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 479288
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
atriq
Member since:
2007-10-18

In all of your complaints against them, I see one instance of privacy oversight (Google Buzz), and one actual instance where they crossed a line (Wifi incident). Oh, and I have a hard time getting flustered over another zombie cookie implementation. For the rest of it, it seems that you just don't like the revenue model. As an end user, they sell their services for information. If you'd rather pay for email and search services with cash, find another service.

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.
Then I would disagree if I asked you. CNet has a huge following, and by them shoving Schmidt's personal information into the spotlight was an abuse of their power. I'd expect and support similar actions if Slashdot did the same to Steve Balmer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

In all of your complaints against them, I see one instance of privacy oversight (Google Buzz), and one actual instance where they crossed a line (Wifi incident).


Well, again. I guess I consider privacy more important than you.

Oh, and I have a hard time getting flustered over another zombie cookie implementation.


There are issues with this. Possibly even legal ones. When I visit www.randomsite.com, I never agree to allow Google to collect any information about me. And I visit randomsite.com without being aware that it will happen unless I already know in advance that they use Google ads. The fact that Google is collecting this information without the user of randomsite.com giving their consent is a potential legal issue for Google if someone were to decide to pursue it.

And as far as email, I already said that I don't use GMail anymore. I use one that respects the privacy of my email and doesn't scan it.

Then I would disagree if I asked you. CNet has a huge following, and by them shoving Schmidt's personal information into the spotlight was an abuse of their power.


Again, it was all publicly available information that they got off of Google itself. I don't see how it's an abuse. Google is effectively taking the stance that it's unethical for you to use personal information you find about people on Google, but it's not unethical for them to index the personal information in the first place. It's very hypocritical.

I'd expect and support similar actions if Slashdot did the same to Steve Balmer.


That would imply that:

1: Slashdot is still relevant. It's not.

2: Ballmer would care. I doubt that he actually would.

Reply Parent Score: 2

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

When I visit www.randomsite.com, I never agree to allow Google to collect any information about me. And I visit randomsite.com without being aware that it will happen unless I already know in advance that they use Google ads. The fact that Google is collecting this information without the user of randomsite.com giving their consent is a potential legal issue for Google if someone were to decide to pursue it.


I highly doubt this. If it were true, someone already would have sued them. Just because you think it should be illegal doesn't make it actually so. When I walk into a mall, I'm sure I'm being recorded on all kinds of security cameras. I never gave my consent for that, either, but there's no law which says private companies can't record what's happening on their private property (which in this case would be their own website).

Anyway, I would argue that the owner of the www.randomsite.com website is the one you should be complaining to about this. They are the ones that chose to place Google ads on their page, knowing that it would given Google information about anyone visiting their site. They did so in exchange for money from Google. I don't see how Google is doing anything wrong in that situation, it's the website which has chosen to send viewer information to 3rd parties.

Edited 2011-07-01 02:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2