Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Jun 2011 19:48 UTC
Google Well, here we have another attempt. After the failure of the overly complicated Google Wave (remember that? It was supposed to change the world and all that), Google is undertaking another attempt at social networking. It's called Google+. Update: Forget the crap I wrote here, this article is seven pages on insider information on Google+. Surprised by the beautiful interface? It's been designed by Andy Hertzfeld. The Andy Hertzfeld.
Thread beginning with comment 479177
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

It was an article I wrote. Not one I just linked to.

Like I said, Google fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys. You honestly don't anything wrong with their atrocious privacy practices? And their strong arm tactics to intimidate the IT press into not saying unfavorable things about Google, by imposing media blackouts on them when they do? Like what happened to CNet?

Reply Parent Score: 2

atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

It was an article I wrote. Not one I just linked to.
Well, since Thom is the arbiter of everything accessible on the internet, I see why you can't share your article with us.

Like I said, Google fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys.
...Are as bad as Sun Microsystem fanboys are as bad as yogurt fanboys are as bad as astronomy fanboys. I can keep doing that because it's just filler text that doesn't actually carry meaning.

You honestly don't anything wrong with their atrocious privacy practices?
I'd love to review the privacy policies of every one of their services, but I only have 60 years at best to continue living. You mind revealing which pet concern you have with them?

I do IT in Academia, and the only issue we've had doing business with Google is that their privacy policy conflicts with ours for faculty email. I'd hardly qualify it as 'atrocious'.

And their strong arm tactics to intimidate the IT press into not saying unfavorable things about Google, by imposing media blackouts on them when they do? Like what happened to CNet?
Six years ago, the company declared they wouldn't speak to CNet reporters for about a year because they posted as much of Eric Schmidt's personal info as they could find through the search engine. Yeah, for attempting to astroturf a Streisand effect against Google's Chairman, they earned that. Oh, and just not talking to CNet's reporters hardly qualifies as a media blackout. It's not like they were barred from doing research on the company.

Reply Parent Score: 1

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

You mind revealing which pet concern you have with them?


I'm afraid I can't narrow it down to one. So I will list several of them.

* Indefinite data retention policy. The fact that Google never destroys the information they gather about you. It will exist until the end of time, or the end of Google. Which ever comes first.

* The Google Buzz fiasco. You remember that one right? When Google automatically publically shared the data about what other Google users people contacted most frequently? Without asking user's permission first? They got hit with a class action lawsuit over that one. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center both widely condemned Google's actions and filed complaints with the Federal Trade Comission

* Wifigate. - Maybe some people are gullible enough to believe Google's story that it was an all an accident and unintentional. But not me. We are supposed to believe that they accidentally added packet sniffing code to the software in their Google street view cars that mined and stored gigabytes of data from unencrypted wifi connections? Sorry, but I find it really hard to believe you could do that by accident.

* The Google Super Cookie - For lack of a better name for it. You know, the cookie that tracks you and sends your browsing data back to Google anytime you visit a site that is part of Google's ad network.

* Email scanning - I think when it comes to your personal email, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, just as you do with mail you send through the U.S. post office. So the fact that Google scans your personal email to build an advertising profile about you is not only unethical. But it should be illegal. Again, unfortunately it is not illegal. Although there are laws in place to protect the privacy of your personal snail mail, there are currently no laws in place to protect the privacy of your email.

And one that is just brewing now that I haven't had time to look into much. A class action lawsuit against Google about Android location tracking, which they then sell to commercial companies.

So there's the list of things I have concerns about.

Six years ago, the company declared they wouldn't speak to CNet reporters for about a year because they posted as much of Eric Schmidt's personal info as they could find through the search engine. Yeah, for attempting to astroturf a Streisand effect against Google's Chairman, they earned that.


Ah. I see how it works now. Google indexes every single public tidbit of information about someone. But then they punish you if you actually use their search engine to find it and use it in a report. Seems a bit hypocritical of them if you ask me.

And besides, Eric Schmidt was CEO of one of the largest companies in the world. That makes him a person of public interest and he should expect that people are going to publish any information they can find out about him.

Reply Parent Score: 2