

Corporations and Hypocrisy: Inconvenient truths about Google - anderzole
http://counternotions.com/2010/05/31/hypocrisy/

======
potatolicious
> _"Google never denied and, when caught red handed, never admitted to
> snooping WiFi data either."_

This is an absolutely disingenuous claim. Google had an accidental bug in
software that stored captured packets. Said packets were never looked at, nor
did anyone know these extraneous packets were being sniffed and stored. Upon
finding this error, they publicly admitted the error and fixed it.

To characterize this as "snooping WiFi data" means either:

A - The author has a axe to grind against Google.

B - The author is not technically competent enough to realize what actually
happened.

Personally I neither love nor hate Google, and to be honest most of the other
content in that post is not something I have followed closely. If this gross
misrepresentation for his own case is consistent over the rest of the blog
post though, the author has no credibility.

~~~
dieterrams
Proving that someone has zero credibility takes a bit more than that. Hurt his
credibility, perhaps, but saying that he has zero credibility is hyperbolic.

And 'snooping' is only a gross mischaracterization if you believe the meaning
of the word strictly excludes unintentional unauthorized access to data. Which
I don't think it clearly does.

~~~
potatolicious
You're right - he doesn't have _zero_ credibility. As someone who has not read
the blog before, and who did hear about the Google/WiFi thing before today, it
made me want to close the tab out of disgust. That is a bit more than a little
bit of hurt credibility, I think. For someone to rail against Google for their
hypocrisy, it's a terrible shame that he has to bend and distort the facts to
this degree to do so - and he ends up hurting his case more than he helps it.

"Snooping" in any colloquial use implies intent. I'm pretty sure we can't get
away from that, and perhaps I'm being less charitable than I should be, but I
think this implication is exactly what the author was going for.

After all, saying that Google actively intended to spy on WiFi users would be
an outright lie, yet implications are okay?

~~~
dieterrams
He might have, and given the context, he has a plausible motive. But it's
worth considering that many news outlets have called what Google did
'snooping', as a Google search will reveal. (The CNET article he linked to
actually calls it 'spying', which is arguably more insidious-sounding.) And I
can't think of another word that succinctly captures the idea of accessing
unauthorized data, intentionally or no.

At any rate, the man is responding to what he believes was a gross
mischaracterization of himself (the idea that he 'hates' Google). Out of anger
and in haste, he may well have overreached. But one can overreach and not be
without merit. On the basis of what is only plausibly a mischaracterization,
one can't dismiss everything else a person says out of hand.

There just isn't enough here to warrant this degree of outcry and dismissal.

~~~
ErrantX
> And I can't think of another word that succinctly captures the idea of
> accessing unauthorized data

Definition of "To Snoop":

    
    
      To be devious and cunning so as not to be seen
      To secretly spy on or investigate, especially into the private personal life of others.
    

I don't think that even slightly covers unintentional collection of data...

If they did it intentionally: sure, snooping. Otherwise the word is basically
designed to make it sound nefarious :)

~~~
dieterrams
I'm not an expert, but the first search result for 'snooping' on Google turns
up this page:

[http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gc...](http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci1131831,00.html)

It's got some obtrusive ads, so I'll just quote it all here:

\----------

Snooping, in a security context, is unauthorized access to another person's or
company's data. The practice is similar to eavesdropping but is not
necessarily limited to gaining access to data during its transmission.
Snooping can include casual observance of an e-mail that appears on another's
computer screen or watching what someone else is typing. More sophisticated
snooping uses software programs to remotely monitor activity on a computer or
network device. Malicious hackers (crackers) frequently use snooping
techniques and equipment such as keyloggers to monitor keystrokes, capture
passwords and login information, and to intercept e-mail and other private
communications and data transmissions. Corporations sometimes snoop on
employees legitimately to monitor their use of business computers and track
Internet usage; governments may snoop on individuals to collect information
and avert crime and terrorism.

Although snooping has a negative connotation in general, in computer
technology snooping can refer to any program or utility that performs a
monitoring function. For example, a snoop server is used to capture network
traffic for analysis, and the snooping protocol monitors information on a
computer bus to ensure efficient processing.

------
noibl
[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/30/Feelings-A...](http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/05/30/Feelings-
About-Companies#p-3) "What About Apple? · Hating (or loving) them seems about
as equally unreasonable. I’ve been vocal about my loathing for their app-store
regime but they’re my favorite computer manufacturer ... Apple as a whole? I
look into my soul and honestly can’t scare up much in the way of feelings,
positive or negative."

Kontra responds: "This, incredibly, is the same man who started his Google
“evangelism” gig with the words “I hate it” referring to Apple" -- a
deliberate misquotation. Here's the phrase in context:
[http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-
Go...](http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google) "The
people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his
anger. I hate it." Credibility dented.

It appears that Google's twin hats, advertising (from which it profits) and
software distribution (from which it doesn't, significantly) make it difficult
for critics to 'play the ball' in arguments over software distribution. Sure,
it's easy for Google to take the perceived moral high ground in a space that
is not seen as crucial to its success. That's a legitimate argument (although
it contributes nothing to the actual debate). Drawing analogies to its other
businesses such as search, advertising and maps, and sneering about how those
are not 'open' is not legitimate argument. It's distraction.

------
ErrantX
Sounds like a troll to me...

flag it and move on.

