3 ms·

Dear Google: remember that "don't be evil" thing? This is evil.

JosephRedfern 12y ago
They've "outgrown" the "don't be evil" mantra now, apparently... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/03/larry-page-google-dont-be-evil-sergey-brin http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/03/larry-page...
- icebraining 12y ago
  That's not what the article says, it says they've outgrown their mission statement, which was to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Which makes sense, since they've expanded beyond information services.
gohrt 12y ago
BT blackmailed Google into doing this. The alternative is no Google on BT at all.
- IvyMike 12y ago
  I gotta be honest: I'd like to see what would happen if they tried this.
- estel 12y ago
  I assume you've got some evidence for your a claim that BT have broken the law like that? Especially when changing the CNAME record is something that absolutely any DNS provider could be doing anyway...
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    Censoring wouldn't break the law, they're already doing that. And the blog post specifically mentions that it wasn't blocked using DNS but by a redirect from a Google server.
    - estel 12y ago
      Blackmail might well be a crime..?
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Oh come on. This is a specific BT service that allows your home router to be used by the public (for a payment to BT, presumably the home owner gets a cheaper service or some return on the deal?). Should BT really enable the searching of non-SafeSearch material via such connections? Should Google really prevent BT from implementing this system? What is it about extreme internet content that you think is so important that BT should support it being downloaded via their customers home routers without those customers knowledge? Or is it that schools use such a system to block extreme content - presumably you think that the dreggs of the internet are appropriate for schools to allow students to access easily? Google's not stopping you searching for whatever extreme content you like they're just limiting their enablement of such searches in circumstances where those in control of the internet connection choose for it to be limited.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  1. It's in a separate channel from the home owner's data. They shouldn't care what's in it. 2. They're invading the privacy of everyone not downloading 'extreme content'. 3. Privacy invasion is not appropriate in anything that pretends to be generic internet access, extreme or not.
- stuaxo 12y ago
  You get access to the wifi network on other routers. You don't get anything else in return - this is included in the cost of the bill. You can phone them and get them to disable it on your router. Their routers seem to have no QOS - one computer doing an update will kill internet for others in the house, presumable this is the same if other users are on the 'BT Openworld' wifi it shares.

They've "outgrown" the "don't be evil" mantra now, apparently... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/03/larry-page-google-dont-be-evil-sergey-brin http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/03/larry-page...

icebraining 12y ago
That's not what the article says, it says they've outgrown their mission statement, which was to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Which makes sense, since they've expanded beyond information services.

gohrt 12y ago

BT blackmailed Google into doing this. The alternative is no Google on BT at all.

IvyMike 12y ago
I gotta be honest: I'd like to see what would happen if they tried this.
estel 12y ago
I assume you've got some evidence for your a claim that BT have broken the law like that? Especially when changing the CNAME record is something that absolutely any DNS provider could be doing anyway...
- andreasvc 12y ago
  Censoring wouldn't break the law, they're already doing that. And the blog post specifically mentions that it wasn't blocked using DNS but by a redirect from a Google server.
  - estel 12y ago
    Blackmail might well be a crime..?

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

Oh come on. This is a specific BT service that allows your home router to be used by the public (for a payment to BT, presumably the home owner gets a cheaper service or some return on the deal?). Should BT really enable the searching of non-SafeSearch material via such connections? Should Google really prevent BT from implementing this system? What is it about extreme internet content that you think is so important that BT should support it being downloaded via their customers home routers without those customers knowledge? Or is it that schools use such a system to block extreme content - presumably you think that the dreggs of the internet are appropriate for schools to allow students to access easily? Google's not stopping you searching for whatever extreme content you like they're just limiting their enablement of such searches in circumstances where those in control of the internet connection choose for it to be limited.

Dylan16807 12y ago
1. It's in a separate channel from the home owner's data. They shouldn't care what's in it. 2. They're invading the privacy of everyone not downloading 'extreme content'. 3. Privacy invasion is not appropriate in anything that pretends to be generic internet access, extreme or not.
stuaxo 12y ago
You get access to the wifi network on other routers. You don't get anything else in return - this is included in the cost of the bill. You can phone them and get them to disable it on your router. Their routers seem to have no QOS - one computer doing an update will kill internet for others in the house, presumable this is the same if other users are on the 'BT Openworld' wifi it shares.