Google bans CNET

[efoto]

Actually publishing the personal information (as opposed to merely saying that it could be found via Google) was stupid on CNET's part; Mabye the ban is a bit silly as well, but certainly deserved.

I think this is excellent wording. Making note to being able to finding something by way of Google is not all that bad, however publishing an article/directly linking/making a site/etc would be a little overboard for what I would think is alright if someone is posting information about me. If they had only posted the most basic of information that could be found at whitepages.com, but still spotlighting it like this is just unnecessary.

 

[question fear]

I think this is excellent wording. Making note to being able to finding something by way of Google is not all that bad, however publishing an article/directly linking/making a site/etc would be a little overboard for what I would think is alright if someone is posting information about me. If they had only posted the most basic of information that could be found at whitepages.com, but still spotlighting it like this is just unnecessary.

agreed. the first thing i thought of when i first read it was "here's another example of how cnet isn't a real news org...it just seems unprofessional to do that. but then again, cnet hasn't been the most professional website in a while...

 

[maxterpiece]

I think this is excellent wording. Making note to being able to finding something by way of Google is not all that bad, however publishing an article/directly linking/making a site/etc would be a little overboard for what I would think is alright if someone is posting information about me. If they had only posted the most basic of information that could be found at whitepages.com, but still spotlighting it like this is just unnecessary.

So this guy's company makes this kind of personal info easily available to anyone. Someone uses his company's product to find that info, then republishes it. How does he have a right to get angry?

It's true, no one would want their personal info to be published in a news article. It would be immoral to do so. The thing that makes this situation different is the fact that this guy's company is what has made this info so easily retrievable. He enabled cnet to retrieve the info, so even if cnet was in the wrong, it's his company that enables cnet to be immoral.

 

[efoto]

So this guy's company makes this kind of personal info easily available to anyone. Someone uses his company's product to find that info, then republishes it. How does he have a right to get angry?

It's true, no one would want their personal info to be published in a news article. It would be immoral to do so. The thing that makes this situation different is the fact that this guy's company is what has made this info so easily retrievable. He enabled cnet to retrieve the info, so even if cnet was in the wrong, it's his company that enables cnet to be immoral.

I don't think it is Google that enabled cnet to be immoral, at best Google gave the means to the end, however Google gives many people multiple means to countless ends. The point I am trying to make is that it is not the responsibility of the information provider to make sure that all the recipients of said information are moral with it, or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[atszyman]

Apparently ZDnet UK has "applolgized"

link

Acting under the mistaken impression that Google's search engine was intended to help research public data, we have in the past enthusiastically abused the system to conduct exactly the kind of journalism that Google finds so objectionable.

Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts, let alone in capriciously using them to illustrate areas of concern. We apologise unreservedly, and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role just as soon as it feels capable of communicating to us how it wishes that role to be seen.

 

[maxterpiece]

Apparently ZDnet UK has "applolgized"

link

funny.

I don't think it is Google that enabled cnet to be immoral, at best Google gave the means to the end, however Google gives many people multiple means to countless ends. The point I am trying to make is that it is not the responsibility of the information provider to make sure that all the recipients of said information are moral with it, or at least it shouldn't be.

So let's say, for example, I research the entire macrumors membership (including myself) and publish a list of all dead friends and relatives of each member. I then research each individual's psyche and determine what they miss most about that dead person. I just found out some pretty damn personal information, no? I then publish that information. Everyone on macrumors is hurt and can't believe that such private information is so freely accessible. This is their most personal of personal feelings. But I don't care. I'm making money off of my publication. Some mod, feeling his own personal information is being exploited just for a buck, decides to use my book to research my dead friends and family members and posts all the information right on the front page of macrumors. He tells about how i miss those who are missing and how it has affected my personality.

Since my book was full of such amazingly personal/private facts, it has gotten a lot of attention and I have made a lot of money. Enough money so that I financially dwarf Macrumors. Suddenly i login and i see the main screen and see the article about my dead family members and I am hurt. HOw could macrumors do this to me? I mean, I know they used my book, but still. Its just not right. I get really upset. This is information I don't want others reading. I decide to use my pull to reduce traffic to the macrumors site.

Who do you blame here??? I went and published the book of personal info. DOn't I deserve what i got?

 

[efoto]

funny.



So let's say, for example, I research the entire macrumors membership (including myself) and publish a list of all dead friends and relatives of each member.
<snip>
Who do you blame here??? I went and published the book of personal info. DOn't I deserve what i got?

I followed that for a little bit, then just dropped off simply because I am in a horrendously boring lecture and can't follow anything right now. I see what point you are making, however my point was simply that people should hold themselves responsible and moral, not wait until someone else catches them. I realize in today's society around most of the globe this does not happen, however I was speaking from a "best case" type scenario of what I would expect people to do, what I believe they should.

In your example, you would be held responsible for your publishment, and for that I would assume you would get a lot of hate-mail from members who were hurt. I don't believe that "an eye for an eye" is a modern philosophy though, it seldom works in practice from what I have seen, and thus I would not support the community posting equivalent information about you on the frontpage for everyone else to see. This may be getting to touchy-feely and not applicable, it is just what I would hope would happen, not what I actually think would happen.

 

[maxterpiece]

I followed that for a little bit, then just dropped off simply because I am in a horrendously boring lecture and can't follow anything right now. I see what point you are making, however my point was simply that people should hold themselves responsible and moral, not wait until someone else catches them. I realize in today's society around most of the globe this does not happen, however I was speaking from a "best case" type scenario of what I would expect people to do, what I believe they should.

In your example, you would be held responsible for your publishment, and for that I would assume you would get a lot of hate-mail from members who were hurt. I don't believe that "an eye for an eye" is a modern philosophy though, it seldom works in practice from what I have seen, and thus I would not support the community posting equivalent information about you on the frontpage for everyone else to see. This may be getting to touchy-feely and not applicable, it is just what I would hope would happen, not what I actually think would happen.

Okay i agree with what you are saying about eye for an eye.

Let me add to my example though - let's say when people asked me about the publication of my book and it potentially harming others that i responded by saying, "it's no big deal. That kind of information was accessible before. I am just making it easier to find. The info is part of the public record and I feel no guilt whatsoever about publishing it."

Do I then have a right to be upset when my info is published in a more public forum?

I guess I think both companies are in the wrong. The CNet article was out of hand, but google's response was also both ironic and babyish.