Google published a new privacy policy, and it's sure to be dissected by bloggers and pundits across the web. But one feature of the new privacy policy that's not likely to get a lot of attention is Google's archive of old privacy policies. This is a much-needed step toward greater transparency.
This site has complained several times when Google changes blog postings without acknowledging the changes. While Google's founders aspire to the principles of a "well run newspaper," the company has on occasion neglected the duty to acknowledge and memorialize errors, omissions and changes to content it has published online. While amateur bloggers can get away with this, well run newspapers can't -- and if Google wants to be the hub of the world's information, Google should be fastidious about tracking changes.
An open and transparent approach to privacy is critical maintaining the public's trust in Google. Acknowledging and memorializing the changes in its policies over time is a welcome step in avoiding the memory hole.
 |
| Don't Be Evil - restoring the public trust in business, politics and the media |
Privacy and the Memory Hole - 10/15/2005 08:42:00 AM
| |
Local law versus universal values - 10/13/2005 10:47:00 AM
Is it moral for global corporations help repressive regimes to censor speech or imprison citizens who speak out?
The corporations argue that they must abide by the laws and customs of each country they operate in, even if those practices are repugnant to people in free societies. Microsoft: I posted in June that the Chinese version of Microsoft's MSN Spaces product has special "features" that search for words like "human rights," "democracy," and "protest," and stop users from posting blog entries with these "subversive" terms. In their defense, Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble says, "I'm not Chinese. I'm American. So I have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in." Robert, Microsoft isn't forcing anything -- they're actively developing technology that enables a morally reprehensible practice. Yahoo: BoingBoing has a good summary of Yahoo's imbroglio where they ratted out the Chinese journalist who dared to use a Yahoo Mail account to disclose the Chinese government's regulations on permitted speech. This journalist used the codename 198964 and now faces a 10-year prison sentence for his crime. (198964 apparently refers to the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre, June 4, 1989.) Yahoo's Jerry Yang says it's not their fault, since they "have to comply with local law." Or what -- will Yahoo employees be jailed? Or will they lose favor (and profits) from the Chinese government? Google: While Yahoo has been censoring search results in China for a long time, at least Google doesn't do that. But Google has pulled some sources from Google News which the Chinese government finds "subversive," and while "less evil" than some competitors, this is still enabling a morally repugnant practice. Philipp has a good summary of Sergey Brin's latest thinking on this topic, along with a link to a Real Video clip of Brin's remarks. Brin has a familiar argument: "Google complied with the laws of the countries in which it operates, including laws in the United States and Germany that the company 'does not necessarily support.'" As Brin subtly points out, this isn't just about a free American company kowtowing to repressive laws 12000 miles away. To uphold its "Don't Be Evil" ethic, Google's got big challenges in the US as well. |
| dontbeevil.com |