Why Only Google is to Blame for the Buzz Fiasco
Two weeks ago, Google launched Buzz, a service that lets you “[s]hare updates, photos, videos, and more”. In a way, Buzz is Google’s response to Twitter and Facebook.
Competing with incumbents as successful as these two is a challenge even for Google. Therefore, in order to give Buzz some serious momentum right from the start, Google management decided to tie the new service into their popular Gmail infrastructure and started rolling out a pre-populated “friends” list for every user the day the service went live.
The contacts for these “friends” lists were compiled automatically from users’ Gmail and Google Chat contacts, and the lists themselves were made public by default. As a result, Google managed to expose many a Gmail users’ address book for everyone to see.
Excusing Google
In the wake of this privacy fiasco, some journalists managed to provide a level-headed and insightful view of the story and also pointing out just how dire the consequences of this privacy breach may be for some of Google’s users like human rights activists or women hiding from their abusive spouses. Others, however, let Google off the hook much more easily.
Take, for example, Ron Miller’s article, “Cheating Spouses Might Want to Avoid Google“. Attention-grabbing title aside, Ron does point out that Google “probably” is “[u]ltimately responsible”. When you read between the lines, however, Ron’s overall point of view becomes apparent: “Those who complain should have known better than to trust Google!”
And it’s not just a problem specifically with Google, either, as Ron says:
“If you have something to hide, maybe you should think twice about using the internet to conduct your business”
And:
“There is no privacy on the internet, period”.
In an interview with CNBC, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt said something very similar:
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
There are many variations on this notion, but it always comes down to the same smug and corrosive attitude: only those people care about privacy who want to get away with inherently illegal and/or immoral behavior.
That notion, of course, is complete and utter nonsense.
What do people have to hide?
Not too long ago, I started compiling a list of questions to ask next time someone tells me they have nothing to hide. Obviously, the easiest way to test someone’s sense of privacy is to ask them questions that are seriously Not Safe For Work. Then again, inquiring about a person’s financial net worth usually is invasive enough to make almost anyone balk at such inquiries.
Fact of the matter is that we all have something, nay a lot to hide: a company’s business plan; an inventor’s blueprints; a person’s medical history; a writer’s manuscript; a journalist’s list of informants; a chef’s recipes; a teenager’s diary; a lover’s Valentine’s Day plans; a jobseeker’s contacts; …
You get the idea.
If these are examples for “something that you don’t want anyone to know”, then, according to Eric Schmidt’s quote above, you shouldn’t be starting a business, invent something, go see a doctor, and so on. Come to think of it, last time I checked, Google did not want anyone outside the company to know how their page rank algorithm works. Good heavens! Why, they should be forced to take their search engine offline immediately!
Freedom and privacy go hand in hand
Admittedly, for some of the examples I gave above, the consequences of the data becoming public isn’t all that dramatic. The reason for that is that we live in a free society: we are free to say what we think; we are free to believe what we want; we are free to travel to whatever places we find interesting. True, depending on what you say, what you believe, where you go, chances are that it will have consequences for you, e.g., when searching for a new job.
For someone living in a state with a suppressive government, however, being able to keep certain things very private may become a matter of life and death. For such brave souls who have the guts to communicate via blogs, email, etc., how their fellow-countrymen are treated by their “sovereign”, having their contacts list exposed due to the Buzz screw-up may very well turn into a nightmare.
If we were expected, or even required, to justify our claim to privacy — which, by the way, is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (it’s in article 12) — every time we decide not to share certain data with the general public, that would be no less than the end of a truly free society.
The key question, therefore, is not who is entitled to which level of privacy; that question has been answered in December 1948 (see the link in the previous paragraph). Instead, we should ask ourselves whether we are willing to trust a company whose CEO publicly displays such a disregard for his customer’s demands just because all of that company’s products are “free”.
What kind of privacy should we expect from Internet companies?
When I do business with a company, any company, I expect them to do all they can to protect any data I share with them. If they won’t do this, I expect them to openly and honestly tell me so up front. I want to decide what subset of my personal data I make available online by choosing which online services I entrust with my data, and which privacy settings I choose for the respective services.
For some data services, that “setting” is a simple “Never, ever share this stuff with anyone!”, e.g., the statements of my online bank account, the backup I store “in the cloud”, or the address book that I share between multiple machines via an online service.
And this is exactly where Google screwed up big time: Google has so many smart people working for them that it boggles the mind how they could so massively misjudge the effects of the public, pre-populated Buzz “friends” lists.
In the NYT article I link to above, Todd Jackson, product manager for Gmail and Google Buzz, is quoted as saying:
Google remains completely committed to freedom of expression and to privacy, and we have a strong track record of protecting both.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Jackson defended the setup of the Buzz service. He said that Buzz came with a built-in circle of contacts to provide a better experience to users and that many liked that feature. He said that it was very easy for users to edit who they were following on the service and who could follow them. He also said that anyone could hide their list of Buzz contacts with a single click.
Apparently, Mr Jackson does not even understand why people are outraged by Google’s actions, and the combination of his comment and Mr Schmidt’s quote above, does show that users should not trust Google to do the right thing when it comes to protecting their private data.
In defense of in-experienced customers
Ron Miller is absolutely right on this one, of course: do not trust Google to take good care of your personal data.
I do feel, however, that, instead of blaming the users for not being careful enough, he should have pointed his finger squarely at Google for displaying such, well, pick one: naivité/ignorance/stupidity/arrogance/delusion.
What’s more, I don’t see any basis for extrapolating this to mean that none of the Internet services out there can be trusted. I don’t recall that my bank ever published any account data, that Apple publicized their MobileMe customers’ address book data, that Mozy allowed public access to their customers’ backed-up files, etc.
So what now?
While I was working on this article, John C. Welch posted a great comment on the TidBITS Talk mailing list:
Keep this in mind at all times with google: you are never, ever their customer. You are their product. The people buying ads are their customers.
With that in mind, I wish that people would take this away from the Buzz incident:
- Be careful about whom you entrust with your personal data
- Understand a service’s privacy settings before you enter any data
- Avoid Google, because they have proven that they don’t understand their customer’s need for privacy. At all.
And most importantly:
- Don’t feel compelled to justify your desire for privacy. Fact of the matter is, the onus is on the companies to justify their desire for violating it.
Dear Vodafone: It is My Time, Indeed!
In July of this year, telecommunications giant Vodafone announced a new marketing campaign under the slogan “Es ist Deine Zeit” — “It is Your Time”.
After a seriously disappointing and tiresome experience with Vodafone’s customer service department, that slogan has taken on a deeper meaning for me: “If you ever have a serious problem with one of our products, it’ll be your time that we’ll be wasting. And we might not even solve your problem, either!”
Saying Good Bye to Vodafone to Say Hello to iPhone
After having passed on the first two generations of iPhones, I felt it was time to finally give in to the Lure of Steve’s Shiny Phone Thingy when the iPhone 3GS was introduced in June 2009.
I had signed up for a basic, two-year-minimum-term Vodafone contract, which I was using with my previous phone, back in 2007. Hence, it would have made for perfect timing to port my existing phone number to the iPhone, if I had canceled the Vodafone contract effective June 2009. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline for the three-month advance notice by some 15 days, because I hadn’t paid enough attention to the fine print in the contract and assumed that I had to cancel with an advance notice of only one month.
Since a new mobile phone number meant having to inform countless people about the change, editing my letter stationary, having new business cards printed, etc., I wrote to Vodafone customer service to inquire whether there was any way at all to get out of my contract early in order to keep my phone number. In this letter, I explicitly mentioned that the reason for my request was my commitment to purchasing an iPhone which, in Germany, is officially sold exclusively through T-Mobile.
Vodafone Can Offer iPhones, Too!
Instead of the written reply that I had hoped for, I received a phone call from Vodafone’s customer service about a week later. And the story unfolded thusly:
18 August A Vodafone representative calls to offer me an iPhone with a Vodafone contract. The actual device is offered by an “independent reseller” that they partner with. If I’m interested, they will forward my contact details to that reseller, who will get in touch with me.
I agree, but also ask about whether they will let me get out of my Vodafone contract early in case their iPhone offer will not come to pass. He confirms that, yes, I will have this option, and that my case record in their CRM database explicitly says so.
31 August Not having heard anything from the “independent reseller” yet, I call Vodafone and get to choose between waiting a bit longer for the reseller to contact me, or escalating my request for early contract termination. I decide to give them two more weeks.
16 September Still no news. I call Vodafone again and am being offered to get in touch with the reseller myself. I politely decline and ask about the offer to let me out of my contract early. I still do have that option, I am told, but have to send another written request to Vodafone. That’s exactly what I do after hanging up, and I include a reference to their call from October, 18th, in that letter.
30 September Vodafone’s reply is in my mailbox. Date-stamped September, 23rd, it turns out to be a run-of-the-mill form letter, and it lists June 2010 as the effective termination date of my contract.
Yet another call to Vodafone, then: after talking to her supervisor for a few minutes, the hotline rep tells me that said supervisor has agreed to look into this matter personally; that my contract would be terminated on October, 5th.; that there would still be plenty of time to port the phone number to another provider; and that my number would not be tossed back into the number pool.
When I mention that I need a written cancellation confirmation to apply for my new cellphone line, she says she can only confirm the October, 5th, date on the phone, but that she will look into this, and that I am not to worry.
10 October My phone still logs into the Vodafone network and I’ve finally had enough. I decide to call Vodafone one last time.
We’ll be Right Back After This Recap
Let’s quickly recap what happened so far: at this point…
… it’s been almost eight weeks since I received the call with the iPhone offer, and the reseller has not contacted me even once,
… on four seperate occasions, different Vodafone customer service representatives have confirmed that I have the option to be released from my contract early,
… I was given a definitive date on which my Vodafone line would be cut and the number released for porting to T-Mobile,
… the only written confirmation I have lists the original termination date in June 2010.
Valued Customer? Gotcha!
Let’s pick up the story:
10 October (cont’d) After exchanging greetings, I ask the customer rep to please put me through to one of her supervisors, because I had been dealing with an issue for a while now and, therefore, would like to talk to someone in charge.
Nevertheless, she asks what this is about, so I give her a quick overview of the situation.1 And then she puts me on hold in that all-too-familiar attempt to talk to one of the higher-ups — for no less than twenty minutes.
And when she comes back on the line she tells me how sorry she is, but that my request for early termination had been denied by the complaints department.
I tell her that now would be a good time to put me through to her supervisor, after all. But shielding hotline supervisors seems to be the only thing that works perfectly at Vodafone, because after another short moment spent on-hold, I am told that the supervisor — the very person she has talked to just moments ago — was now in a meeting that would last another fifteen minutes, or so, and if I would like to be called back.
Although I do request a return call, that call never comes.
Thanks for Calling Vodafone, How May We Screw You Today?
I know what you’re thinking: “If you had sent out your cancellation letter in time, none of this would have happened, so stop whining!” And you’re absolutely right — at least in part.
Because none of this wouldn’t have happened, either, if Vodafone had invested just a little bit of effort into simply responding to my initial letter, telling me that, nope, sorry, can’t do that, you’ll have to stick around and sit this one out.
But it was their decision to call me and offer me an iPhone, instead. And it was their “independent reseller partner” who didn’t bother to get in touch with me in some way or another for almost two months.
The most baffling aspect of this whole ordeal, though, is this one: what does Vodafone gain from not letting me port my phone number to another provider before my contract with them runs out? It can’t be money, because I did offer to pay off any outstanding monthly fees. It can’t be customer retention, because even the most dimwitted CRM executive must, simply must, understand that such pig-headedness is a sure-fire way to lose customers, not retain them. So what is it?
Whatever the reasoning behind that decision is, Vodafone did have a chance of keeping me on as customer if their iPhone supplier had bothered to contact me at least once. When I requested early contract termination, they did have a chance to see me leave with sufficient goodwill to consider becoming a Vodafone customer again in the future. When they were unable, or unwilling, to keep their own promise, they did have a chance to at least limit my disappointment by calling me back, listening to my complaints, and explaining to me what went wrong. And they wasted every single one of these opportunities.
The bottom line: Vodafone customer(!) service(!!) managed to botch up so many details in this case that I have simply taken them off my shortlist of “connectivity companies”. A company whose customer-facing organisation is managed so poorly is simply not worth my time. Because, you know, this is my time, and I’d rather invest it in doing business with more competent suppliers.
Epilogue: Hey, Look What I Got!
As I finish writing this blog post, my iPhone is lying around here somewhere, loaded with useful apps, all my contacts, hours of great music — and a T-Mobile SIM card. What a fantastic little device and what a surprisingly pleasant buying experience at the local T-Mobile outlet, which, ironically, is right across the street from a Vodafone store.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go write some emails to inform my friends, family, and colleagues about my new phone number…
-
I’ve since realized that that was a major mistake. If I should ever run into a similar situation again, I will refuse to explain the issue to the service rep and insist on talking to her supervisor. No more opportunities for them to shield their superiors. ↩
What’s the Big Deal with Gay Marriage Anyway?
Earlier today, Bill Swallow twittered about a group of anti-gay-marriage protesters, saying:
Bad photo, but there are people with “Honk for straight marriage” signs in Clifton Park. #intolerance http://yfrog.com/57t7vj
To this, I replied:
@techcommdood I’m all for straight marriage, as I am convinced that it can co-exist with gay marriage just fine.
I feel that this needs some clarification.
I am very fortunate to call a large group of very diverse people my friends. Knowing that some of them are homosexuals feels as normal to me as knowing that some come from far-away countries or have black skin.
Among these friends are two gay guys from San Francisco who have gotten married about a year ago after having been a couple for almost two decades. Whenever we meet, I can be sure that it’s going to be a grand time filled with great conversations and lots of laughter, as both are wonderful people: they are intelligent, funny, witty, caring, cheerful… Why are they all that?
Because they are intelligent, funny, witty, caring, and cheerful… Those traits reflect their character — it’s who they are. It is not, however, “because they are gay”, let alone “although they are gay”.
There just is no correlation at all between their being gay and their being wonderful people. In fact, I cannot see a correlation between a person’s sexual orientation and any of their personal traits. Much rather, sexual orientation is a stand-alone characteristic. If you will, it is merely a straight fact1 that doesn’t say anything about what that person is like, what makes that person tick, or what their core values are.
To put it bluntly, bastard are bastards because they are bastards, and great people are great people because they are great people, and in no way is this determined by their sexual orientation, color of skin/eyes/hair, height, weight, or what have you.
And while we’re at it, the same holds true for dangerous people, too. The notion that a person will pose a threat to the morals of the neighborhood just because they’re gay just makes me shake my head, but I honestly worry about the overall worldview of those who go so far as to claim that a homosexual person can “make” other people (usually the kids next door) homosexual.
“But homosexuality is a choice!”, I sometimes hear people say. But is it? Think back to your puberty and ask yourself when you made your conscious(!) choice in this matter: did you really have to wonder about whether you feel attracted to the opposite or the same sex and then freely pick one? I can’t answer that for you, of course, but I know for sure that, in my case, my body answered that question for me by giving me some perfectly non-ambiguous signs of which gender got me excited…
So, let’s go back to that tweet about straight marriage and gay marriage co-existing peacefully, shall we? In hindsight, and without this bit of context I have provided here, my tweet may appear as an attempt to ridicule the whole topic. That is definitely not the case.
This is a very serious human rights issue, and I do support the view that nations that claim to honor civil liberties must let both straight and gay couples marry and grant to them equal rights. In both cases, the marriage certificate is just an officialized piece of paper, documenting the bond between two people, which bond is an expression of their love, affection, and respect for each other. Nothing more, and nothing less; straight or not.
As for religious marriage ceremonies, I don’t have any reservations about leaving the decision for or against gay marriage up to the religious organizations themselves, and I honestly do respect those decisions. That’s because I believe in the separation of state and church, and it is the state that must guarantee equal rights for all, whereas religions are not obliged to.2
To put it another way, while most religions make judgements about who is a true believer, and who isn’t, that powerful, revolutionary-at-the-time phrase “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” does not define any exceptions. Not one.
So what about the question in the title of this post? Nope, gay marriage really isn’t a big deal at all. Well, OK: at least in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be.
Eating Out: Nob Hill Cafe, San Francisco
Depending on where you stay in San Francisco, you’ll find numerous great restaurants just around the corner from your hotel, or you can consider yourself lucky if there are a handful of places within walking distance. The Nob Hill area is among the latter, unless you count in the three-block down-hill adventure into China Town: finding restaurants around here is a bit difficult. At least if you are looking for something casual.
So when I developed a craving for pasta tonight, I did the old-fashioned and often risky thing of asking the front-desk staff of my hotel for advice about which neighborhood restaurant to honor with my patronage. “There is a nice place near by, and it’s a staff favorite: the Nob Hill Cafe.”
Apart from the fact that all restaurants that have been suggested to me so far turned were “staff favorites”, I was willing to give this place a try, even more so since, during a walk a few days ago, I had seen a little tempting Italian place in just the spot where the friendly guest relations expert had made a little cross on the map that she handed me.
When I arrived, I realized that, indeed, it was the place I had seen earlier. And I also realized that the place was popular, as it was just packed with people, and a few groups were waiting outside to be admitted.
After a quick chat with a waitress (I don’t think a place as small as this has a maitre d’…), my name was added to the waiting list and I decided to go for a quick stroll, before I returned to the restaurant to join the queues.
As a nice touch, I was asked if I wanted to have a drink while waiting, so I opted for a glass of Valpolicella. Which immediately drew the comment from another guest-in-waiting that that was a good choice, as the Chianti wasn’t all that grand. Well, the Valpolicella was OK, if not spectacular. Part of the reason surely was it’s temperature: it was too warm. It’s irritating how many people in the hospitality business think that “room temperature” means “cozy and warm like a place in front of an open fire on a Winter’s night”. Instead, replace “room temperature” with “somewhere around 16..18°C,” and you’d be surprised by the result.
As an aside: have you ever seen someone in a restaurant slooooooowly picking at their food and munching away at the odd morsel of food, taking an occasional sip from their beverage of choice, and indulge in the pleasure of reading a book, all the while the queue of hungry guests outside the door gets longer and longer? And have you felt really angry at this selfish, egomaniacal bastard? Thanks, I feel better now that I know that I’m not alone, then.
After a few more minutes’ wait, I was led to my table, which was tiny, but definitely big enough for one. The place being absolutely packed with guests made for a great atmosphere which bordered on authentically Italian, if it hadn’t been for the “wrong” language being spoken at the vast majority of tables.
As I had strategically read the menu while still in the queue, I had already made a choice for a starter and a main course, but I had missed the enticing items on the daily specials. Anyway, I eventually settled on a carrot-ginger soup and Penne Bettola, which promised to “vodka & garlic in a spicy tomato cream sauce.”
Although I had ordered only a cup of soup, the first course arrived in a huge bowl: nice orange color and creamy texture. A first spoon and: “ahhh, ginger!” Tiny flakes of ginger were immersed in this big orange liquid and added a wonderful fresh edge to the flavor of the soup. Unfortunately, that very flavor — carrot, I mean — was a bit bland. The texture was very nice, if somewhat too smooth for my taste, but what I was really missing was a more intense carrot flavor.
The soup was soon followed by the main course, the Penne dish, served in a similar, i.e., darn huge, bowl as its predecessing course. And it also shared a bit of the same problems as the soup: there was definitely a lot of delicious garlic in the sauce, as was tomato. The vodka, though, I could barely detect, which, however, is no big surprise, as you’d have to add a lot of it to make it really stand out tastewise, and I’m thankful — having had my second glass of red wine — that the chef erred on the side of adding less of this ingredient.
And yet, the sauce not being too spicy either, it was, again, a pleasant dish, but somehow lacking character and soul that I would expect from such elegantly and delightful simple Italian cuisine.
To sum up, two nice, if not eye-opening dishes, prepared with self-assured routine, I am sure, but without that bit of extra “amore” that makes all the difference in Italian cuisine. The check came to around $40 bucks, which is reasonable considering the location and — judging from the buzz — popularity of the place. Well worth a visit if you stay in the area and are looking for a pleasant dinner spot, but, then again, not a major loss, if you have the option to visit one of the restaurants deeper in North Beach, instead.
Food: 3/5
Atmosphere: 4/5
Service: 4/5
Value: 3/5
Overall: 3.5/5
Nob Hill Cafe
1152 Taylor St, San Francisco
MM 7 — Day 10: Sal’s Inside Story and a Caribbean Farewell Sunset
The classes I have attended on this cruise have all been entertaining and informing. But what really makes these vacations special is meeting the people behind the headlines: hearing more about the lives of those you usually only know from reading their books or magazine articles, and learning their paths to doing what they do now, and becoming who they are today.
Today, it was Sal Soghoian’s turn to lift that proverbial curtain somewhat by telling us about “The Early Days at Apple,” and more specifically, about his early days at the company. The problem with such talks obviously is that it is difficult to gauge what is being told on-the-record, and what part of it should not be published, even if only in a humble blog post such as this one.
So, I will just write about how Sal got to work for Apple, and leave it at that. But that one paragraph should suffice to give you an indication of just how interesting this session was.
In the nineties, Sal worked as a bar manager in the Pocono Mountains, and his first Mac was a machine that had been repossessed by one of his friends from a drug dealer that owed this friend some money. When he got into working with layout software on that Macintosh, Sal decided that that business would probably provide him with better living than life as a bar manager. Having started to dig into AppleScript in ‘92, he eventually joined Apple on 13 January 1997, and has stayed with them since.
♦
Ten fantastic cruise days are behind us and, as with every great vacation, the moment has come to wonder how time could fly so fast and how many new sights and sounds you have taken in, and to muse about the many new friendships you have found.
And as if it, too, wanted to say goodbye, the sun is also back after those few gray days.
So, what better way to round off the cruise is there than to celebrate this gorgeous — and our final — Caribbean sunset by joining with a few good friends at the aft Pool Bar, sharing cruise stories, a few beers, and many a hearty laugh before tomorrow’s farewells.
It’s been a grand ride. Thanks for coming along.