HN Books @HNBooksMonth

I'd like to take this opportunity to share some relevant exercepts from In The Plex[^1] about Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google.

> One day Denise Griffin got a call from Eric Schmidt’s assistant. “There’s this information about Eric in the indexes,” she told Griffin. “And we want it out.” In Griffin’s recollection, it dealt with donor information from a political campaign, exactly the type of public information that Google dedicated itself to making accessible. Griffin explained that it wasn’t Google policy to take things like that out of the index just because people didn’t want it there. Principles always make sense until it’s personal,” she says.

> Then in July 2005, a CNET reporter used Schmidt as an example of how much personal information Google search could expose. Though she used only information that anyone would see if they typed Schmidt’s name into his company’s search box, Schmidt was so furious that he blackballed the news organization for a year.

> “My personal view is that private information that is really private, you should be able to delete from history,” Schmidt once said. But that wasn’t Google’s policy...

I guess they've since changed the policy a bit?

[^1]: https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/14...

⬐ tobyjsullivan

I don't know anything about Eric Schmidt so I can't say how closely his values aligned with corporate policies or if he was willing to undermine them when he was personally impacted.

With that said, I have to point out that this entire narrative depends on this one shaky line:

> In Griffin’s recollection, it dealt with donor information from a political campaign, exactly the type of public information that Google dedicated itself to making accessible.

In his recollection? Why the qualifier? How confident is Griffin that it was this and not something else? Is he sure it wasn't leaked bank account records related to some donation?

Because if this instead said something like "it was his SSN" then the entire narrative changes.

For example, if a hacker leaks a pile of PII or health records and posts them on the website, then Google is definitely not dedicated to making that accessible. Schmidt's (totally unrelated) comment makes sense in this sort of context.

> “My personal view is that private information that is really private, you should be able to delete from history”

⬐ nova22033

Did they remove Schmidt's information?

⬐ jhncls

Is this the same Eric Schmidt as in "If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It"?

[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_38...

⬐ goatse_aas

Eric Schmidt is the reason we need assassination marketplaces.

⬐ moultano

The context of that quote was him explaining that Google has to comply with legal government requests for information.

⬐ perryizgr8

Which doesn't really change the meaning in any way.

> Google operated in China several years ago, but it withdrew from the market because of the censorship requirements from the government

Google hesitated to enter China because of the censorship requirements (1) but eventually entered anyway, led by a researcher they hired away from Microsoft, Kai-Fu Lee (1, 2). They exited because they caught the Chinese associates stealing source code, and only after their first "war room" effort to nail down exactly what was going on (1, 3).

(1) https://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/14...

(2) https://www.cio.com/article/2425034/head-of-google-china-lea...

(3) https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/

⬐ joel_liu

Thanks for bringing these references up. However, I think the major reason is still censorship or too much censorship & political dissent. The aim of stealing source code is probably to hack the account of political dissents as Google pointed out. The action was more about "the political motivation related to dissent" than "against US economy". That's my main point.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-foun...

Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side.

SPIEGEL: Four years ago, you allowed your service to be censored. Why have you changed your mind now?

Brin: The hacking attacks were the straw that broke the camel's back. There were several aspects there: the attack directly on Google, which we believe was an attempt to gain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. But there is also a broader pattern we then discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists.

"Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. "

Google wanted to lose that bid - that was a gamble to get free whitespace access and have verizon pay enough money for it. You can read more of the details in this book:http://www.amazon.com/In-The-Plex-Google-Thinks/dp/141659658...

Additionally Google did try to disrupt the cellular companies a little by selling their phones unlocked through their own webstore, but the American market didn't buy them. Yes there really is only one network that gave you a deal if you did this (T-Mobile), but Americans seem to prefer subsidized phones with absurd monthly plans rather than paying for the phone up front and being free to choose the network.

⬐ raldi

"Prefer" is a stretch. It's not like consumers were presented with a choice between two carriers that were similar in every way except that one went with the subsidized model and the other did not.

The choice consumers had was either a crappy carrier, or one which forced you to go with absurd monthly plans.

If you like this article, you would probably enjoy Stephen Levy's book In The Plex:

http://www.amazon.com/Plex-Google-Thinks-Works-Shapes/dp/141...

⬐ nikcub

'In the Plex' is amazing, a must read for anybody in the industry

⬐ ladon86

You'd probably enjoy the forthcoming book which this article is promoting - it's pretty much an extract from it.

⬐ e1ven

I've read both, and I greatly preferred "In the Plex". It seemed like a book that really had a thoughtful (if sympathetic) view into Google's inner workings. Levy's book drew from numerous interviews, and wove them together into a narrative that had structure, meaning, and was a great read.

"I'm Feeling Lucky" is a more personal book; It gets a LOT more into the nitty-gritty of personal politics, which can be interesting in a ValleyWag way, but didn't necessarily make me feel like I understood Google in a more meaningful way.

I got a lot of insight into Edwards' family, his mindset, and a much lower-level view into the Google offices.. But if you're only going to read one, read the Levy book.

⬐ skarayan

"It gets a LOT more into the nitty-gritty of personal politics"

That's the feeling I get from the author's last few posts that have made it to the top of HN.

It seems very superficial and focused on how he felt versus something substantial.

⬐ lylejohnson

When I clicked through, the hardcover edition was priced at $13.98 while the Kindle edition was a dollar less ($12.99). I think that Amazon's prices change pretty frequently, which might explain why you saw a different price at the time you checked.

⬐ nextparadigms

Hardcover is $13.98, Kindle Edition is $16.77

⬐ tszming

For me:

Hardcover: 13.98, Kindle: 14.58

The price is the same during the past few days, I just wonder if Amazon display different price to different users based on their location.

⬐ credo

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01author.html is an interesting article that talks about what the book has to say on Google's experience in China.