6 ms·
What's the likely hood someone at Google actually considered this would happen and went ahead with it anyway? (or was the link a mandatory part of the statement
by k-mcgrady 13y ago
What's the likely hood someone at Google actually considered this would happen and went ahead with it anyway? (or was the link a mandatory part of the statement they were told to issue?).
- c2prods 13y agoThe link was mandatory.
- mseebach 13y agoFirst line of fifth paragraph: The CNIL had demanded that the notice stay on the site for two days. Please, at the very least, give the article a cursory skim before knee-jerk commenting.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoThe notice had to stay on the site - yes - but I wasn't sure if the link (which was only a small part of the notice) had to be included as part of the notice.
- agumonkey 13y agoregardless of the mandatory aspect, the question still hold, did they anticipate the flood
- maaaats 13y agoPlease, at the very least, try to understand the comment before knee-jerk commenting.
- leoedin 13y agoI'm not sure why you received such a negative comment from mseebach - the first part of your comment is a perfectly valid question that's not addressed in the article. The people at Google must have suspected that it would happen. Whether they specifically pointed out that they were going to send huge amounts of traffic to their site or not would be interesting to know.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt's probably in part because 'went ahead with it anyway' implies negligence.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoNot negligence. Malice :) I was really just imagining someone at Google realising what was going to happen and being secretly quite happy about it.
- p4bl0 13y agoWell, I'm all on the CNIL side, but clearly the people there should have thought of it on their own (and I'm actually surprised they did not), and take appropriate action. For instance serving at least that specific page statically from a server which could endure the two days of Google.fr.