Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#21

Post by haberman »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #11
tensafefrogs wrote: post #3

related: "Google deflects PR firm's attack of Gmail privacy" http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2011-05-06-google_n.htm

From that article: >The service also privately sends each Gmail user the names of "secondary connections," a listing of the people each direct connection happens to be following publicly on the Web. So it will show me the friends of my friends? What is this obsession with degrading privacy in this way? Didn't Google learn lessons from the way Buzz exposed your friends to other friends? Why can't email and chat be jus…

It's only showing you information that is already public (the people your friends are publicly following).

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#22

Post by potatolicious »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #17
warfangle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is kind of funny, comparing GOOG's privacy with Facebook's privacy.

Not really, because when I go to FaceBook(a social network website) I have a totally different expectation of privacy compared to when i go to Gmail.

I think he's referring to the lack of privacy and information control even within Facebook - there are persistent claims from former engineers there that user privacy isn't taken seriously, and that breaches of user privacy by employees occurs often and with relative impunity.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#23

Post by rbanffy »

RexRollman wrote: post #7
aresant wrote: post #4

"Caught" seems like a funny word to use. They pretty clearly lay out a case that this is an interesting story, and all's fair in love and PR. In fact the email they're sending seems relatively benign compared to what I expected to see. And the juiciest part of the story - who's paying the PR person - is missing. Wondering why this wound up @ the top of HN as a result? EDIT - Slightly more interesting (err, predictabl…

If it is Microsoft, they are wasting their money.

They have lots of it

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#24

Post by recoiledsnake »

haberman wrote: post #21
recoiledsnake wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that article: >The service also privately sends each Gmail user the names of "secondary connections," a listing of the people each direct connection happens to be following publicly on the Web. So it will show me the friends of my friends? What is this obsession with degrading privacy in this way? Didn't Google learn lessons from the way Buzz exposed your friends to other friends? Why can't email and chat be jus…

It's only showing you information that is already public (the people your friends are publicly following).

Still, Google needn't make it easy by aggregating it and presenting information about me to my friends.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#25

Post by jbooth »

aresant wrote: post #4

"Caught" seems like a funny word to use. They pretty clearly lay out a case that this is an interesting story, and all's fair in love and PR. In fact the email they're sending seems relatively benign compared to what I expected to see. And the juiciest part of the story - who's paying the PR person - is missing. Wondering why this wound up @ the top of HN as a result? EDIT - Slightly more interesting (err, predictabl…

I think the story's notable to people because it highlights the pervasiveness of this kind of thing. Good reminder to keep your critical thinking hat on.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#26

Post by recoiledsnake »

potatolicious wrote: post #22
recoiledsnake wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, because when I go to FaceBook(a social network website) I have a totally different expectation of privacy compared to when i go to Gmail.

I think he's referring to the lack of privacy and information control even within Facebook - there are persistent claims from former engineers there that user privacy isn't taken seriously, and that breaches of user privacy by employees occurs often and with relative impunity.

Still, my point stands, when it comes to email and chatting, I expect 100% privacy, which Google already violated once with Buzz and now seems to be doing the same thing again with Social Circle or whatever.

With Facebook, I just assume everything could be made public, so I don't put private info that I don't want others to know.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#28

Post by kmavm »

potatolicious wrote: post #22
recoiledsnake wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, because when I go to FaceBook(a social network website) I have a totally different expectation of privacy compared to when i go to Gmail.

I think he's referring to the lack of privacy and information control even within Facebook - there are persistent claims from former engineers there that user privacy isn't taken seriously, and that breaches of user privacy by employees occurs often and with relative impunity.

As a current engineer at Facebook, I would be really surprised to read anyone claiming we don't "take it seriously." It absorbs an enormous amount of engineering effort, thought around new products, and even cap ex: computing visibility for objects whose permissions are "friends of friends", for example, is computationally expensive.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#29

Post by asknemo »

I am very surprised this is the first time someone try to get everyone's attention on this practice (if that's the intention of the poster/submitter). It's quite easy to spot recently there are well-timed attacks on Google or Android which are oddly fueled with passion. I suppose any money spent on this (which should be significant) would be way better used if it's used to improve whatever product the client have in competition with Google, really. End users, ultimately, won't benefit from these.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#30

Post by asknemo »

aresant wrote: post #4

"Caught" seems like a funny word to use. They pretty clearly lay out a case that this is an interesting story, and all's fair in love and PR. In fact the email they're sending seems relatively benign compared to what I expected to see. And the juiciest part of the story - who's paying the PR person - is missing. Wondering why this wound up @ the top of HN as a result? EDIT - Slightly more interesting (err, predictabl…

Google's announcing something about music on the cloud this month. Related?
Post reply on HN