Google vs. Stephen Conroy
|
It seems like every time we write the name “Google” in a headline, it is proceeded by “vs.”: Google vs. Apple, Google vs. Microsoft, Google vs. Yahoo, Google vs. China, Google vs. Facebook*… but this week we can add an unlikely new contender to the list: Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. As Bernard Keane reported on The Stump yesterday, Conroy used Monday’s Senate Estimates meeting to launch a ten-minute tirade on the search engine giant for collecting private wi-fi data while constructing its Street View mapping service. “Google takes the view that they can do anything they want,” Conroy said. “It is possible that this has been the largest privacy breach in history across Western democracies.” Needless to say, Conroy’s attack hasn’t gone unnoticed by the geek world and the wider world, with coverage from the likes of CNET, Mashable, FT, The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. As Crikey’s tech correspondent Stilgherrian has explained, Conroy’s concerns are valid, and the incident is currently being investigated by the Australian Privacy Commissioner:
Google has already apologised for the breach, dismissing it as a simple “mistake”. But Conroy has called BS, claiming “they wrote a piece of code designed to do it”. But Google has hit back, accusing Conroy of hypocrisy and distraction from the shortcomings of his own proposed internet filter plan:
Google says Conroy is just bitter over its very public criticism of the filter. Not content with taking on just one giant of the ‘tubes, Conroy also joined the chorus of voices shouting down Facebook’s privacy policy, saying:
Today, the Australian Federal Police joined in the stacks on, saying it’s only a matter of time before Facebook leads to “loss of life”, and calling for the social networking site to appoint a dedicated law enforcement liason in Australia to police the site. In capitalising on the current torrent of vitriol raining down on Facebook, Conroy may have found the ultimate strawman to take the heat off his own plans, asking who voters would prefer be in charge of their internet:
* or this may reflect my lazy over-reliance on cliched, fill-in-the-blanks headlines |
|
|
|
Historically Hung Over: The Crikey Guide To The 2010 Federal Election
13 Comments
Multi billion dollar corporation at the heart of the internet vs marginally lucid politician from the ineffectual government of a mid-sized country. Its a close call.
As usual Conroy uses his time at senate estimates to attack opponents of the internet filter rather than answering the long list of questions Australians have been asking him for the past 2 years.
I would trust Google over Rudd and Conroy any day, at least Google aren’t having there communications and technology policies dictated by the religious right!
“A corporate giant who is answerable to no one and motivated solely by profit making the rules on the internet, or a democratically elected government with all the checks and balances in place?”
At least the corporate giant would be required to demonstrate a business plan and a prospectus when it proposes to spend $43 billion of shareholders equity
At least Google respond to criticism. And dont throw tantrums. And frankly they show far more accountability (to their users, and their shareholders) than Conroy ever has.
They apologize, issue clear, transparent and open statements regarding the issue, change their polices, and inform the public. All of which is completely foreign to Conroy.
Msg to Conroy: A good defense of policy (“evidence based policy” that is - ROFL) is not an offense.
You actually think Google wanted to grab random snippets of wifi traffic for…. what? What possible use could Google use these random bits of data for? Your attributing malice where error is far more likely.
It almost makes me wish for Alston to come back.
Nothing Google does is accidental, and it doesn’t remedy its cavalier actions until after it is forced to.
Conroy is off the planet, but Alston was evil.
The fact is their are such things as public wireless internet access points which are meant for use by all and sundry and it makes perfect sense for Google to record and publish their locations. Unfortunately there is a problem that many naive users have not secured their wireless networks against use by random people nearby with a wireless equipped laptop, this means that Google would have to verify that each such is actually meant for public access. I suspect that the ones where the door is unintentionally left open far outnumber those intended for public use. Thus I think Conroy’s attack on Google is unfair and anyway is probably driven by ulterior motives.
I enjoyed being one of the voters who threw John Howard out in 2007, but I am extremely unimpressed by Conroy’s internet censoring antics, the very wishy washy carbon trading scheme and the canceling of the same when bluffed by Tony Abbot. thus I think I will vote against labour at the next election.
I’m deeply suspicious of Google, but right now it’s less of a threat to free communication than Conroy.
Altakoi sums it up perfectly.
Slight correction Ruth, the word preceeding means to ‘proceed ahead of’. Your examples are all examples of Goggles’s name following or being preceded by vs.
Might sound like nit picking to some, but clarity of thought and expression is supposed to be stock in trade for all who deal in communication (well, politicians get a ‘get out of jail free’ card in this area).
Google or Conroy - not much of a choice. But Conroy’s efforts to curry favour with the public and push his stupid filter through are much more transparent at the moment.
Is it just me or does it look a little like the AFP putting pressure on google to employ a retired AFP officer (the dedicated Australian law enforcement liaison officer previously employed by MySpace was ex-AFP)
Does Stephen Conroy have a Facebook? For some reason, I thought it was a pre-requisite for membership to the ALP.
Conroy looks more and more pathetic every time he opens his mouth. I’ve written up a piece on the damage he’s doing the Labor party’s re-election chances, here: http://dailybludge.com.au/2010/05/conroys-got-to-go/