3 ms·

So let's see here. Google "contractors" in Kenya get caught stealing customers red-handed. Then "contractors" in India take over where they left off. They also

So let's see here. Google "contractors" in Kenya get caught stealing customers red-handed. Then "contractors" in India take over where they left off. They also start messing with OpenStreetMap. And somehow, no one at Google had any idea? Oh, please. If this was Microsoft, you'd all be raising hell, but because it's Google everyone is talking about how great they are for dropping the contractors? I'm disappointed in you all.

gruuk 15y ago
There are plenty who would react the same way if it had been Microsoft instead of Google - in this specific case, I would initially give either a cautious benefit of the doubt. It's not 1999 anymore, most people have moved on from automatic MS-bashing.
icebraining 15y ago
Microsoft has an history of shady tactics coming from the top that Google doesn't (see the Halloween documents, for example). It's not reasonable to expect people to treat them the same.
scott_s 15y ago
Oh, please. If this was Microsoft, you'd all be raising hell It's disingenuous to fault a group of individuals because of how you think they would react to a hypothetical.
chc 15y ago
These contractors are a full continent plus an ocean away from the Googleplex. It seems pretty plausible to me that nobody high on the totem pole had any idea about the particulars of what they were doing. I doubt they even know everything that the thousands of full-time employees who work right down the hall are doing.
- ww520 15y ago
  Not that I'm taking side on this Google fiasco but distance is not an excuse in these days of distributed workspace and multi-national corporations. If distance is an acceptable excuse, BP didn't have to take responsibility for the oil spill happened in the Mexico Gulf since it's an ocean away in a different continent.
  - chc 15y ago
    You seem to have taken my comment out of context. I didn't say distance excuses anything, just that it presents logistical challenges. The comment I was replying to suggested that Google had to have known, so I was explaining that, no, the higher-ups at Google very well might not have had a clue. This does not appear to have been a major campaign of great strategic importance to the company, it didn't involve a lot of people and it wasn't anomalously using any resources, so I have no trouble believing that it simply slipped under the radar. You might say that was negligence on Google's part, but I don't think you can call it malice.

gruuk 15y ago

There are plenty who would react the same way if it had been Microsoft instead of Google - in this specific case, I would initially give either a cautious benefit of the doubt. It's not 1999 anymore, most people have moved on from automatic MS-bashing.

icebraining 15y ago

Microsoft has an history of shady tactics coming from the top that Google doesn't (see the Halloween documents, for example). It's not reasonable to expect people to treat them the same.

scott_s 15y ago

Oh, please. If this was Microsoft, you'd all be raising hell It's disingenuous to fault a group of individuals because of how you think they would react to a hypothetical.

chc 15y ago

These contractors are a full continent plus an ocean away from the Googleplex. It seems pretty plausible to me that nobody high on the totem pole had any idea about the particulars of what they were doing. I doubt they even know everything that the thousands of full-time employees who work right down the hall are doing.

ww520 15y ago
Not that I'm taking side on this Google fiasco but distance is not an excuse in these days of distributed workspace and multi-national corporations. If distance is an acceptable excuse, BP didn't have to take responsibility for the oil spill happened in the Mexico Gulf since it's an ocean away in a different continent.
- chc 15y ago
  You seem to have taken my comment out of context. I didn't say distance excuses anything, just that it presents logistical challenges. The comment I was replying to suggested that Google had to have known, so I was explaining that, no, the higher-ups at Google very well might not have had a clue. This does not appear to have been a major campaign of great strategic importance to the company, it didn't involve a lot of people and it wasn't anomalously using any resources, so I have no trouble believing that it simply slipped under the radar. You might say that was negligence on Google's part, but I don't think you can call it malice.