Posted by: FESTER

With the recent banning of CNET reporters, it seems that Google is showing their ‘Big-Brotherness’ more overtly now than ever, and almost to the point of ‘Godliness’.

Yes, I’m certain you’ll soon see MAJOR press releases announcing that the most effective branding campaign ever - Google’s - is going to be nullified and overwritten by a NEW campaign… they’re changing their name to ‘Godgle’. It’s only one small letter change - but an ever more descriptive title for our omnipotent overseers.

Why do I say this…? Because they’re acting like they are God (read comments) - HERSELF. It seems they’ll tell you what the new rules are, what you can and cannot say - as well as when and where you can say it, whether your prayers will go answered or not, if you are worthy of being ‘included’ into their heaven, and more insultingly - if they’ll even extend the courtesy of having an adult conversation that may clarify any of these concerns - or help you see your evil ways…

“Big deal” you say? Well, my friend - this is just the crack I’ve been predicting that will reveal the rotting yolk inside this evil egg… Again - I shall repeat myself: ‘information is money’ and ‘money is power’ and ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’. I didn’t make these up - they’re universal truths…

And it’s not just me who thinks that there’s a little too much availability of our personal info and habits. It seems that Eric Schmidt - CEO of Godgle - thinks the same. He’s the reason behind this CNET ban… It seems when someone uses HIS tool to find out information about HIM - this is NOT OK. Even after he made the following announcement to reporters in May, 2005:

“When we talk about organizing all the world’s information, we mean all. And we mean all people. And we mean universally accessible.”

SO, what do you think happened??? Just over a month later Elinor Mills wrote The Article that got CNET damned by Google, in which, to demonstrate privacy concerns surrounding Google, she pointed to several documents revealing business and personal information about Schmidt—all excavated via Google’s search engine.

So, what did Eric do when he found out someone had ‘googled’ him? - it was simple… he had them sent straight to hell (which Godgle will soon be purchasing). Well, he at least wishes he could send them to hell. What he did do - was ban any Google employee from talking to CNET reporters… You’ll find this note at the bottom of all CNET stories on Google: “Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.”

That’s right. You did NOT read any of that incorrectly. It REALLY happened. And you’re going to see it more and more…

Sure - they published his address - BUT SO DOES GOOGLE!! - that’s where the reporter GOT the information. Seems THIS doesn’t actually apply to those with UNGODLY amounts of money: “When we talk about organizing all the world’s information, we mean all. And we mean all people. And we mean universally accessible.” - Eric Schmidt

You better watch what you say Eric - you’re inviting universal forces into play… God has that power you know.

But then again, when you’re Big-Brother (too), does anything you do really matter? You make the NEW rules (supported by stock prices, of course).

Would you like to know what Eric thinks about your privacy? Here’s an excerpt from ‘The Tribune - SanLuisObispo.com’ on this topic - read it in full here:

If anything, Schmidt seemed to invite scrutiny during the May 19 session, saying he appreciates journalists who are “appropriately skeptical about things that we’re doing.'’

When one journalist asked about several privacy concerns involving Google, including free access to aerial photographs from a service called Keyhole that can show details of individual homes, Schmidt replied:

“So Google has essentially taken information in a number of these cases, Keyhole being one, where that information was previously publicly available, but not broadly available. So one way to think about this is (that) information is now easier to get to than it was before by virtue of Google’s activities. So we understand the question and the concern.'’

But, he added, Google has policies in place that set “a proper balance between general access to information and the specific rights of individuals, which we’re concerned about a lot.'’

Schmidt, at least, seems a lot concerned with his own privacy.

Why am I so convinced that Google IS Big-Brother? - well, privacy is the issue, and here’s what some people who are a lot smarter than me are saying about this:

“The company is also refusing to talk about why it did this, ducking what could be an important public debate on how the incredible power of Internet search can compromise privacy.” - Mike Langberg, Mercury News (see article above)

And - if this doesn’t get ya - I don’t know what will…

“It’s data that’s practically a printout of what’s going on in your brain: What you are thinking of buying, who you talk to, what you talk about.”
–Kevin Bankston, staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation

With this information - they can control how you think - which is what the purpose and function of Big-Brother is. Welcome to 1984.

Somebody get me a soma pill.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 13th, 2005 at 9:05 am and is filed under Google the Bad, Google the Ugly, Google Rules.