6 ms·

It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding dem

It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding demonstrated how Joe Random can make requests from a Google IP address: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&biw=1270&bih=726&source=hp&q=cache%3Awhatismyip.com&pbx=1&oq=cache%3Awhatismyip.com&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1357l8049l0l8315l22l5l0l0l0l0l331l1446l2-2.3l5l0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&...

potatolicious 15y ago
Except, Google has already admitted this was theirs. Perhaps rogue employees within Google, but definitely not an unrelated third party.
- napierzaza 15y ago
  Yes, but I don't think they can spin it as a "rogue team" really. If it is a team inside Google. That's Google's fault. It doesn't matter whether it's Google's fault because they have poor oversight or too much freedom or because they hire people who are criminal.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Google is not 100% perfect. If things aren't broken, you're not trying hard enough to push the envelope. The cost of innovation is failure. In other words, this doesn't surprise me. And it doesn't bother me, either.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      It doesn't bother you if Google, the company, is committing crimes? The cost of innovation isn't becoming a crook.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        No, some regular person at Google behaved unethically. If Google locked down their employees enough to prevent this (which I doubt is even possible), then they wouldn't be able to do anything good either. You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business. Nope I'm trying to temper your outlandish general statements; and failing. napierzaza said, roughly, it was Googles fault if they hired criminals and those people were acting criminally either through lack of oversight or otherwise. You said something along the lines of it being expected that Google would commit crimes and that this is merely the cost of innovation. I asked if Google inc. acting criminally bothered you and you appeared to answer that it didn't that it was impossible for them to do good without also committing 'evil'. TBH I can't really believe anyone who values the rule of law (particular its equal application) could countenance such a position. So, do you believe that rich corporations should be immune from the laws that bind the rest of us? Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"?
        jrockway 15y ago
        Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"? That's a good example. But there's a difference between harming your customers and harming your competitors. In the case of McDonalds' hypothetical actions, the solution is to give your customers their money back and a few free burgers. But what can Google do to make up for their mistake here? Go back in time and not hire the individuals that fucked up?
        heresy 15y ago
    - shadowfox 15y ago
      You know, up until this comment of yours, it hadn't bothered me that you were an employee of google defending their actions most of the time on HN. I still assumed you were being somewhat objective. But I have finally lost that trust. It is extremely hard to believe your objectivity when you equate what happened with "pushing the envelope" and "innovation".
hanbam 15y ago
I don't think that Google Cache acts as a HTTP proxy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ComputerGuru 15y ago
  No, but Google Translate does.

potatolicious 15y ago

Except, Google has already admitted this was theirs. Perhaps rogue employees within Google, but definitely not an unrelated third party.

napierzaza 15y ago
Yes, but I don't think they can spin it as a "rogue team" really. If it is a team inside Google. That's Google's fault. It doesn't matter whether it's Google's fault because they have poor oversight or too much freedom or because they hire people who are criminal.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Google is not 100% perfect. If things aren't broken, you're not trying hard enough to push the envelope. The cost of innovation is failure. In other words, this doesn't surprise me. And it doesn't bother me, either.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    It doesn't bother you if Google, the company, is committing crimes? The cost of innovation isn't becoming a crook.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      No, some regular person at Google behaved unethically. If Google locked down their employees enough to prevent this (which I doubt is even possible), then they wouldn't be able to do anything good either. You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business. Nope I'm trying to temper your outlandish general statements; and failing. napierzaza said, roughly, it was Googles fault if they hired criminals and those people were acting criminally either through lack of oversight or otherwise. You said something along the lines of it being expected that Google would commit crimes and that this is merely the cost of innovation. I asked if Google inc. acting criminally bothered you and you appeared to answer that it didn't that it was impossible for them to do good without also committing 'evil'. TBH I can't really believe anyone who values the rule of law (particular its equal application) could countenance such a position. So, do you believe that rich corporations should be immune from the laws that bind the rest of us? Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"?
        jrockway 15y ago
        Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"? That's a good example. But there's a difference between harming your customers and harming your competitors. In the case of McDonalds' hypothetical actions, the solution is to give your customers their money back and a few free burgers. But what can Google do to make up for their mistake here? Go back in time and not hire the individuals that fucked up?
        heresy 15y ago
  - shadowfox 15y ago
    You know, up until this comment of yours, it hadn't bothered me that you were an employee of google defending their actions most of the time on HN. I still assumed you were being somewhat objective. But I have finally lost that trust. It is extremely hard to believe your objectivity when you equate what happened with "pushing the envelope" and "innovation".

hanbam 15y ago

I don't think that Google Cache acts as a HTTP proxy.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ComputerGuru 15y ago
No, but Google Translate does.