Wednesday, October 19, 2005
That legal notice from IIPM and Google
In all the noise surrouding the IIPM/JAM/Blogosphere fracas, I think a key issue got sidetracked. That has to do with a single paragraph that IIPM included in its legal summons to Varna and Gaurav, and may yet be their undoing.
Now, anyone who has followed Google closely knows how their obsessive they are about privacy. After all, a good part of their business model depends on users implicitly trusting Google with their data and trusting Google to do no harm. So, for IIPM to suggest that Google handed not just basic identifying data, but also telephone numbers and physical addresses of long-time blogspot users is bordering on libel, IMHO.
Shouldn't this be something that Google should be worried about, given the worldwide publicity that this case has garnered? Are there any Google employees who read this blog who might want to pursue this angle a bit further?
UPDATE: Just to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that Google ever gave any details to IIPM. In fact, I am almost certain they did not, knowing what I know about Google. Nonetheless, the reputational damage to Google, a widely-trusted company, can be pretty substantial if people take IIPM's silly bluff seriously.
Be warned, your telephone numbers, physical addresses thereon, login details, network access mechanisms have all been documented, notarized and legally ratified through google and blogspot.com, thus ensuring that any arrest warrants can be served and implemented on you within one day.
Now, anyone who has followed Google closely knows how their obsessive they are about privacy. After all, a good part of their business model depends on users implicitly trusting Google with their data and trusting Google to do no harm. So, for IIPM to suggest that Google handed not just basic identifying data, but also telephone numbers and physical addresses of long-time blogspot users is bordering on libel, IMHO.
Shouldn't this be something that Google should be worried about, given the worldwide publicity that this case has garnered? Are there any Google employees who read this blog who might want to pursue this angle a bit further?
UPDATE: Just to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that Google ever gave any details to IIPM. In fact, I am almost certain they did not, knowing what I know about Google. Nonetheless, the reputational damage to Google, a widely-trusted company, can be pretty substantial if people take IIPM's silly bluff seriously.
