Google Exercises Right To Remain Silent To CNET

#1 (**permalink**) 08-05-2005, 11:52 AM

The tech industry journalism giant CNET moved on to Google's "Do Not Call List" A recent story by CNET discussing the amount of personal information Google retains on its users has angered the search engine giant.

CNET, in researching their article, found quite a bit of information about Google chief Eric Schmidt. The information included details about his worth, his neighborhood and his political affiliation. The major objection to the story resulted from the publication of this information. However, all of the information about Schmidt was obtained through Google searches.

The story by Elinor Mills discussed Google's methods of trying to balance privacy concerns with the need for information. As a result of that article, CNET has been left with a lot of time-out in the sandbox to ponder their deeds because they'll remain their until July of next year.

This quote appears in her blog from yesterday as well as a story about Google look for chefs:

(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.)

As with most private entities, Google is certainly within their rights of determining who they choose to provide information too but many critics will attack Google for this behavior. Also, a number of forums are speculating a fair amount of negative stories coming from the CNET camp about Google in the coming months, as Mills is their primary writer on the search engine industry. There are certain types of information about the business Google must publicly disclose, as is the rule with any publicly traded company, but for most other information, it would seem CNET will have some issues.

With the Search Engine Strategies Conference slated to kick off next week in San Jose, this topic is sure to get a lot more discussion in the coming days.

This also showed up on another thread but this is relevant too because this could change the way some of the information comes out, particularly with regsrd to CNET. What are your thoughts on it?

wrmineo · #2 (**permalink**) 08-05-2005, 01:45 PM

First, I'd say it gives a whole new meaning to "Being Banned by Google"

Secondly, I'd be interested to see an official statement from Google on the issue on the alleged instituted policy. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, but I wouldn't be surprised either if it is something taken out of context.

As far as the information being obtained from Google searches - that's a hoot! Then again, a Google search doesn't mean a Google source.

Finally, if I believed everything I could find in a Google search, it wouldn't be stretch to think Elvis is still alive, living out his days in the Bahamas with JFK ...

kgun · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 02:45 AM

"(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.)"

GoogleBot takes that communication. Myself I am going to an Oracle seminar.

Kgun

se-survivor · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2005, 02:15 PM

H'mm seems like I've been saying this all along.
http://news.com.com/Google+balances+...3-5787483.html

Guess it takes a while for people to wake up. Easy to tell by Google's reaction that this is a major issue for them that could awaken the government's sleeping dogs.

If you'd like to follow my April 2004 prediction and all the blind Gmail followers it's right here.
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...survivor#90557

Don't like mom and pop's website? Turn off the tap. Don't like Cnet..bye bye.
This done by two individuals that admit,"We both found each other obnoxious,".
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle.html

And you thought Bill Gates was bad???

kgun · #5 (**permalink**) 08-07-2005, 11:33 AM

much about himself on his home page.

http://ericschmidt.com/

You think it is HIS homepage?

1. How many in the world has that name?
2. I think he would have a better site.
3. I do not think he would have his own site on the internet. If he has, it would most probably be a subsite of http://www.google.com/?
4. If I was the first in the world to register BillGates.com, as far as I know, that is not illegal. Wether it is smart is another task.

Kjell Gunnar Bleivik

[mod edit: sig links can be added in profile]