Read Case 8, “Google: Don’t Be Evil Unless…,”. Case study below.
“8 Google: Don’t Be Evil Unless . . .
From its start in a garage in Silicon Valley in 1998, Google has become one of the most powerful technology-driven companies in the world. Started by two graduate students at Stanford University as an improvement on the existing Internet search engines, Google’s philosophy is to offer everyone in the world free access to all of the information in the world. As a result, the two main objectives of Google as it evolves are to organize the information around the world and “Don’t be evil.”1 In 2005, Harris Polling and the Reputation Institute of New York did their annual ranking of the companies with the highest corporate reputation. Google entered the ranking for the first time in 2005 at number three behind Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola.2
The Privacy of Gmail
On April 1, 2004, Google announced in a press release that it was offering a new free e-mail system called Gmail.3 The press release also mentioned that this decision was inspired by a customer who complained to Google about her e-mail service’s low storage capacity and inefficient filing and searching technology. Google responded by developing an e-mail service that offered 1 gigabyte of storage capacity (which is equivalent to 500,000 pages of e-mail per user) and an easy way to organize e-mail messages. However, what the e-mail did not announce was that Google would search the contents of its customers’ e-mails and design “customized” ads based on the content. This just was the first of many issues in which Google appeared to be caught off guard with negative comments related to its Gmail strategy. Some people even thought the Gmail press release was an April Fool’s Day trick pulled by Google’s cofounders when Google also announced that day that it was hiring positions for its lunar office.4
Google responded to the criticism, which started on April 2, 2004, by stating that no human being would read the customer’s e-mail, but a computer program would do an automatic search for key content words. Google also stated that the e-mail system would have enhanced search features for the user to help coordinate the user’s e-mails. Customers using Gmail would be able to search their e-mail storage by the traditional sender and by topic or any other search word the user wanted to choose. In addition, Gmail would have more antispam filters to help reduce the number of unwanted e-mails sent to the user’s account. However, the underlying issue was whether Google could present this “free” e-mail system to users in which they potentially have their privacy compromised to ensure content-related advertising. Google tried to reduce the privacy fears by stating that the advertising would be used for only incoming e-mails and would not be attached to outgoing e-mails. Chris Hoofnagle, who was the associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, compared the Google advertising methods to having a telephone operator listening to your phone calls and interrupting you with commercial messages when you are talking to another party. When Wayne Rosing, Google vice president of engineering, was asked whether it would be possible for a person writing about pro-life to have abortion advertising inserted in the e-mail, his answer was no because Google does not take advertising revenue concerning sensitive issues. However, he did admit that if the e-mail was talking about politics, an advertisement for a political candidate could be included in the e-mail.
There are also potential problems with matching the content of the e-mails and the associated placement ads. When a Gmail user wrote about a British singer named Lily Allen, an ad for lily and lotus pond plants was placed in the e-mail. Another Gmail user wrote about going to a party in New York and an ad for bachelor party strippers was placed with the e-mail. In summarizing the placement of the ads, the user writing about Lily Allen stated that the ads are creepy when they match up exactly with the discussion and are hilarious when they do not match up with the written content.
Another concern is the legal use of keeping information that is sent through Gmail without the user being protected by the rights given by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.7 The act states that Internet service providers (ISPs) and any other organizations are not allowed to monitor the content of electronic communications unless they have specifically identified a reason to do so, such as filtering spam or preventing the release of confidential information.
The Privacy of Individuals
In a stunning show of hypocrisy, Google punished an entire news agency after one of its reporters searched for and published background information about the company’s CEO, Eric Schmidt. It took Elinor Mills from CNETNews.com just 30 minutes to obtain as much relevant information as was available on Schmidt. Using only Google’s search capability, Mills discovered that Schmidt was 50 years old, was worth approximately $1.5 billion, had sold $90 million in Google stock in the early part of 2005, and had sold another $50 million in shares in the middle of 2005. She also discovered that Schmidt and his wife, Wendy, live in Atherton, California, and she was able to get his home address from the Federal Election Commission database. Schmidt attended a Democratic fundraiser that cost $10,000 a plate in 2000. In addition, Schmidt is an amateur pilot.9 When Google became aware of the article, Google’s director of public relations, David Krane, stated that Google would not talk to any reporter from CNET for a year. This reaction seemed to contradict Schmidt’s statement in May 2005 that the goal of Google is to organize all the information in the world.
Google in China
In 2000, Google began a Chinese language version, which Chinese users could buy. It was operated from the United States through Google.com. In September 2002, Google refused to alter the search results of Chinese users, and the Chinese government blocked Google for a brief period. When the block was lifted from Google 2 weeks later, Chinese users no longer had access to politically sensitive websites. It was discovered that Google had voluntarily excluded several sites from the search results that were not allowed by Chinese censors. These websites are not excluded when users outside of China searched using the same key words.11 Within the Chinese website, Google filtered out search words such as human rights and democracy from the search results.12 In addition, antigovernment groups such as Falun Gong will not show up on a Google search. Google has adjusted its search process so it complies with the strict censorship and security laws imposed by the Communist Party in China. In response to a question about whether Google should censor results in China, cofounder Sergey Brin commented that it is a difficult question and the “don’t be evil” statement may be open to interpretation regarding what exactly is considered evil. In September 2004, Google introduced a Chinese version of its news search service. However, the search excludes articles from news sources that the Chinese government considers subversive. Google’s response was that it was not worthwhile for the users to get search results that they would not have access to in China.
Google opened offices in China during 2005 and considered it a country for great revenue growth. In January 2006, Google stated that its special version of its search engine for the Chinese customers, called Google.cn, would be available without having any e-mail or blog features.14 One British blogger commented on Google’s restrictions of search words in China by wondering whether the Internet search company also banned the words spineless, hypocritical, and cowards.15 When a comparison was made searching the word democracy in Google’s U.S. and Chinese websites, the results were quite different. At Google.com, democracy yielded 33,000,000 results, with a link to the Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party’s definition ranking second. When democracy was searched on Google.cn, less than 20% of the sites selected in the U.S. search were found. In addition, the Taiwanese definition had been omitted from the results, and in its place was the website of the Chinese Communist Party’s newspaper.16 When a search was made for a picture of the Dalai Lama, more than 2,000 pictures were found on Google.com and only one on Google.cn—when the Dalai Lama met members of the Communist Party before 1959. In 1959, the Chinese military invaded Tibet and the Dalai Lama had to escape Tibet and live in exile.17 In defense to Google’s “don’t be evil” credo, cofounder Schmidt rationalized that it was better for Chinese users to get the benefit of a speedy, restricted Google search than no access at all. Therefore, Google’s solution was the lesser of the two evils. While at a World Economic Forum, Microsoft founder Bill Gates observed that “don’t be evil” was not a relative commandment.18 In February 2006, the Financial Times ran an online poll to ask whether Google is now considered evil for censoring the results for Chinese users. Of the 1,400 respondents, 70% believed that Google was being evil for its stand on accommodating the demands of the Chinese government.19 A representative of the Chinese government stated that the purpose of the restrictions was to ensure that harmful information was not available to Chinese users. The Chinese government’s “
Summarize the overall viewpoint of the author, and discuss the major issues presented in the case.
Review the “Questions for Thought” below and answer the four questions using the business ethics principles: fiduciary, property, reliability, transparency, dignity, fairness, citizenship, and responsiveness.
1. Given its mission of providing information to the world, should Google censor searches in China?
2. Why do you think Google was adamant about not wanting to supply information requested by the government concerning the Child Online Protection Act? Explain your position.
3. What do you think Google’s rationale was for starting its Google Books Library Project?
4. Of all the issues discussed in this case, which issue is the most disconcerting to you? Why?
Your summary of the author’s viewpoint and your discussion of the major issues presented in the case must be in paragraph form. However, your responses to the four “Questions for Thought” can be answered either in paragraph form or as a numbered list. Ensure to include your summary of the author’s viewpoint, your discussion of the ethical issues facing Patagonia, and your responses to the questions.
Your assignment should be at least two pages, double-spaced, and be typed in 12-point Times New Roman font. A title page and abstract are not required. APA Style wil not be required for this assignment
