Story: Google: An Apology
Posted by: Anonymous (Thursday 18 August 2005, 11:22 PM)
In response to the previous comment.... This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Doing what you fear might happen to make your point isn't smart it's stupid. Connecting the points together in the way the article did was not clever journalism, but irresponsible. Have you heard of the phrase – two wrongs don't make a right?
To suggest Google are open targets because they hold private data, is naive. It's what they do with it that counts. My doctor, dentist, bank, gym have details on me that could be sold on by disgruntled employees. Add to the list, shops, my employer, restaurants, sky tv, phone provider (they even know where I go!) – the list is massive. If you don't like the data Google collect you don't have to use it - or Yahoo, AOL and the rest.
That said people need to understand what it is that they hold so they can make an informed choice. But this article wasn't trying to make a serious point, but to rather childishly take a sideswipe in response to something CNET weren't happy about.
Google provide a valuable service, which yes, does require great responsibility, checks and balances. Attacking them in such a way doesn't take the debate forward. It's just petty tabloid journalism. This is something I would expect to see in the Sun newspaper, not ZDNet.
Are we just trying to make Google the new Microsoft whipping boys? But then again, some people just like to see a bit of a fight between two organisations…. fair point then.
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
