Evil Google? Can the Search Engine Be Moral? - The "Evil" Continues

Let’s briefly look at a few more news stories. A couple years ago, Google was recognized as so much of an international player that they engaged China. After China blocked their search engine because it could be used to spread radical material, Google again played internet guardian. Google didn’t speak specifically of what they did, but China eventually allowed users to search Google again. The Chinese surfers soon discovered their new Google China would not let them view questionable political material.

Google claims it took that route because it is more useful now than it would have been as a blocked site. The company has done the same for France and Germany regarding Nazi materials. Sure, it does make the search engine more useful than if it were to be blocked. But is “usefulness” the same as “good?” Was it right to once again limit universal access to information? Well, that can remain questionable, but remaining “useful” sounds more like a business practice than a philosophy.

Far more recently, Google has been under fire from Microsoft. Google hired a former Microsoft executive, Kai-Fu Lee, to help develop their Chinese search engine. His job in Redmond was researching speech interfaces and search technology. You can see why Google wanted him. Due to non-competition agreements that Lee signed, Microsoft is suing both Google and Lee. Hiring a specialist from under the competition’s noses may sound like a normal business practice for most, but it errs on the dark side.

Google was also sued a few days ago for overcharging advertisers. Those who place ads can set daily limits of what they will pay, and the class action suit claims that Google exceeded those maximums for many people. If it’s actually true, the search company should look into the ethics of theft.

Already, you may be seeing how the interests of a publicly traded company, one man’s morals, and the mission of making all information “universally accessible and useful” come into conflict.

Sure, there’s no evidence that Google’s intentions are wrong or that Schmitt has made a blood pact with Satan. The company is not really evil. There is, however, plenty of reason to be concerned with any search companies that try to be seen as innocent. The trust users can put into one brand can be unreasonable. I have to congradulate Google on earning the faithfulness of so many people, but we should remain objective here.

These issues are not limited to Google, only the faith that Google can do no wrong. All search engines are becoming privacy concerns. Just last week, Yahoo! claimed to have upgraded their indexes to hold 20 billion documents, stomping Google’s record. Since Yahoo! has a much more expansive reach of content now, it’s obvious they probably need to be careful of these same issues.

What sort of privacy protection can any of these companies implement to ensure that misuse of the information can be kept to a minimum? Should users be the ones responsible for protecting themselves and getting content pulled (even those who don’t use the internet)? And Google’s lashing against CNet shows what the business isn’t afraid to resort to in order to keep the criticism quiet. It would be good if Google instead said, "Okay, we're working on it."