any surprise Google have taken this action in response to this highly irresponsible article. Why would Google UK have a seperate policy on this no-talk matter? Google is a one-world company. It's a company that takes a stance on ethical behavior. Does cnet take a stance on anythingr. Who knows? We do know that news articles about Google bring CNET lots of traffic, and that means lots of targeted (and expensive) ad inventory. Is CNET truly sorry, or is it just sorry to miss the money.... and bitter? Let the readers decide for themselves. And whoa! CNET wants to criticize the ability and calibre of Google's management!!?? Hahahaha ... [getting up off the floorr] Er, sorry, where did that theory come from? Did they find it searching Google? I wonder what we would find if we started asking probing questions about how well cnet management have managed their company.
Great piece of writing!
Weirdness. If someone snaps a picture of a Google executive scratching their ass in their own home with a telephoto lens, this is an invasion of privacy facilitated by technology. I don't know shit about this - maybe there are privacy laws that would be violated by this action. Searching for juicy personal information is a more powerful but similar technique. Maybe there ought to be privacy laws that would protest this kind of information.
It's complicated. But publishing the executive's juicy bits was just a bullshit sophomore PR move probably designed to get attention more than make a coherent statement. And this bullshit sophomoric "apology" you've written is either designed to get attention more than make a coherent statement - or you guys can't tell the difference.
Google:
Slowly, but surely, they drew their plans against us.
There is no way Google is going to accept this insincere rambling as an apology, so what was your point in writing it? This leader continues the smear campaign that you've instigated against Google. Why don't you come clean and tell your readers what your real gripe is against Google instead of making up allegations of corporate evil that you've exagerated into existence.
I hope Google does ban you. There is such a thing as responsible journalism, and judging by your "apology," all CNET companies seem to be incapable of it.
Well said, sarastic and excellent.
You are hereby banned and blacklisted for 2 years !
Regards,
Eric E. Schmidt
Could the author of this article publish his details, place of birth, sexual frustrations and the possible availability of his mom for dating on top of this article as well?
Single out yourself, if you want to put someone into the spotlights. There's a good sport. What CNet did was to play foul, IMO.
Congratulations - with your unrepentant attitude and sophomoric sarcasm you've clearly identified yourselves as the bad guys here.
The original article buried what should have been two interesting cautionery stories (about the information trails we leave behind us and Google's questionable data retention policies) under a mountain of unnecessary privacy-invasion and cheap personal shots. It was utterly unnecessary (and you had no right) to explictiely identify the person you'd researched, and selecting Google's CEO was a blatant attack both on his person and the company, making it very obvious the author had some kind of axe to grind.
A professional journalist, acting with integrity, would either have anonymised the person but reported a frightening selection of facts about them or "objectively" researched their own (or a colleague's) life. They would certainly have asked permission before publicly holding anyone up to such unwanted scrutiny.
Simply because the information is out there, that doesn't justify publicising it. Light is constantly bouncing off your body when you're at home, but that wouldn't justify poking a camera through the blinds and taking naked photos of the "journalist" who caused this furore, would it?
Granted, Google appears to have over-reacted in blacklisting CNet for a year, but it was both the journalist *and* CNet the company who allowed this hatchet-job to be posted to the site, and since you've left yourself open to lawsuits for such blatant and deliberate infringement of privacy I'd say you got off lightly.
With this childish attempt at getting one more dig in you demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is more about a personal vendetta against Google, and not (as you will no doubt claim) reporting in the public interest.
This is doubly uncalled-for, because Google themselves are the ones making this information available. Unless you are seriously arguing for the abolishment of all search engines (which would pretty much render the web useless), it should be obvious to all that the onus is on the user to use their service responsibly. Congratulations - you are the first entity to publicly prove that you can't.
In addition, your sensationalist methods have quite obscured the *important* parts of this debate - how to deal with the increasing transparency of an information society, and Google's data retention policies. If you were trying to make any point at all in the public interest, you have therefore failed miserably.
You should know that this pathetic display has quite turned around my opinion of the integrity and professionalism of ZDNet and CNet both, and I will no longer be using your websites or purchasing your publications in any form.
Ahhhh...There is nothing quite so refreshing as a fresh blast of English sarcasm to start the morning with.
Kudos to you, "Leader" for your take on this embarrasing fit of American Corporate Indignation. As an American myself, I rejoice in your pithy lampooning of some of my fellow citizens and I welcome your future comments and sage advice.
Google Me Anytime.
Its funny how CNET has the nerve to say Google is throwing a childish tantrum, yet its CNET and ZDnet publishing childish articles almost as if they were pleaing for the sympathy of the public. The job of a journalist is to report news and let the public decide for itself, however, ZDnet (maybe acting on the behalf of their counterpart, CNET) publishes articles to disway readers into shedding a tear for their tasteless writers.
Google is a powerful crawler and most people underestimate its capabilities, so yes, every one knows you can find what you're looking for as long as you form the right question to get the answer. Privacy is not a good issue, it can only be fixed from the source. Maybe people should stop being ignorant and know how to protect themselves instead of relying on FREE PUBLIC SERVICES to do it for them.
ZDNet and CNET may as well just be tabloids... or politicians.
Sarcastic snobbery aside-- Google is within their rights to talk to whomever they want to.
As Michael Chriction points out through Malcom in
Jurassic park the principle of 'it's not whether you can
do something, it's whether you should do something."
I can't really see what Elinor Mills wrote that was so
objectionable to take offense at. But Google or Mr. Schmidt
is within their rights to choose to talk/or not to talk to anyone
they see fit. [It's also the news agencies and then our, the readers, choice to listen or not.]
I don't see what's got Google all upset.
But this response just seems petty and childish.
Nice to see someone actually stand up the the childish fit thrown by Google. The response out of the "first do no evil" organization was worse than my 4yro child. Slap them with the snarkiness bat again, maybe someone will finally see the light.
pathetic...apologize for this? please tell me what your peer did wrong in writing that story? google is fast becoming the next microsoft and we need to watch them closely...
gotta say i lost a little respect for google, they're heading down the same path as the other giants in their industry
Is it means that Google rule the world?
Hahahaha beautiful piece of writing! A fitting answer to google's infantile response - does anyone get the sense of being taken into a kindergatten playground by all this.
Quite frankly, I dont think the original article called for an apology (and evidently neither did the write of this "apology"). All it did was raise privacy concerns associated with the power of googles search technology and some of their business practices.
As for those who buy googles "don't be evil" rubbish... please!!! If you cannot distinguish between corporate puffery and reality, perhaps you are not old enough to be let out of the playground on your own.
Thats my word.
Hey Eric...What's up with the Yahoo email account?
GMail not good enough for you?
Yea. I know. You can crush me like a bug.
What amuses me are the reponses to ths article attempting to defend Google. Do you guys actually understand what happened here?
Just so we are clear, News.com - a sister company to ZDNet published a story highlighting the amount of personal imformation available on the web via google. To illustrate this they used Google to search for and find detailed personal information about Googles CEO Eric Schmidt. There was nothing untrue, erroneous or misleading about this information. It was all publicly available via Google without any kind of specialist work involved in finding it. It took just 30 minutes to put together. Eric then appears to have thrown a hissy fit and Google are now refusing to talk to any News.com reporters for a period of 12 months. Because News.com published freely available information found using Google's own search engine. Go figure.
So, for those of you defending google over this, just what grounds can you put forward that mean Googles actions are not one of the biggest corporate snits in recent history?
Functionally illiterate... that's what I'm thinking as I read further down the posts... How is it that the intentional irony of this article's title is lost on so many people? Far too many are to literal in their reading, expecting to find some humble apology and then get offended when they don't get it and end up using words like "sophomoric" in their righteous indignation...
Oh, grow up!
GR,
Here, Here. Has the rest of the world forgotton how to recognise sarcasm and satire when they see it?
Then again both these seems to be very British ways of poking fun at those in positions of power.
I am not sure what your organization expects in the this case. On one hand you claim to be a "news" site, on the other you have editorials where you purposefully provoked a war the CEO of a powerful company. As "harsh" and "humiliting" it may be to have a one year suspension, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Its "his" company, he is under no legal or moral obligation to give you the time of day.
Its not that you (CNET) deserved this, but you should have expected it. Throwing a tantrum wont solve anything, learn and move on.
brilliant british beating...
Google isn't mad because of the posting of some pedestrian details of Eric Schmidt's life. They're mad because Elinor Mills raised real privacy issues surrounding the profiling and retention of user data. Unfortunately, publishing Schmidt's details distracted from the true nature of the story, simultaneously giving Google a convenient way to whitewash the whole thing under the guise of irresponsible journalism. It seems the rest of the press is happily colluding by focusing on a rather inconsequential (and offtopic) introductory paragraph to the detriment of the real story.
The profiles Google keeps of its users are essential to their business model. Google services are the best in the business, no one would argue that. And I'm sure that they make a good faith effort to safeguard that data, given its strategic important, but as Internet users we have to ask ourselves whether that's enough... even from a company who's motto is "Do No Evil".
Hmmm, if Google wants you to censor your articles, perhaps it should censor the information it provides. If your author truly gleened everything from Google itself that was put into the article, and if Google finds the publication of that same information objectionable, then perhaps Google should not have made that information available to the public at large in the first place.
Sounds like sour grapes ZDNET... suck it up and quit bitching.
What the paparazzi does is technically legal too, but we still consider them to be privacy invading cockbags. Congratulations ZDnet. You're acquiring a reputation as the paparazzi cockbags of the Internet.
ROFL
oops!
You guys crawl so pretty :D
I'm surprised at the number of commenters here who don't understand sarcasm.
The needle on the clue meter hasn't gone past zero yet.
Its not so much that you shouldn't report concerns over privacy or any other topic for that matter. What really pissed google off in my opinion is the fact that you used their CEO as a target when the fact remains that any search engine that is doing its job would give you the same results. If the information is out there on a publicly accessable website then it is google's job to index it for searching. The fact that "private" information is available is not googles fault, but the fault of the websites which published the information. Also its one thing to look up some information on someone its another to compile the information and redistribute it without consulting them first. I know plenty of people and could dig up plenty of information on their "personal" live, but I don't go flashing it on the internet. Lastly I find your "apology" to be a pathetic attempt at sarcasim and hope that google does include you in the blackout just for this article.
"Only the Brits could come up with an apology that bitch slaps the org"
God Bless 'em!!
Very funny, indeed. Shame on you for accessing publicly available information. All despots require secrecy. It has always been so.
I wish the US sister company had the good forsight to post this "heartfelt apology".
I think we should all Beware as gOOgle is watching. Wooops I meant All hail Google and the free flow of information!
That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Keep up the good work. I tried ZDNet out to find a database download, but after reading all the nonsense about Google pouting, I think I'll check out your news pages more often.
My estimation of this sites readership has gone down, of the magazine, it has gone up.
Good for them. CNET and it's sisters deserve a ban after that sorry, insincere excuse for an apology.
Bravo!!!
Glad to see SOMEONE has the backbone to speak out against this AND the ability to do it with style and incisive wit. You Brits have shown us Americans how it is done. Hope your counterparts here in the States are taking notes, instead of cowering under their desks.
The motto of the State of Virginia is "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus Ever to Tyrants). Ironic that we seem to have forgotten how to deal with them and we must now take lessons from our friends across the pond.
Well done.
I don't see how anyone can see the response from Google as justifiable here?
Google produced publically accessible data; to then use that publically accessible data on another publically accessible site... what is the issue? There is no invasion of privacy; at least not by the 2nd use.
Google are showing their arse as they often do whenever their motives, business practices, privacy or other considerations are questioned. Basically whenever anyone asks anything of them that they don't like.
Very unimpressed.
Congratulations! This was an excellent, well written response that SHOULD come across as a slap in the face to Google, who seems to not enjoy the notion of freedom of the press and freedom of information.
Google deserved this, and I applaud you for responding as such.
Google thinks it rules the world. If tomorrow Google ceases to exist, will the internet be different ? Of course not. It is just that everyone will flock to another search engine and another Google will emerge. But Google does not seem to understand this. Just because it has seen such marvellous growth, and has got loads of cash, Google thinks it can do as it pleases. Well...
--
Nothing is permanent. Change is the only constant. [const change;]
Could CNET/ZDnet and Google please show professionalism and talk about it without bothering us? Sounds to me as both have something to explain... ZDNet for targetting Google's CEO, and Google for excluding CNET in its search...
Oh yeah. Cumshot at google's face.
Wasn't Google's motto 'Don't be evil'?
It's going with this the same way as Microsoft?
Will Yahoo and other search engines follow this path?
Don't worry, Microsoft MSN search will save all us!.