Google's CEO Clears the Air 147
prostoalex writes "Google CEO Eric Schmidt sat down with PC Magazine to discuss some of the current issues swirling around Google, such as China and censorship, growth of the video content on the Internet, Microsoft's planned move into online ads, working with AOL and Internet neutrality." From the article: "Schmidt was quick to say that the acquisition of Writely was not meant to create a competitor to Microsoft Office, which he said solves a complicated and important problem of work productivity. Writely is a server-based editing system where you can move your files around, he said, and there are places where a rich text editor is useful in Google."
Similar article on the BBC (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4816848.stm [bbc.co.uk]
was made based on the same meeting....
Re:Similar article on the BBC (Score:1)
Re:Similar article on the BBC (Score:2)
Creepy: (Score:4, Interesting)
from tfa: "He said Google ads are very targetable, because Google knows a lot about the person surfing, especially if they have used personal search or logged into a service such as Gmail."
not to mention possibly what crimes you've committed. i find myself suddenly not wanting to ever search on the word 'torrent' again.
Personal info as target (Score:5, Insightful)
I was a little surprised to not see anything else in there really about privacy concerns, except that users "need to trust that the information won't be abused by Google or by governments".
Re:Personal info as target (Score:1)
Re:Personal info as target (Score:2)
Collection and organisation does not necessarily involve invasion of privacy. Google should be watched, like everyone else, but so long as they do not break the rules that are in place there's no need to presume they will.
Torrents are not illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bittorrent protocol is not illegal.
The bittorrent method of distribution is not illegal.
Torrent websites are not illegal.
The distribution, without permission, of files that fall under current copyright is illegal in most, but not all, places in the world.
Furthermore, searching for torrents of files that fall under copyright is not illegal. Downloading the torrents themselves might be illegal, I'm not sure. Downloading the copyrighted material itself, without permission, is always illegal. This has nothing to do with it being a torrent.
I'd say you can safely search for "torrent"...
Re:Torrents are not illegal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Torrents are not illegal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Torrents are not illegal. (Score:2)
Hear, hear! Best post I've read in a long time. torrents are as you correctly mention both safe and legal. Well, safe to the extent that some of the factual objective information about 911 and other issues available at http://torrentchannel.com/ [torrentchannel.com] may break big holes in your "safe" (illusion) of reality, but hey. Truth is good for you.
Re:Torrents are not illegal. (Score:2)
Re:Downloading torrents is not illegal either. (Score:2)
Re:Creepy: (Score:3, Insightful)
BitTorrent is a LEGAL protocol. It can also be abused, just like http and ftp. In light of reality, your statement is like saying "I'll never browse the web again" (yes, there are websites with illegal content, but that doesn't mean you should stop using http..). It should also be mentioned that a lot of the documentaries available using BitTorrent goes against everything the government and predominant media would have people b
Re:Creepy: (Score:2)
Re:Creepy: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a myth. And movies at PirateBay like http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3412481 [thepiratebay.org] "911 - Alex Jones: Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State HQ" are legal to download, mr. Jones actually encourages everyone to share his movies. And there are many
Re:Creepy: (Score:2)
Re:Creepy: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't argue with that kind of research! Especially the way you find one single freely released movie. Wow! That totally removes the other 99.9% of PirateBay's illegal piracy, including their "Piracy is great!" t-shirts.
Seriously. BitTorrent piracy is a myth. Yes, there are a small percentage of files pirated using that protocol, just like http, ftp, e-donkey and other file transfer protocols can be abused.
A "small percentage?!" ROFL! The majority of Bittorrent traffic, like the majority o
So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Oddly enough I have still found that the majority of targeted adds were often pointless as they tend to be from less than reliable companies. The really weird thing of course, is the wh
Re:molesting 18 MONTH olds (Score:2, Insightful)
Google does not want to comply with that?
You fall into the trap of using one extreme example while ignoring all the likely abuses that could occur (and have occurred in the past) when the government gets their hands on information they shouldn't have. It's one thing to cooperate with an investigation, but quite another to turn over everyone's search information for a government fishing expedition.
Google does not object to helping stop this. (Score:2)
Google Acqusistions (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Find the best price at PriceAge.com [priceage.com]. Price Comparison, Coupons, Reviews, specs, and more!
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:1)
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:1)
Search will probably eventually become what they're least known for
But search needs to get much better soon too. We need a leap equivalent to the leap from pre-Google to Google. Something that begins to understand what it's reading, knows the difference between an article text and the clutter around it. Can differentiate between the word 'review' and an actual review. Get's you closer to what you want without wondering which combination of serach terms will cut out the crap at the top of the results.
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2)
I think any search engine that attempts to "understand" what is meant by pages and queries will end up returning goofy results for the vast majority of queries.
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but if so it won't be any time soon.
Sure, maybe they have some killer app in mind, but it ain't necessarily so. I mean, you can't just glom the products of a whole bunch of different companies into the next killer app.
It may be more about intellectual property. Motivated tea leaf readers may want to search through patents the acquired companies held.
It may also be that they have a cash burning a hole in their pocket, and as
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2, Funny)
I hear they're working on a line of cars. They'll be free to use, but you have to allow them to track your wherabout at all times, as well as the contents of everything in your car.
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2)
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2)
An intelligent business is always looking for ways to use its strengths to increase profit. To do otherwise is to invite death. I think that Google has intelligent management, so I think that Google will be constantly searching for ways to increase profit. On the other hand, developing office software and/or operating systems does not necessaril
Re:Google Acqusistions (Score:2)
Everyone thinks Google can take on Micros
I don't agree totally... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't empower citizens of countries that do everything they can to proxy out that information. While I 99% agree with what Google did in China, I don't agree that giving citizens PCs, connections, and access will stop their governments from doing what they do.
Fuck, the USA is supposedly "free" and "open" and we have quite a bit of the population with access and yet we just let our leaders take FAT SHITS in front of our faces and then smile when they waft the stentch towards us.
Re:I don't agree totally... (Score:2)
Re:I don't agree totally... (Score:2)
SPOONBENDERS (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re:I don't agree totally... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, to give them some credit, it did say the Google CEO cleared the air.
Re:I don't agree totally... (Score:2)
The united states sports a pretty low voter turnout in national elections, and even lower turnout in local and state elections. It's the mark of a decadent society, I guess. We're so spoiled and well off collectively that we don't vote. In fact, the powers that be now
Simple Survey (Score:5, Insightful)
Feel free to explain why. My point of the "survey" is that I think people trust Google less now than in the past. It is taking more and more effort for Google to keep the hearts and minds of the world. There is more speculation. There are more conspiracy theories.
Re:Simple Survey (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:1)
But only the person who exhibits the behaviour knows for sure what the intention behind it was, and only time will tell if it's results are positive or negative.
Also a hundred different people will have a hundred different opinions on the nature of "evil". But one thing is for sure, unless something is a stated intention, it can't be linked to a resulting
Re:Simple Survey (Score:1)
Re:You are right scale is important (Score:2)
You seem to prefer a weathervane president, whose policies would fluctuate with each new opinion poll. Is this a genuine preference, or are you merely dismayed that Bush's policies seem wrong by your lights?
Yes. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Wait, only not (Score:2, Insightful)
Other companies (hereafter, content providers) supply video and whatnot for Google to display on Google Video. Content providers own this content, but don't want to pay for a distribution system when one (Google Video) is already in place. At the same time, content providers don't want to give their stuff away for free (a la your typical Google Video clip). Like any company they want to make a profit and protect *THEIR* con
Re:Wait, only not (Score:2)
Google are a huge company, now. Don't make excuses for them and try to tell me that they're getting pushed around.
I do like everything else Google is doing (except China, which I'm undecided on), and so I like them in general, but I was disappointed that they caved in and put DRM into Go
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
No.
There is an automatic distruct of anything larger that us, so a lot of the problems with google retaining its trust is simply its size. This seems to be outwayed by public probing though, as the larger something gets the more the public will probe any irregularities. Just look at Microsoft, sure it does some bad stuff, but it did the really nasty stuff when it was small and noone was watching.. The public eye after the trial has really forced them to str
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
I don't trust corporations, ever. Yes, that means Google too!
My point of the "survey" is that I think people trust Google less now than in the past.
If by "people" you mean Slashdotters and general conspiracy theorists and paranoid tin-foil hat wearers (that's me too, FYI) then yes, I agree. If by "people" you mean the general computer-using public, then no. They don't have a clue.
Is Google "less evil" than any other corporation out there? That I don't hav
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
Anyway, I find it very hard to "trust" a corporation. No corporation can trust you, and so I refuse to trust them back.
Re:Simple Survey (Score:1)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I trust Google a little less today than a year ago, but only slightly. Overall, I trust Google far more than any other company of decent size.
The reason I trust them less, is because they have grown larger, and are expanding. It is easier to "not be evil" when you have a smaller number of employees and a smaller number of projects. As Google grows, they will inevitably hire some people who are willing to take greater liberties with their user's tr
Re:Simple Survey on trust... (Score:2)
I use scroogle a lot: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm [scroogle.org]
It searches Google for you but doesn't give them more information about me. Not that they don't already know way too much...
I have no reason to not trust Google. However, I also don't have any reason to trust them. And I generally don't trust anyone, specially i
Re:Simple Survey (Score:1, Interesting)
Google has never done anything to bother me. They offer me quality products (search, Gmail) at a reasonable price (I look at a few ads). The evidence so far is that they treat me well... so my trust in them has grown. (As compared to, say, Sony.)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
So I think that no matter what google tries to do or be - they are a gold mine of data. The government tried to get some data in the public eye, and got rebuffed. I believe that they will get whatever they want from google soon, but you won
Re:Simple Survey (Score:5, Interesting)
Examples: Google gets beat up all the time for tailoring its web searches to suit the Chinese gov't on google.cn. What about Yahoo [yahoo.com.cn] and MSN [msn.com.cn]? I'm sure that they tailor search results at teir China sites, too. Google gets beat up for having to turn over data to the Justice Dept, and yet they're the only ones who made any noise about it. I'm sure those same requests were made of other search engines, and that those engines happily turned over the requested data without informing the public at all.
Do I trust Google more now than I did a year ago? Yes, I do. Because they are public about situations of which the public should be aware, while their competitors are uncannily silent.
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
Agreed. But turn it around - Yahoo got beat up for turning over the identity of a Chinese blogger to the Chinese government. Does anyone seriously think Google or MSN would refuse such a request?
Re:Simple Survey (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and about "do no evil". Let's keep in mind why they put that in their S1: Every public company MUST do everything in their power to
Re:Simple Survey (Score:1)
Re:Simple Survey (Score:2)
1) Once upon a time, I used Google for searching. They were relevant, their ads were useful, and they were fast. They were simple and good at what they did.
2) Then, I watched them branch out. They bought or made Google Maps (which was initially quite cool), and Picasa (awesome!), and Googl
Privacy concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one who does not like Google collecting surfing habits or using email to decide what ads to send my way. What other ways can this information be used? Will Google one day sell this information to employers? Will there be enough data that Google can link surfing habits to a real person, not a virtual internet user?
Will credit card companies and banks join a data mining company to share collected information?
Can people imagine if their bank, ISP, and employer joined forces to paint a complete profile of a person? Can that data, when taken as a whole, be used to predict things like how much a person will cost in health insurance, and that data be used to not hire a person?
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:2)
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
There are already a number of companies building profiles of data about everyone and selling it. Unless we get privacy laws passed (fat chance) this will continue. So your bank, ISP, and employer will be collaborating on building a profile of you and they almost certainly will use it in hiring decisions. When employers become large and consolidated, the only way to bargain fairly is for labor to organize and consolidate. This leads to some serious inefficiencies and lots of room for corruption, but it is not like their are any better options.
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. You're the only one who has ever had any misgivings over it. I'm so glad you finally said something, because certainly nobody else has ever thought it before.
Seriously - is your tin foil covering your entire body now? Or are you just that much of an egotist?
Will Google one day sell this information to employers?
Not without either violating their privacy policy [google.com] or significantly changing it. But don't let that get in the way of your paranoia.
Will credit card companies and banks join a data mining company to share collected information?
No [equifax.com] that [transunion.com] would [experian.com] never [choicepoint.com] happen [consumerdebit.com].
Sorry, I was too lazy to link every single letter to a different data mining company, otherwise I could've included ones that operate predominantly outside of the US (although the big 3 all have non-US operations).
Your concerns on this issue are about 50 years out of date. And, somehow, I doubt that you know that much about the system as a whole either (and yes, I do).
Can people imagine if their bank, ISP, and employer joined forces to paint a complete profile of a person?
A rather large amount of that information, particularly the financial data, is already available. See above. If I pull a report on you from the credit bureaus then I can already tell a great deal about you -- where you live, how badly you are in debt (or if you're not), how much you're paid (roughly), possibly what kind of car you drive.
Can that data, when taken as a whole, be used to predict things like how much a person will cost in health insurance, and that data be used to not hire a person?
Not bloody likely. Even in Right to Work states you'd have a hard time pulling that one off. You might try, but if you were ever found out then you'd lose far, far more in legal bills than you'd ever gain in insurance savings. Not to mention that you'd get your ass sued off for invasion of privacy -- no matter what waivers you had employees (or potential employees) sign.
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:1)
Of course not. We're protected by a three-word corporate tag-line!
meh (Score:1)
Usage model (Score:2)
It would also be great to be able to edit a document even when you're in a remote terminal, and prevent that remote document from being stored in an untrusted computer.
At the end of the day, I think the ideal is a local editor, but Office / Word is so expensive, you ca
Re:Usage model (Score:2)
Hah, so not only do google get to index all the web content, they get to index private documents as they are created.
Nice.
If you want to create a browser based document editing system, then why not use your own servers and TinyMCE [moxiecode.com] ? At least then you can make it private (using SSL for example).
Re:meh (Score:2)
Re:meh (Score:2)
Re:meh (Score:2)
Does anyone actually see themselves using Writely? Why not just use a local text editor and copy/paste to email? I guess I just don't see myself getting any use out of this, and therefore don't see myself having my privacy invaded by it.
I see this filling a few niches. One is for editing documents that you need access to from multiple locations. For example, this might be editing a journal from various cyber cafes in Europe. This might be ideal for those people I see at the library that probably don't h
Re:meh (Score:2)
How about this... do what everybody else has been doing for years. Put up your own web/ftp server put the docs onto it and you can control who has access to it, when it get's shreaded, etc. Google with writely
Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:2, Insightful)
To those who talk about embargoing filtering technology to China or other regimes that restrict political information, Schmidt said that personally (not as a Google executive) he was instructed by the example of Cuba. He said the embargo there hasn't worked, with Castro still in power, and with the Cuban people living with technology form the 1950s.
This is a tad self-serving. The Cuba embargo has failed to bring down Casto because domestic Cuban opposition has been crushed. It is non-existant due to fea
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:1, Insightful)
It is equally as hard to see how google NOT being present leads to a better future in China. I would argue that nothing some internet search company does is going to affect politics as usual in China, so let's all just gain a little perspective here.
Google CEO as secretary of state (Score:2)
It is equally as hard to see how google NOT being present leads to a better future in China.
Ah honesty. If Mr. Schmidt had suggested this I would be more impressed. Ofcourse my 'jailer' question still stands. The role of Google CEO is not enought for this egomaniac. He really wants to be Secretary of State. Perhaps he will sober up when Google's stock price has fallen a few hundred more points.
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:2)
Still, the embargo has done nothing to get Castro out of power. Nothing. Nada-nada-limonada.
>>Mr. Schmidt's high thinking solution is nothing more than to act as the Maoists information jailer, or worse, be their stool pigeon.
Do you really belive that name calling is going to bring clarity to the situation?
China is communist. Accept it! We can trade with them or not. The lowering of trade barrier
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think that free trade and closer US/Cuba ties would help the anti-totalitarian interests there in the long run.
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:2)
This is incorrect. The Cuban embargo failed to bring down Castro because it was a unilateral embargo. The Soviet bloc and even Europe traded with him to keep his regime afloat. While one would expect that of his Soviet bloc comrades, it was refreshing to see the Europeans express their solidarity with the Cuban dictator.
Likewise, Google doesn't want to unilaterally exclude itself from a market, while
Don't forget Canada (Score:2)
I agree with what you say, and don't forget Canadians to whom Cuban freedom is less important than cheap prostitution and a vacation in the sun.
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you said yourself that "the Cuban standard of living continues to slouch". Don't you think the embargo is partly to blame? Don't you think that possibly lifting that embargo would help those very same people? And doesn't that mean the plan is a failure?
I'm sure Google has many Chinese researchers. And I'm sure most Chinese people in China would prefer to have Google with censoring then no Google (as those are the only two options really). So you're condemning Google for offering a service in China which also explains that the results are censored (which most other search engines there don't do) when that action does no harm to you and benefits the Chinese, yet you want them to not offer the service which would have no affect upon you and not benefit the Chinese either. Really easy for you to decide no?
Re: Cuba- But switching to Linux (Score:1)
Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba (Score:1)
Google's ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how they denied the Gmail in the first place. They even denied working on Google video at first...what haven't they denied in the past and then lived to defend when products came to the market?
This is one situation where I do not belive what the CEO says.
They (Google), could sell a Google Appliance (with Writely installed), that wirelessly allows users to access Writely and other services. This can be a very useful thing for medium sized companies in that they will not have to install any software on their individual systems. Now, when it comes to Writely, I wish there was a way I could move a table to anywhere in the document being edited. Google should improve on this and solve other bugs too.
CEO trying to have it both ways- (Score:2, Insightful)
This CEO is trying to have it both ways- support the stock holders desire to grow the company by putting the company foot in China (hoping for future business opportunities) while trying to not tick-off the Western world user-base.
It's quite Ferengi of him- and I respect that.
Plus watching him juggle all these balls at the same time is quite entertaining.
Clears the air? (Score:1, Offtopic)
It's always been about the business. (Score:2, Insightful)
And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost. What a sad fucking state of affairs.
ah.clem
Re:It's always been about the business. (Score:4, Insightful)
But Google is a publicly traded company now, and there is no place for morality. The board is obligated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. Since there is money to be made in China, Google follows the official party line.
I'm far too cynical to be disappointed any more. Corporations exist to make money and limit the liability of the owners. I'd say that they would kill people if it paid well enough, but we already know about the tobacco industry...
Unfortunately, morality, ethics and integrity are empty rhetoric, the real goal is to enhance shareholder value.
Is Eric Schmidt still around? (Score:5, Funny)
Is Eric Schmidt still around? I thought that Steve Ballmer was going to f*cking bury him!
Apparently, he did it once before...
Disappointment sets in (Score:4, Insightful)
An Open Question: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I ran an ISP/Service provider and a customer clicked the delete button I'd make sure that stuff was either erased immediately or very very soon (such as a cron job which expunges selected emails every half hour). I can understand logging something like, safe, people trying to telnet or SSH into a system of mine, but not every page view of my site. Why bother? Is it a legal requirement? Are they just trying to cover their collective asses? Sounds like a shitload of work for absolutely zero payoff (other than pissing your customers off...which really isn't a payoff at all.)
Re:An Open Question: (Score:2, Informative)
The more you know about your customers, the easier it is to give them what they want. The better you are at giving your customers what they want, the more they pay you.
Google's job is organizing and retrieving information. It's against everything to stand for to not keep local archives that they can analyze for further insight into the Internet's patterns.
How about saying protecting out Privacy (Score:2)
Keep fighting, Google - the Bush administration sucks.
Re:How about saying protecting out Privacy (Score:2)
Click fraud? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google's CEO Clears the Air?? (Score:2)
"Clears the Air" (Score:5, Funny)
Experiments (Score:3, Interesting)
The emphasis on trust is very sticky for them now, though. Google's pitch that it was the company that dealt (or could be trusted to deal) with the world's information has been blown out of the water by the China venture and the recent court stuff about handing over records. I suspect this is going to come back and bite their ass bigtime. Once perhaps Google was the natural "information company"; now they are just another corporation angling for your dollars. Better than plenty, but no longer unique.
He went on to say... (Score:3, Funny)
Schmidt went on to say "When we create something meant to compete with Microsoft Office, you'll know it."
Re:Excuse me... (Score:1)
I guess that would make you the 'unproductive nobody' when using office. I personally am a 'productive somebody' when I use it.
Re:Is google racist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google doesn't care about the color of your skin, they care about the language you speak and the laws governing your usage of the Internet. In both cases, they care about these things because it lets them continue to deliver pertinent information. If they run afoul of Chinese government's censor