Story: Google: An Apology
Posted by: Shockwave (Wednesday 10 August 2005, 6:16 PM)
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 Nicoḷ 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.
Full Talkback thread
Story: Google: An Apology
-
My snarkiness meter's going nuts! espd -
That's not an apology, that's a slap in the face.... Anonymous
-
Sarcasm is the refuge of the weak. Abram Nichols -
Well said. Speaking as a US technology worker wit... Jonathon Doe
-
I really enjoy the conditions that you put on your... Ed Stankiewicz
-
Only the Brits could come up with an apology that... Marc Schlenker
-
"Only the Brits could come up with an apology... chahn
-
While the orginal published article about chief ex... Shockwave -
Could CNET/ZDnet and Google please show profe... Raoul Teeuwen
-
ahhhhh, The good old days, When the ARAP... itmeens u kntakeajoke -
Oh wow, Cnet really is showing it's true colors. W... Why would I give you guys my name?
-
Hahahaha beautiful piece of writing! A fittin... GR
-
Sounds like sour grapes ZDNET... suck it up a... Anonymous
-
Great piece of writing! Felix Ramos
-
Weirdness. If someone snaps a picture of a Google... Anonymous
-
Functionally illiterate... that's what I'm th... GR
-
GR,
Here, Here. Has the rest of the wo... Dave
-
Google:
Slowly, but surely, they drew their plans... Wildey Monkey
-
There is no way Google is going to accept this ins... Kevin Forbes
-
Well said, sarastic and excellent. iyerns
-
You are hereby banned and blacklisted fo... Eric E. Schmidt
-
I hope Google does ban you. There is such a thing... Anonymous
-
Could the author of this article publish his detai... feedback
-
Congratulations - with your unrepentant attitude a... James
-
I don't see how anyone can see the response f... Andrew Davidson
-
Ahhhh...There is nothing quite so refreshing as a... Alan McSwain
-
Nice to see someone actually stand up the the... Anonymous
-
Hey Eric...What's up with the Yahoo email acc... Alan McSwain
-
Its funny how CNET has the nerve to say Google is... marc
-
Sarcastic snobbery aside-- Google is within their... j.m.
-
pathetic...apologize for this? please tell me wha... Anonymous
-
gotta say i lost a little respect for google, they... Anonymous
-
Is it means that Google rule the world? Takács Sándor
-
ZDNet - I thought better of you. Are you not... Anonymous
-
I don't get this.
Google is a publically trad... Anonymous
-
In response to the previous comment....... Anonymous
-
What amuses me are the reponses to ths article att... Dave
-
I am not sure what your organization expects in th... Brad
-
brilliant british beating... mumta
-
Google isn't mad because of the posting of some pe... Gabe da Silveira
-
What the paparazzi does is technically legal... Ben
-
Hmmm, if Google wants you to censor your articles,... Anonymous
-
ROFL
oops!
You guys crawl so pretty :D Anonymous
-
I'm surprised at the number of commenters here who... Anonymous
-
Ah, yes...and here I always thought sarcasm w... Anonymous
-
Its not so much that you shouldn't report concerns... Anonymous
-
Very funny, indeed. Shame on you for accessing pub... Vernon R. Martin
-
I wish the US sister company had the good forsight... Travellar05
-
That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a... Vasco de Sousa
-
My estimation of this sites readership has go... Eric Van Hoolenburger
-
Good for them. CNET and it's sisters deserve a ba... Tony L. Franzese
-
Bravo!!!
Glad to see SOMEONE has the backbone to s... Karim
-
Congratulations! This was an excellent, well writt... Harpalus
-
Google thinks it rules the world. If tomorrow... const change;
-
Oh yeah. Cumshot at google's face. Barrapunto
-
Wasn't Google's motto 'Don't be evil'?
It's going... Don't be Evil
-
Is it surprising that all the rants at this "apolo... kedaha
-
MISSES THE POINT: Google's CEO wasn't angry about... Michael B
-
No, YOU missed the point. The article wasn't... John G
-
Agree with John G.
Also, I think that th... Anonymous
-
Google's "attitude" is clearly shown by the fact t... J. Michael Keating
-
Or, at least, don't use Google to do your searches... Michael Odza
-
1984 bigbrother is here, zdnet should go into more... Dc s
-
classic! great stuff Anonymous
-
VOTE WITH YOUR MOUSE... there are plenty of other... HowardB
-
So many idiots, not enough room to slate them... Queen Liz
-
What??
So the inventors of the atomic bomb are wro... Sam Ud-din
Back to: Google: An Apology
