February 18, 2006

So Then You're More Concerned With Your User Derived Profits Than Your Users Privacy?

[UPDATE: Micah, thanks for the reminder! My default search provider has now been properly set to Yahoo!, a much better search engine to rely on (and no doubt it's getting better by the day! :D) for my daily search needs. Please see my follow-up comments (and if you're not Micah, then obviouly reading his comment first for proper context would make sense :D) below.]

Google Criticizes Gov't in Court Papers - Yahoo! News

"If users believe that the text of their search queries into Google's search engine may become public knowledge, it only logically follows that they will be less likely to use the service," Google's lawyers wrote.

Hey Google:

* You're Grandstanding.
* Did you just state "it only logically follows that they will be less likely to use the service"
* Just checked. Yeah, you did.
* if (MSFT == EVIL) && (EVIL == 'Profit without moral conscience') then (apparently, anyway) (MSFT != EVIL) && GOOGLE does.
* if (you just chuckled 'silly lad, that won't compile') then (thanks for proving my point)

[UPDATE: How would that prove my point? If, in fact, Google's response was to try and point out problems with something that had nothing to do with the point of the post, and was, in fact, just frivolus nonsense that doesn't add or take away from the overall value of the point, then they would making an attempt to derail my point by simply changing the subject to something completely unrelated.

So why put it there in the first place?

"You're new to these parts, aren't ya..." ;) :D

So how would attempting to change the subject to something unrelated prove my point? If, in fact, this was proven to be their response, then it would showcase the fact that they're not concerned with their appearance of evil and in fixing that apparance if its proven to be a false image of what is truly the case.

It's doubtful.

But I'll leave room for the possibility that they're lawyers are the evil ones. If this proves to be the case.... fire them. They're making you look evil. If you're not, then prove it by finding council that are not criminally minded, and are truly concerned with protecting the privacy of your customers, instead of the profits of your corporation.

Pretty simple. In fact, here's a little quote you can tack to your "bulletin board" as a reminder:

If the privacy of your customer base is put first, profit will come after.

If profit is put first, it will be your last.

or, as has been foretold in the scripture of centuries past:

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

Think about it.

Recursion (or, in this case, tail recursion) is not a theory of Computer Science, nor is it a theory in Physical Science.

Recursion is a God-like trait that has been woven into the Cosmos since further back than we have the ability to measure. It's part of the 'Grand Design', although, like art and poetry, I'm not so sure the 'Grand Design' was in fact a design the way we think of design, and instead, an understanding.

In fact, this showcases quite nicely that Religion and Science have a lot more in common than most Far Right & Left Wingers, respectively, would be willing to both accept, and admit.

It's too bad... So much peace and tranquility can come into your life when you stop trying to push your own designs and instead understand the designs that already exist... which in fact, taking the above into account, would mean that understanding the design isn't about design, and instead, understanding.

See. 'Recursion all over again.'

or is it 'Again over all recursion.'?

Yep. It's Both.

You hate me now don't you?

Yeah. Welcome!

Oh, and don't forget... membership fees are due before the last day of each month!]

[Original post continued...]

Hey Google, here's a clue:

Three other companies have handed over this information and have done so without a user uproar in privacy concerns. One of those companies is Microsoft. Another, a company in which you own 5%.

So, what's the problem again? Oh, that's right, you're more concerned with looking like the hero, and in return get LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of GREAT FREE PRESS!

BTW... Was this the kind of "GREAT FREE PRESS!" you were looking for?

Probably not, huh?

Here's an idea:

How about we change some of those words around to read something less like an evil, profit driven corporation who's profit, above all else (like morals, etc...), is of the most importance, and concerns over their users privacy plays the role of 'second fiddle'. How about something like:

"If users believe that the text of their search queries into Google's search engine may become public knowledge, it only logically follows that they will be less likely to feel that their privacy is just that, private." Google's lawyers wrote.

NOTE: It's kind of too late to change it now. Your true colors have already shown through. Stating "yeah, that's what we meant to say." isn't going to work.

What will work? Not sure. But I've already changed my default search provider to MSN Search. I'm trying to decide whether or not to dump Gmail and Google Talk. They're more an integral part of my daily dev-life, although I could easily and quickly change that if it proves necessary.

Guess we'll see if it does.