Google doesn't like CNET anymore :(
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Google doesn't like CNET anymore :(

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Google doesn't like CNET anymore :(

    Now how funny is this:

    CNET runs a story on Google and privacy issues, and in the article "reveals" a bunch of personal info on Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt doesn't like that, and institutes a policy of not talking with CNET reporters until July 2006 "in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story."

    Where did CNET get the personal info on Schmidt? From simple Google searches... HAH!

    The CNET News.com article


    The News.com article containing the new Google policy

    Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.

  2. #2
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Hi Negative,

    Yeh..I read that on that Daily Rotation...the irony didn't escape me either


    and...if it's on the net it can't really be considered ' private ' anymore...not if you can access that information just through ' search '.


    Major over-reaction.



    Eg

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Hey Hey,

    I have to agree with Google for putting a stop on talks with CNET... The article was just slander and makes the privacy issue seem a lot bigger than it really is. American media always has a way of trying to inspire fear in people... why can't they just report facts?

    They couldn't get anything done so they launched a personal attack... plain and simple. The article that originaly raised the issue was July 14th, shortly after the rumors began that CNET was for sale. Also one of the interested parties was IAC (InterActiveCorp) which owns Expedia, TicketMaster, AskJeeves, Hotwire.com, Hotels.com, Gifts.com and several other fairly big Internet names... The biggest there in this issue is AskJeeves, which also owns Excite.com. Could it be that IAC is interested in the purchase but wanted to know how CNET could benefit them... Slander Google and down the road promote AskJeeves (AskJeeves, makes the top 10 list but is desperately behind Google)?... Word of mouth does a lot... and a site like CNET running these stories will put the words in a lot of mouths. There's also rumour of talks with Yahoo... this could be the same idea only substitute Yahoo for AskJeeves.

    Just my opinion.

    Peace
    HT

    Links:
    Search Engine Rankings: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports...le.php/2156461
    Ask Jeeves Inc: Company Info: http://sp.ask.com/docs/jeevesinc/a1.html
    IAC Businesses/Info: http://www.iac.com/
    Mention of IAC interest in CNET: http://www.internetstockblog.com/200...or_sale_s.html
    Is CNET for Sale Article: http://www.webpronews.com/insidesear...ETForSale.html
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  4. #4
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Hi HT,

    You seem to know more about this than I do...and from your post it looks like politics101...but
    The article was just slander
    that would suggest they lied in which case legal action would be pending and not just a suspension in talks...
    based on the information you provided I would tend to agree it looks politically motivated on both sides...but not slanderous.

    Eg

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Originally posted here by Egaladeist
    Hi HT,

    You seem to know more about this than I do...and from your post it looks like politics101...but

    that would suggest they lied in which case legal action would be pending and not just a suspension in talks...
    based on the information you provided I would tend to agree it looks politically motivated on both sides...but not slanderous.

    Eg
    Hey Hey,

    Slander might be a little far then... how about misrepresentation of the truth... They're taking a highly public person and stating facts regarding him... The same isn't true about most individuals... Not from just searching google.. (those of us with online portfolios and resumes are an exception).. But if you go search for someone's grandparents you aren't going to find that detailed information... They're making it look like an invasion of privacy when it's not... It's the same as that little side bar on the original article.. It may do this... It could do that...

    Peace
    HT
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    748
    Perhaps it is just me, but when I read the article it appears that the issue they are trying to get across to people is the amount of data that google collects on people through the use of gmail, the never ending google cookie, and the desktop search tool. And I have to totally agree with the article. Google keeps tons of data on people, and if that information was available to criminals or three letter government agencies it could be a major invasion of what people in the US consider to be private information.

    cnet news is not the only news agency that has done this type of article before...

    It would seem that you are focusing on the first two paragraphs of the original cnet article and not even looking at the rest of the article. In all fairness to cnet it is a balanced article, and I don't see very much sensationalism or FUD. They talk about how much better of a job google does with this private information than what doubleclick did back a few years ago.

  7. #7
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Hi mohaughn,

    Yes...spin ...I thought that too when I read the article...but they couldn't very well come out and say that they disagreed because CNET exposed a potentially hazardous risk of identity and information theft...or that they disagreed because they did not want an unknowing public to know how much data they actually collect on people...
    so...the did a spin and blamed CNET for a breach of privacy.

    Any way you slice the dice you can't mistake the irony

    The laugh is at the expense of Google not CNET...
    Where did CNET get the personal info on Schmidt? From simple Google searches... HAH!
    I believe...or at least it was my understanding that HT's comments were concerning the underlining ulterior motives...which are usualy politically motivated...and I'm sure that played a part as well.

    Eg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •