[IP] more on more on Google refuses to speak with news organization after critical story... for one year [fs]
I clearly agree with Lauren . djf
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 7, 2005 7:38:50 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lauren@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Google refuses to speak with news
organization after critical story... for one year [fs]
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/