While the launch of buzz really is a big disaster, i still think most of the errors that were made, were not because of a manager saying "hey, great, lets publish all privacy information of our users to the internet, thats a great business model!" (think of it, the users data is probably the most valuable data an internet company has today). It looks to me, as if a team had a good idea (yes, i think buzz as an idea is a good idea, the launch was not) but it was not properly tested and thought of such cases. All in all it was released far too early for far too many people. I still wonder why they didn't roll out buzz on an invite only base like they did with gmail. All this negative press could've been avoided and most people would be like "yay, thats cool!" without the "oh shit"-effect.
But that attitude that google fucked up your privacy on intent is just stupid. I agree, Googles power is scary: Think of it, google may control a lot of users internet experience from end-to-end in the future (ISP->Search->Mail->Mobile->Android->Netbooks+advertising = omg, scary!). They will eventually end up being split into many companies if the trend continues. But to say they fucked up your privacy on intent is just wrong, imo.
Thanks for the upcoming downvotes in advance, because i don't just repeat what every little blog is already writing over and over again.
> It looks to me, as if a team had a good idea (yes, i think buzz as an idea is a good idea,
> the launch was not) but it was not properly tested and thought of such cases.
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I feel they're evil. They believed that their idea was a good one, and so forced it on everyone without bothered to test it. Even if you don't attribute their mistakes to malice, the other option is to concede that they were 'merely' careless and reckless with our personal, private data.
My issue with Google isn't all the privacy issues around Buzz, it's that all the privacy issues around Buzz came after no outside testing, and with no choice on the end-user's part. They made a string of assumptions that turned out to be false in a not-insignificant number of cases, because no one thought 'hey, maybe we should ask people before we give other people information about them.'
Yes, i agree. As i said, it would probably have been a good idea to start with an invite-only beta stage. Still wondering why they didn't and why they didn't think the use cases through, that's a shame. To me it feels, like some manager wanted to push that software out before its time where i hoped google projects wouldn't be as budget-driven and as marketing-driven as the whole rest of the industry. Atleast not so much to produce such a disaster.
Although Google did some steps to open up in terms of what data they have on a user, i hope this incident pushes them to be as open as possible with what data of me they have and giving me more control over it.
No, Google clearly demonstrated that they are evil.
For whatever reason -- it doesn't matter in the slightest -- they decided not to very carefully think through what type of formerly private embedded information they had garnered through gmail, picasa, and reader. They then went and shared this information in an, at best, very difficult to understand and disable manner with a group of people that I didn't choose nor desire to share with. All in an effort to bootstrap their fb/twitter competitor.
To recap: in order to make money, they shared my private information to benefit no one but themselves.
Dear YC folks: now is a perfect time to write a self-hostable gmail clone.
Comments
While the launch of buzz really is a big disaster, i still think most of the errors that were made, were not because of a manager saying "hey, great, lets publish all privacy information of our users to the internet, thats a great business model!" (think of it, the users data is probably the most valuable data an internet company has today). It looks to me, as if a team had a good idea (yes, i think buzz as an idea is a good idea, the launch was not) but it was not properly tested and thought of such cases. All in all it was released far too early for far too many people. I still wonder why they didn't roll out buzz on an invite only base like they did with gmail. All this negative press could've been avoided and most people would be like "yay, thats cool!" without the "oh shit"-effect.
But that attitude that google fucked up your privacy on intent is just stupid. I agree, Googles power is scary: Think of it, google may control a lot of users internet experience from end-to-end in the future (ISP->Search->Mail->Mobile->Android->Netbooks+advertising = omg, scary!). They will eventually end up being split into many companies if the trend continues. But to say they fucked up your privacy on intent is just wrong, imo.
Thanks for the upcoming downvotes in advance, because i don't just repeat what every little blog is already writing over and over again.
My issue with Google isn't all the privacy issues around Buzz, it's that all the privacy issues around Buzz came after no outside testing, and with no choice on the end-user's part. They made a string of assumptions that turned out to be false in a not-insignificant number of cases, because no one thought 'hey, maybe we should ask people before we give other people information about them.'
Yes, i agree. As i said, it would probably have been a good idea to start with an invite-only beta stage. Still wondering why they didn't and why they didn't think the use cases through, that's a shame. To me it feels, like some manager wanted to push that software out before its time where i hoped google projects wouldn't be as budget-driven and as marketing-driven as the whole rest of the industry. Atleast not so much to produce such a disaster.
Although Google did some steps to open up in terms of what data they have on a user, i hope this incident pushes them to be as open as possible with what data of me they have and giving me more control over it.
No, Google clearly demonstrated that they are evil.
For whatever reason -- it doesn't matter in the slightest -- they decided not to very carefully think through what type of formerly private embedded information they had garnered through gmail, picasa, and reader. They then went and shared this information in an, at best, very difficult to understand and disable manner with a group of people that I didn't choose nor desire to share with. All in an effort to bootstrap their fb/twitter competitor.
To recap: in order to make money, they shared my private information to benefit no one but themselves.
Dear YC folks: now is a perfect time to write a self-hostable gmail clone.