OSNews

The MAIN POINT to consider here is these were PEOPLE IN KENYA that were responsible. That they happened to work for Google instead of someone else is the red herring. Corruption in Kenya is rampant, and it affects EVERYONE, even Google. If you RTFA, you would see that Google, the parent company, set up the sting that trapped their Kenyan employees who were doing this. So Google IS living up to their motto, even if the odd employee in places of extreme corruption are not.

Now, wait a minute. Before I respond to you, I would like to make sure that I understand your argument. IIRC, you are saying that Google (a company for which I have high respect) is not to blame. And that we shouldn't worry about having large amounts of valuable private information stored by them, because the *real* problem is that all those damn niggers in Kenya are corrupt.

Did I get that right? If so, I have some objections to your stance.

*Wow*
Spin doctor of the day!

A slight application of hyperbole to make a point. The sky is not falling. But there is reasonable cause for concern. Complacency kills.

Wow...

I know that you probably think that you were being not racist or anti-racist by hyperbolically exposing what you saw as the latent racist intent of the preceding comment with an incredibly offensive and vulgar term, but in fact all you did was unnecessarily add a racial component that had no place whatsoever, neither in the conversation nor in the original poster's point.

As a matter of fact, Kenya is notorious for its endemic corruption at all levels of society and government; JLF65's point was that in a country with a culture of corruption, it is unsurprising that the local operations of foreign multinationals get bound up in that corruption. This is due to the endemic nature of the corruption in the country rather than the corruption of the company itself.

It's so obvious that that's what JLF65 is saying that it really makes me wonder why you are making a link between race and corruption. On the eve of a day (in the U.S., at least) meant to commemorate the memory of a great civil rights leader, maybe it should make you wonder, too.

P.S.: I have some sympathy if you are perhaps not an American or unfamiliar with the implications of that word you used to describe black Kenyans, but you should know that people generally find it not only offensive but personally hurtful whenever its used regardless of the speaker's intent, whether it be ironic or well-intentioned or not.

Assuming the "upper-echelons" at Google knew nothing about this, then I see your point, but that's what happens when you're a big-ass multinational company.

All the interns are probably goody-goody-my-little-pony over at Goog's main HQ, but the same can't be said for staff further from the mothership. "Rogue employees" are everywhere, MS, Apple, Google and they're all trying to make a quick buck. It's the cost of expansion. Sooner or later, the "collective-zaibatsu" mentally dies and the daily salaryman starts worrying about his own ass... human nature.

But at the end of the day, like it or not, the company/corporation should be held responsible regardless. It's their name that was being used in the "scam" and it's the individual(s) they hired that caused it. External forces like the country's corruption index or whether the individual went into debt because of his wife's gambling habits are secondary.

Kind of an unfair generalization here, but imagine if a worker at Bridgestone intentionally let out a malfunctioning tyre, which ends up being the cause of someone's death on the freeway somewhere. Yes, they could track the guy down and even send him to jail, but that doesn't excuse Bridgestone in the least.

I didn't say that excused them, and certainly Google itself didn't feel it excused them... they were apologizing and trying to make things right with the people affected. They accepted responsibility for what their employees did... unlike many other companies we've seen in the news who feel that once a scapegoat is designated, the company is spotless.

Google isn't perfect, but they're miles ahead of the competition when it comes to responsible corporate actions. Most don't even feel that they've done any wrong so long as it makes the shareholders money. "The bottom line is the only consideration." It's been the corporate mantra for decades now.

If you read the blog post is was not just Kenyans calling. There were also calls from Google India.

I think that ship sailed long ago.
Only the most gullible and blue-eyed person would ever think that slogan meant anything.



Sure but on the other hand it's impossible to completely prevent abuse. The fact that some idiotic employees did something incredibly stupid doesn't necessarily reflect badly on google the company,

My eyes are dark brown. But... I'm still just gullible enough to think that Google is doing a damned fine job.

Mon Dieu! The good they do. The quality educational programming they provide. The quality search service they provide. The way they stood up in that face-off against the Chinese government when it would have been much easier, safer, and probably more lucrative to just accede to the demands.

Still, somewhere in the back of my mind, there is an anti-complacency alarm going off regarding the arsenal of data they hold. Maybe nothing to worry about. But no Pollyanna am I. ;-)

-Steve

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577155003097...

Oops. Scratch that one of your list.

No. Their pulling out of China was always of questionable value, IMO. It's the clever ways they came up with for *remaining* in China while circumventing the Great Firewall that were of the greatest value.

I would strongly argue that while pulling out makes a nice political or moral statement, you really can't address the problems in China without *engaging* in China.

We'll have to watch what happens and evaluate accordingly. The potential for future abuse of the concentration of data they hold (either by a future ownership/managerment, or by rogue employees) concerns me.

But for now, I think that Google itself, in its current incarnation is still golden.

Come on. Even if you don't agree with their actions in China today, when was the last time *you* faced off with one of the most powerful governments in the world?

-Steve

"Even if you don't agree with their actions in China today, when was the last time *you* faced off with one of the most powerful governments in the world?"

Why would I even posit such a silly question and think it says anything about Google?

The question is: do I actually think Google "stood up to" China when they are now admitting they need China's business and are looking to reverse or at least increase other business in China not long after?

The answer is: No, I don't.

It was an important market. They were trying to act as ethically as possible in a difficult situation. And they let their ethical stance and strategy cause them to make a rash move which, in retrospect, may not have been the wisest move, from either the standpoint of their ethical or business goals.


Years after.

But I've learned to limit the time I allocate to people promoting agendas *against* this or that. Rarely is it a productive use of time.

You hate Google? Fine. I am merely concerned about particulars.

I will continue to watch, wait, and evaluate according to my observations.

Years after - LOL...

I think Google is going to conclude that this is totally a personal misbehavior of the employee, hence it absolutely has nothing to do with Google.

Twitter pulled out of a deal with Google. Facebook is entirely closed off. Nw they are complaining about Google+? Pussies. The fact of the matter is that had Google included Twitter and Facebook data anyway, those two (and the anti-Google/pro-Apple standing army with them) would have screamed bloody murder *as well*.

This is such non-news.

It's such non-news that when you mentioned it, I didn't know what you were talking about, even though I read all about it a couple of days ago when it was the big story.

I agree with you. I think that Google would be happy to index all of Twitter and Facebook, but it makes strategic sense for Twitter and Facebook to exert more control over their ecosystems, and that's fine. But then you don't get to complain about Google favoring its own social network.

I think it is a mistake to be sanguine about this.

Here is some interesting analysis

http://marketingland.com/schmidt-google-not-favored-happy-to-talk-t...

http://www.benedelman.org/news/011212-1.html

http://parislemon.com/post/15664060982/misdirection-doublespeak-non...

This article is so wrong I don't know where to begin. My goodness.

-1 for trolling.

Look up the article history on OSNews. Heck, just check the Android review. I'm not going to read a comment that starts with that nonsense.

-1 for trolling.

Look up the article history on OSNews. Heck, just check the Android review. I'm not going to read a comment that starts with that nonsense. "


I started my comment with that because you ended yours with this:



Your response conveniently means you don't have to respond to any of my points (which I thought were reasonably laid out). You think what happened with Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Google search is a non-issue. Not worth of a discussion. Insignificant. I was suggesting that it is was indicative of a business model whose affects on the web and upon all of us was worth a critical look.

Got chased away from DailyTech again, I see.

I agree that Thom does give the impression that he's a Goo-lover at times, but it pales in comparison to the butt-f*ck fest you have going on with Apple.

Leaving aside our differences - have you noticed something wrong with the commenting system at Dailey Tech in recent days? Its seems to have frozen up. I wanted to know it wasn't a problem at my end. I tried accessing the site via different browsers and different OS's but the comments system seems to have locked up. Are you seeing this as well?

Yes, I was rather crude there, excuse my behaviour.

Regarding DT, I don't know and couldn't care less. I'm not signed up there and just click on DT articles linked on AnandTech every once in a while. OSnews is the only site I come to troll on. The comment system at DT is probably as flawed as the voting system on OSnews, but no tech-site does this right anyways.

Blame Apple for the advent of the tasteless hipster (hipsters in the past had taste, at least) and I'll get flamed by you, insult WP7/MS or the general uptightness of .NET devs and I'll get flamed by that maximus fellow, insult Android and call it a bloated Java-VM that took the freedom it promised the people and gave it to OEMs and Carriers instead (becoming the Windows of the smartphone world in the process), and everyone else here will flame me.

Doesn't change anything.

That's OK. Generally it's always better to attack the ideas rather than the person but we all slip sometimes. I know I do. There is some thing about internet text based discourse (email, commenting etc) that seems to militate against civility.

You are being unfair.

For such a large amount of quality trolling on any kind of company fanboy, I would give you a +1 (Insightful).

There is really no such good OS product on the market today that any OS-manufacturing company deserves its users' protection. Which is why maintaining computer hardware open to new OS actors is so important...

Oh but it's but a drop in the ocean compared to your goatse bend-over for Apple.



Yes, nothing bolsters your case like linking to a random, ill-conceived and unsubstantiated rant on the internet.

Oh but it's but a drop in the ocean compared to your goatse bend-over for Apple. "

Careful now, he might accuse you of "Apple phobia" for mocking his "lifestyle choice".

http://www.osnews.com/thread?500815

So you're saying that in order to have an open web, we need have to user data locked up in silos. In other words, your Google anti-fanboyism is so single-minded that you blindly assume "it must be good if it's bad for Google."

So you're saying that in order to have an open web, we need have to user data locked up in silos. In other words, your Google anti-fanboyism is so single-minded that you blindly assume "it must be good if it's bad for Google." "


What I am interested in is what is the core dynamic of the different tech giants and what this means for the broader tech scene. Because Google gives so much stuff, often very nice stuff, away for free and talks about being 'open' a lot, it's easy to not see what Google really does as a business and therefore what drives it and what one can expect from it.

As I said Google collects user data to sell advertising. That's it, that's it's sole business. That's the sole way that Google makes money. Everything it does is about ensuring it can collect the maximum user data and sell the most advertising. Google is a rambling entity and so it does many different things simultaneously sometimes very efficiently sometimes less so but everything it does is done to ensure that all user data of everyone on the web is accessible by Google.

This means that Google sees any areas of the internet that are closed to itself as being a threat, they need to be pried open or routed around (usually by just launching a free version and thus destroying the revenue stream of the closed area). Those closed areas are only closed to Google, they are not closed to users who might find them very useful or attractive (for example Facebook).

Sometimes this means Google champions open standards sometimes this means Google champions the rights of carriers and supports moves to end net neutrality. Google does not have a set of principals, merely a core business dynamic that produces a core corporate culture. If it's closed to Google then make it open up.

This may or may not alarm or concern one. It depends on what one thinks is important. It does mean though that if a new area of internet activity and of innovation develops which generates user data then it will automatically attract Google's attention. If the user data from the new activity is open for collection by Google and if it does not offer an alternative non-Google source of advertising then it may not move against that new area of activity. If it is closed to Google then it will almost certainly move against the new activity. I think that that probably militates against innovation in the long run.

I for one find Google's drive to be the universal intermediary on the internet a bit disturbing, I would prefer there to be many intermediaries none of them overwhelming dominate or powerful. Other people may think that getting lots of free stuff is so cool it doesn't matter.

The main thing though is to not pretend that Google is anything other than what it is. The world's largest advertising company.

I just posted my previous post and then I came across this article which seems to be a fairly cogent critique of what Google has done with Goole+ and Search. Worth a read I think.

http://searchengineland.com/to-understand-google-favoritism-think-y...

None of what you wrote is wrong.

The problem is that you usually act as if you are the only one who has seen the light, and that you must now bring the light to the poor unwashed masses locked in the darkness that is Google's cave. The problem is - the cave is already electrically lit with LED lights, a few people brought a snooker table, installed a bar, an arcade, several 50" big screen TVs, and loads of computers to hold a LAN party, while sunlight is let in through beautiful skylights.

The gist: don't act as if you are the only one who is aware of Google's enormous potential for evil. We know. We are fully aware. Just because we don't reiterate it every post in bold doesn't mean we think Google is all that is good in the world.

The cold and harsh truth is, though, that if you look at the track records of the three biggest companies in technology, Google's is a shade of heavenly white with a few dubious stains on it, whereas Apple's and Microsoft's are pitch-black. Google's, Microsoft's, and Apple's potentials for evil are all huge - it's just that one of these three has - so far - done relatively little with its potential.

That is not to say they will remain that way forever - just that as it stands now, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to trust any of these three, past behaviour indicates Google is your best bet.

For now.

Genuine question: what do you think that Apple has done that is evil?

Well, I guess the trick here is that careful argumentation must be given as to why something is good or evil. Anyway, here we go, in roughly historical order :

-Claiming overall ownership of the concepts of graphical user interface introduced at Xerox PARC, then attempting to refuse any other legal arrangement than pulling the competing product (Windows 2 IIRC) out of the market, in order to keep a lucrative monopoly on GUI interfaces.

-Introducing the "iPod connector". From an engineering point of view, it is a waste, as the already existing mini-USB standard was capable of everything that this connector was, in a smaller and easier to use form factor. From a customer point of view, it meant paying something like €30 for a freaking wire each time you lost it or broke that 30-pin socket. The only one benefiting from this were Apple, who could sell overpriced wires instead of leaving it to more competent manufacturers.

-Still in the iPod family, introducing the world's first example of nonstandard earphones with the iPod Shuffle 3G. Basically, if you lost or broke the bundled earphones, you also lost the remote control of your MP3 player, and thus were forced to buy new ones either from Apple or from one of their partners with the premium that one may imagine.

-Setting the trend of making the batteries of consumer products as difficult to buy and replace by the user as possible, in order to ensure that the company selling the device remains the only supplier of an accessory that would otherwise be readily sold elsewhere at a much more competitive price point.

-The iOS ecosystem is so full of legally-enforced monopolies that barely make sense that I don't know where to begin...

-...so let's talk about the hardware it runs on : Apple have apparently managed to patent design drafts that represent a slab-like device of rounded rectangular shape. Nice trick, I have to admit, they deserve the same kind of admiration as Al Capone or Madoff for that. But then making use of the legal leverage that this gives in an attempt to ban competing products from the market ? Come on...

I leave it to others to complete this list.

They're patent trolls. Heck, they're software patent trolls. Considering software patents are by far the biggest threat to the technology industry I hold so dearly, it's pretty easy to see why I believe Apple and Microsoft are evil - especially since they do it beneath this thin veil of innovationjobsstealingmurica many people are taken in by.

I've only said this like a billion times, but alas.

All companies work for maximizing their income. Therefore, most companies will not hesitate to do anything evil (by our standards) if it can give them either more money or more control that can be used to sip more money.

Once you are aware of this, the main question becomes "is what this company is doing beneficial to me or people I like" ? Myself, I appreciate the "closed silos" argument given above and which you conveniently ignore : I really don't want a Facebook account, so I would appreciate it if I could have read-only access to the website by other means.

So basically your revised argument is the same as your previous one, but with a few more repetitions of the "OMG advertising company" handwaving. It's hard to tell exactly what your point is, because you dance it around it some much, but it appears to be this:

Actions can only have beneficial results if the motivations for them are 100% "pure"/altruistic. Which is like arguing that it would be bad if someone accidentally discovered a cure for cancer in process of trying to develop a penis enlargement pill.

Oh, and:

In other words, you've made a self-serving assumption that people only support Google out of naïveté (also known as a "Strawman argument").

Why? It's their search engine... they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Same with Microsoft.

The whole operation got moved to India ... someone further up the food chain must have known what was going on.

Oh the irony...

Pinky and The Brain, obviously. Everyone knows that!!

pfft, no way.. Stewie is the mastermind!!