OSNews

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-65428

PI is a respected organization. It has a reasonably good skill set. It is rather liberal though.

]{

Liberal in the american sense is quite correct - even extremely so. It is an anti-capitalistic political organisation using privacy as a cover for it's crusade against the free market.

Take a look at their website - look at the graphics. Reminds me of (the now former) DKP/ML.

[OT] - what's wrong with that? I personally believe that capitalism is bad, because it brings out the worse behaviour in humans - our greed. I do not think that's it's right for 1% of the world population to have 99% of the world wealth. Under ANY circumstances. I don't care if they think they earnt it.

Google uses the information from our searches, and it uses that to make a dollar.

Dave

[OT] Well, let's just say that we are opposite each other then. Capitalism is good. Greed is not necessarily a part of capitalism. Besides that this is a moral question and moral has no place in laws. I think people have the right to what they have earned as long as it wasn't earned through illegal coercion.

It is wrong for other persons to sit down and do nothing and then steal the hard work of other people. Under NO circumstance do I care if lazy people think life is unfair.

Maybe your post is Microsoft misdirection FUD? Perhaps they hire countless people to scream "MS FUD" in an attempt to win sympathy points with sane readers.

In any case; http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-553964

"Let me state here on the record that in the seventeen years of our existence, no company has ever made such a claim. Privacy International is a fiercely independent organization that has never shown fear nor favour. Again for the record, we have been fierce and relentless critics of Microsoft since our inception as a watchdog. You will see for example we that publicly supported the EU Commission investigation into Microsoft, that we nominated Microsoft for the US Big Brother Award in 2003, that we awarded Microsoft the "Worst Corporate Invader" award at the 1999 US Big Brother Awards, that we publicly accused Microsoft of subverting its software security, that we co-authored a critical submission to the US Federal Trade Commission against Microsoft, and that in 2001 we filed a joint complaint to the US Federal Trade Commission against Microsoft, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices."

"""
It gives no evidence examples or anything.
"""

Wikipedia makes the same complaint about their (Privacy International's) provided entry there:

--
This article does not cite any references or sources.

This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone.
--

I suspect that "The Microsoft Connection" will be revealed in time.

Edited 2007-06-12 02:27

PI is a respected organization that has been around for more than a decade - since the early 90's I think. They may have something of a liberal bent but to suggest their some pawn of Microsoft is pure FUD.

Why can't the Google fan boys accept that Google is in it for the money and that it does stuff for money to the detriment of it's users.

It's called capitalism, just accept it and get over it. Google is no different the any other business.

]{

Edited 2007-06-12 07:00

"""
PI is a respected organization that has been around for more than a decade - since the early 90's
...
Why can't the Google fan boys accept that
"""

No Google fanboy, here. Though I've seen enough of Microsoft's "grass roots" PR campaigns to know what to look for when one of Microsoft's competitors achieves too much success for their tastes.

You, as a new user here, with 20% of your posts defending Privacy International, should be careful that you do not come off as a mouthpiece for... well... some powerful interest.

Edited 2007-06-12 13:50

Thanks for the tip on Scroogle, that looks perfect!
everyone else: http://www.scroogle.org/

"Google is Big Brother. We simply haven't embraced this fact yet."

I dont think "embracing" is what we should do about it.
Other than that, good points. I've always found it humorous how tech people root for Google. Seriously, having "Do no evil" in your corporate "philosophy" mean jack sh1t, especially when your actions contradict it.

Edited 2007-06-12 04:21

Call me the Devil's advocate, but what have they done that's particularly "evil"?

The vast majority of the criticism I've read focuses on potential - "OMG, look how evil google could be!" And incidentally, judging from a quick skim of the comments here, that meme is much more en-vogue these days than adoration of google.

"but what have they done that's particularly "evil"? "

Oh I dunno, collaborating with the Chinese Gov't to suppress information? And yes, that's what companies who wants to do business in China has to do , yaddayaddayadda, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the "Do no evil" statement hypocritical bullsh1t.

Edited 2007-06-12 12:07

Yes, I'm well aware of that - but what relevance does that have to the topic of privacy practices?

If there are ways that Google is in violation of actual privacy laws (E.g., PIPEDA - http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_01_e.asp ), there are plenty of people who would be interested to know about it.

I would hope that no one is naive enough to believe that's motivated by altruism - seems much more like "enlightened self-interest" to me. In other words, the idea that it's still possible to have a successful business by attempting to give people what they want, rather than treating all customers as cows that need to be talked-in to being hooked up to the milking machine.

I think it's more of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thinking. Many people seem to think of Google as Microsoft's enemy; therefore, Google is their ally, which is just wrong since Google might turn out to be everyone's eventual enemy. Attempting to give people what they want is fine, but I think the real danger is what Google takes from customers and how it uses what it takes.

You wouldn't mind share your professor would you?

Yeah same goes for the pot lovers...Know what I mean?

I don't love pot. I'm not a liberal (in the U.S. sense

I guess there are differences between a pot and a kettle, but watch out for the similarities!!

Why isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'm not disagreeing with you, but in my experience, all of these reports are kinda of useless, just like benchmarks and TPC scores. I do find, however, that google is collecting more and more info, and as a public company, you can no longer expect it to follow it's founders ideals

Wise post. I think Google already has a much greater capacity for evil than Microsoft in spite of MS having more money. At this point, it's exciting to see Google 'taking over the world' -- but this has never been good for the world in the end...

"""
Anything else? Didn't think so.
"""

Actually, there is something else. On many sites, these days, in place of obnoxious flash ads for things we would never be interested in, we have polite, unobtrusive text ads which are relevant enough that we might occasionally care to click on them.

Google provides us with web advertising the way it should be, benefitting both sites which depend upon ad revenue *and* the readers of those sites.

Huh? How is that doing something wrong?

"""
Huh? How is that doing something wrong?
"""

It's not. I happen to agree with what you said in your post and noted something that Google is doing that is very, very right.

It may not be as glamourous as providing free email and office apps to the masses on a wave of Web 2.0 pinache, but it is actually one of the most beneficial things that they do.

People abslolutely *do* have the option of *not* using Google Search or other services.

But apart from obviously sensitive information, like credit card numbers, it seems to me that many people have a *highly* inflated view of the value of their own "personal information".

Do people really think that anyone cares about the porn they went searching for last week... or in their interest in adult incontinence and nursing home reviews last year?

Let me tell you all... no one does.

In this blog-infested world, with seemingly everyone clamouring for attention and trying to get their opinions noticed, one would expect that it would be common knowledge how few people care about the trivial details of one's personal life.

What entities do care about is, for example, that users of Cox Communications' high speed internet have an inordinate degree of interest in frozen wild blueberries.

I suppose this would be a relevant time to mention the 18-40-60 rule:

--
At 18, you worry about what everyone thinks about you.

At 40, you don't care what anyone thinks about you.

At 60, you realize that no one actually has been thinking about you. Because people do not go through life thinking about other people. They go through life thinking about themselves! ;-)
--

Edited 2007-06-12 16:14

Ah, ok.

I definitely agree that people have a highly inflated view of their own "personal information"/privacy.