Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google's Software Principles 320

Posted by CmdrTaco from the do-no-harm dept.
Nick writes "Google has just posted a new set of "Software Principles" at their site on how they feel about spyware and the like. It is interesting to see the company whose motto is "Do no evil" trying to get the rest of the internet world to follow, with proposed principles dealing with upfront installation, clear behavior, simple removal, and keeping good company. The question is, though - why would a company who makes spyware (whose very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Software Principles More

Google's Software Principles

Comments Filter:

  • Simple removal (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quila ( 201335 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#9208472)
    That's what I love about the Google Deskbar should I ever decide to remove it. Making it disappear will be three clicks away.
    • Really, spyware removal is only four clicks away... double-click AdAware, click Scan Now, click Quarantine.

      Come on, install it! It's only one click more!

      • Re:Simple removal (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Eraser_ ( 101354 )
        15 minutes later the scan completes, 5 minutes and a reboot to get rid of it, plus possibly another scan mid-boot to get rid of running software. Great, 30 minutes of my life gone. Google ad-bar disappears instantly and without (much) in the way of questions.

        Plus, shouldn't you not have to wonder if an application is really gone? Is some timebomb app getting run that AdAware/SpyBot doesn't yet know about waiting to run and reinstall all the crap? I trust google, I also don't run IE. Their popup blocker cou

  • Cause they'll be ranked ! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <romancerNO@SPAMdeathsdoor.com> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:31PM (#9208482) Journal
    Cause they'll be ranked in the lowest portion of the results if they...
    A: make spyware.
    B: incorporate spyware.
    C: Piss off the main marketing funnel of the internet which is THE search engine.

    • Ethics as a competitive advantage. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:43PM (#9208692) Homepage Journal
      Google is #1 because they don't screw their customer. This is just another part of that. Why would I use another less ethical search engine, like the one from the company that wanted to sell your desktop to advertisers? A vow to fight spyware is one more reason for me to use Google over other search engines.

      I use Debian for similar reasons, though all free software is good.

      This is what capitalism and real competition are supposed to do. In a real competitive environment, ethical companies win. Companies who screw their customers are quickly replaced. Only government regulations can protect dishonest and inefficient companies from would be competitors.

      • You forget the Microsoft tactic.
        Screw your customers untill they beg for more.

        They led the way with usability to draw in a customer base and then used their profits to kill their competitors. Windows still gets my general usability vote but the crap I have to put up with for that ease of printer instalation or massive easy install software selection, is pushing me to keep my eyes open for alternitaves. IE: Lindows, David, etc.

        It's a nitch market that if it had a real company to make a Windows replacement


      • Only government regulations can protect dishonest and inefficient companies from would be competitors.

        Only some form of government/collective action can protect honest companies (and individuals) from dishonest ones (inefficient is a different story, though they do overlap). Your point is valid, but blown out of proportion. The problem you are addressing is that dishonest people will use anything to get ahead, even the laws that protect the inocent.

  • Gathers much praise, but few friends.

    It is never easy to walk the moral high ground.
    But what do I know, I traded my morals for a shiny new bike when I was 6.

  • Politics are very important (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pen ( 7191 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:32PM (#9208503)
    It's important to state ideals and explain why they're a good thing to aim for. It's the first step in achieving them -- identifying what's wrong with the current picture.

    --
    QDB.us [qdb.us]

  • Dumb users (Score:2, Funny)

    by turboflux ( 781551 )
    There are alot of dumb users out there that would install it anyways...

    "Hi there, I'm Joe Spyware, I'm going to be showing you lots of helpful products while you try to browser the web!" .. "OK!"

  • Need to ask what is spyware. (Score:3, Informative)

    by blanks ( 108019 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:33PM (#9208518) Homepage Journal
    It really depends on what your idea of what spyware is. If you say, are beta testing a game (the new matrix for example), they will install software that will monitor your pc and report errors, pc information, and I would guess usage of the game etc. ISP's (like bellsouth) install spyware to help their customer service determin problems customers will have with their PC's. Im sure it does more then that though.

    • the difference is that you are agreeing to have the monitoring software installed on your machine. Where "spyware" is helplessly tacked on with little, or in some cases, no warning. My guess would be that this is stated in the EULA or Terms of Service and failure to agree would not allow you to install the software in any case.
    • They do a good job of defining what good software should do without having to define the term "spyware". It's suggesting proper behavior for software which includes clearly informing the user what its purpose is, that it's being installed, and how to remove it (and that it will stay removed). It doesn't say anything about not collecting information or showing ads, only that it should be clear to the user that it will, and how to stop it if the user changes his mind later.
  • It's good to see that at the bottom they've pointed people to a number of spyware/adware removal tools.

    Most ISPs daren't point their users at these in case it breaks said user's precious Kazaa.
  • This may be coming up because of Orkut's Terms of Service Conspiracy Theories [google.com] that keep popping up (orkut is owned by google).

  • To get on the front page of Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LilMikey ( 615759 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#9208538) Homepage
    why would a company who makes spyware (who's very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?

    Free advertising baby! Screw ethics. Tomorrow's headline "Spyware agency agrees to Google's 'Good Guy' clause". Then can then follow that up in 2 weeks with "Spyware agency break Google's 'Good Guy' clause". And a few more weaks "Spyware agency makes amends with Google and their 'Good Guy Clause'".

    A million free hits, zero effort.
    • Yeah, but if you're a spyware company, the idea is to keep out of public view as much as possible, and google is a super-popular "PR" company.

      I mean, as soon as you do that, you set up this big target for yourself. Why make your users know you exist?

  • but isn't google doing a disservice... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#9208539)
    but isn't google doing a disservice to people that don't know about google?

    millions of people would be greatful for their spam!

  • The answer to the question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by descil ( 119554 ) <teraten@hotmai l . com> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#9208547)
    While the spyware types may not particularly give a damn what Google says, a lot of people do. A lot of people look up to Google - a lot of programmers want to work there, and a lot of companies can easily see the success that Google has made for itself by having a good image and a good product.

    Google is essentially offering free advice for companies. They're showing what worked for them. Often the CEO of a company will go out and look for information about how people have previously solved the solutions that said CEO is looking to solve in their business plan. It's a 'learn from mistakes and successes' ideal. Right now, spyware is fairly ubiquitous, so is it any surprise that companies start doing it more and more? Whether or not it works, it has a definite presence, and that presence brings it into mind as a company strategy.

    Google is bringing their (superior, I think we can all agree) company strategy into view, and saying 'here's something better' for anybody who's willing to listen.

    --
    Mr Google Advocate
    • I agree. Additionally, one of the greatest things that this can accomplish is that maybe, just maybe, the people who install software like this unknowingly (or knowingly), will start to be more critical of such software and therefore the people that write it will be forced to make sure it conforms to what is accepted as best practice.
    • I'm just waiting on Google to put up a statement about the evils of fixed font widths.

  • Yeah (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Thanks for that link to Google in the story. I would have never found it otherwise ;)
  • It is not surprising that they are going to put their best foot forward and try to "lead by example", prior to their IPO.

    While admirable, their press release is nothing more than idealistic rhetoric which does nothing to actually help the situation at hand. Not in the short term at least.....

    • ...to a new Google service: the Google Seal Of Approval(tm).

      To earn it, your software must be submitted to Google and be found to comply with all the principles.

      Then you get to put the logo on your box (or site).

      Think of the goodwill someone would automatically have for your product by seeing a (meaningful) blessed-by-the-almighty-Google icon.

  • Google anti Virus (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bindo ( 82607 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:35PM (#9208565)
    The question is though, why would a company who makes spyware (who's very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?"

    Because a search engine and an anti-spyware/virus software do VERY similar jobs.

    Scan huge amounts of data for fingerprints and patterns.

    And Google as a platform is looming pretty fast.

    Bind0

  • The publication of these "principles" has nothing to do with getting other vendors to start behaving nicely, and everything to do with getting people ready for the impending launch of Google's desktop search app [nytimes.com].

    To make the leap from being a Web site to being software you have to install locally, there's a much higher burden of trust they have to surmount -- especially when that software will index your entire local filesystem (just think of the snooping possibilities!).

    So, I see this as a kind of pre-emptive strike on their part -- a way that they can claim that they will be as "non-evil" on the desktop as they supposedly are on the Web, and have a document to back it up.

    If any other companies follow the principles that document outlines, that's probably gravy, from their perspective.

  • it's things like this that make me wonder why people were so up in arms about gmail's privacy. google has consistently, time and time again, tried to do good things like this and in general is interested in being a benevolent company. i think much if it might have to do with the original owners still commanding much of the company, but i just want to say that i hope google never changes it's stance on putting the user's experience above anything else.

    • Re:privacy concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khendron ( 225184 )
      I love Google as much as the next person, but to me the problem is not that there are any privacy concerns with Google today, but what about tomorrow, next week, or 10 years from now?

      If you were offered the ability to store all your personal files on a central server operated by Google, for free, would you do it?

      If you were offered the ability to store all your personal files on a central server operated by Microsoft, for free, would you do it?

      Did you answer these two questions differently? I bet lots o
  • Google has got to be the most "virtuous" company in the online market today. I won't be surprised if they don't grow enormously, beyond expectations, just because their attitude of "doing it right" will resonate so strongly with Internet users. I think there's a lot to be said for appealing to customer's sense of propriety rather than merely his or her pocketbook.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#9208612)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • <i>
      Why don't we face the fact that until we make spyware and malware and adware and ???ware unprofitable, there will always be somebody ready and willing to profit from it?
      </i>

      This isn't as easy as it sounds - you have to be able to trace who the spy/mal/adware sells to. And then who they sell to. And so on. Following the trail so that you NEVER patronize these is pretty tough.

      Plus you have to essentially prove a lot of marketing theory that says any viewing (ie if you see it but don't buy

  • Google Competes with Spyware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Galuvian ( 755742 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#9208613)
    There are probably going to be a million similar posts by the time I'm done writing this, but I'll give it a stab.

    There are a lot of spyware apps that pretend to be something useful. Pop-up blockers, IE bar plugins, etc. Google directly competes with these.

    By drawing a line in the sand, Google is making sure they are able to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the public. We all know that the fight against spyware is starting to heat up. By addressing this proactively they are more likely to be heard by the ears who matter. Slashdotters already know the diffrence between the Google bar and spyware, but not all users do. And as we all know, most of the people who draft/pass/enforce laws are clueless users.

  • Google Blog (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rura Penthe ( 154319 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:39PM (#9208626)
    If you want to get this info from the source instead of waiting for /. to post it you can always just visit the Google Blog [google.com].
  • Google has great reputation and is well respected. As far as I can tell, they have followed those rules throughout their corporate life. Many individuals/companies would look to Google and actively try to emulate them. Others, unfortunately, need to have it spelled out.

    I think what Google is doing is citing the Good Citizen Rules specifically for those that can't figure it out for themselves.

    It should be easy for you to figure out how to disable or delete an application. The process should try to remove

  • That's "Google's", not "Googles" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ktistec Machine ( 159201 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:39PM (#9208639)
    Like the lady who said "those old things over there are my husbands".

    Mis-apostrophizing irks me.
  • one interesting thing to notice is that windows, though it is not spyware, does not follow these suggestions. many things are enabled on installation that are not requested or mentioned and it's not always clear what these things do or how to remove them.
    • Hmmm, let me take some license with your statement, please...

      one interesting thing to notice is that OS X, though it is not spyware, does not follow these suggestions.

      Yeah, that works...

      one interesting thing to notice is that Linux, though it is not spyware, does not follow these suggestions.

      Hmm, so does that one...

      one interesting thing to notice is that BeOS, though it is not spyware, does not follow these suggestions.

      Wow, I'm 3 for 3!

      one interesting thing to notice is that AmigaOS, though it

  • Openness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:41PM (#9208660) Homepage

    It looks like a pretty good set of rules, ones quite similar to those presented by a number of regular /.ers when talking about dealing with spyware. One that particularly attracted my attention was this one:

    CLEAR BEHAVIOR

    Applications that affect or change your user experience should make clear they are the reason for those changes. For example, if an application opens a window, that window should identify the application responsible for it. Applications should not intentionally obscure themselves under multiple or confusing names. You should be given means to control the application in a straightforward manner, such as by clicking on visible elements generated by the application. If an application shows you ads, it should clearly mark them as advertising and inform you that they originate from that application. If an application makes a change designed to affect the user experience of other applications (such as setting your home page) then those changes should be made clear to you.

    I'm not sure about things like changing your home page, but it seems to me that it should be possible to impliment some of the other steps at the level of the windowing system without needing cooperation from the application. You could design it, for instance, so that you could right-click on any window's title bar and find out which program was responsible for that window. The idea undoubtedly needs some more thought so that programs couldn't hide their responsibility by calling another program to do their dirty work, but I'd guess that including some facility like this would be a lot easier than convincing spyware writers to admit their handywork.

    • hat you could right-click on any window's title bar and find out which program was responsible for that window. The idea undoubtedly needs some more thought so that programs couldn't hide their responsibility by calling another program to do their dirty work, but I'd guess that including some facility like this would be a lot easier than convincing spyware writers to admit their handywork.

      Of course, if it's a DLL that's doing the dirty work, then a right click might simply show: IEXPLORE.EXE (aka Insecure
  • Google is telling spyware companies that Google will not partner with them.

    Either you uphold these principles, or Google will ignore you. Sounds fair to me.

  • ALSO not to be missed (Score:5, Informative)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:44PM (#9208704)
    is this BBC article:
    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/373 2475.stm

    10 things the Google ethics committee could discuss
    It's reported that Google, whose motto is Do No Evil, has an ethics committee to debate its impact on the world - something that will doubtless grow as the company floats. So what sort of things might it discuss?

    1. From being a stripped-down search engine, Google is now a major player in advertising. Its webmail system, Gmail, runs on inserting adverts into people's e-mails. "How far should this go?" asks Danny Sullivan, editor of Internet Search Engine Watch. "Is it ethical to put ads on absolutely everything they do, almost like a supermarket floor?"
    2. How much personal data should it collect? The company is going to understand more and more about what people are doing online, says Sullivan. But does that mean our information is fair game?

    3. How much permission should it seek when it wants to "mine" public data for new facts, asks Danny O'Brien, co-editor of technology newsletter NTK. "Say Google designed a system that could scan photographs online, and tell you where they'd been taken. Would it be OK to collect all the snapshots uploaded on the net and index them, even when people could find out where you lived from your photo album? Is it OK to use public information to uncover facts that might have been private?"

    4. How much should the company intervene in search results? The "ethics committee", which the company says is an informal discussion between interested managers and staff, debates changes to the algorithms which order search results. Spammers who try to skew the results are one target of adjustments, according to software engineer Eran Gabber. But any alteration will change the way people see the web, so should they be undertaken lightly?

    5. Does it have a role in taste and decency? Sullivan says the company will remove search results for legal considerations - but what about other cases? What about links that showed, for instance, video of American Nick Berg being beheaded?

    6. As a big company, Google has business relationships with lots of other companies - it's no longer a matter of just doing search. And business is business, so what if the company wanted to introduce "favoured status" within its results?

    7. Google has become something of a standard bearer for ethics - who, for instance, would know if Yahoo had a similar committee, asks Sullivan. So should Google even be bothered about ethics now, or was that something for when it was a small affair?

    8. For many people , Google is the internet. They use it as the front end and trust it to give them what they need - the Google deskbar makes this even more apparent. Does Google have any feeling for how it filters the net, do many of its users even know that they get a filtered view of cyberspace or how much filtering is going on?

    9. Google is not a monopoly; there's plenty of competition. But should it strive to become one? What effect might that have?

    10. Do they feel lucky? Sitting on billions of dollars, what is the best way to share their luck?
    • 10. Do they feel lucky? Sitting on billions of dollars, what is the best way to share their luck?

      Giving everybody in the world free email service with 1 GB of storage space sounds like a good way to start...

  • Google Browser? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tommertron ( 640180 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:46PM (#9208730) Homepage Journal
    Google could fix a lot of this by making their own browser. Heck, they're halfway there already with the deskbar and toolbar. Why don't they just trump M$ and make a browser that isn't susceptible to browser hijacks and desktop installation? Make one that doesn't recognize the codes for pop-ups at all, eliminating the need for pop-up blockers?

    I'd download it in a second. I'd even buy the beta invitation on eBay like I did for Gmail.

  • Can't blame them for trying .... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JSkills ( 69686 ) <.jskills. .at. .goofball.com.> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:47PM (#9208738) Homepage Journal
    Let's face it, Google, with it huge number of users and basic reputation for trying to do the Right Thing is one of the only companies that people might listen to on good faith alone. Maybe some companies would fear lower page ranks for non-compliance?

    Who knows? But it's really hard to disagree with their initial motivation for putting this together:

    "we are alarmed by what we believe is a growing disregard for your rights as computer users ..."

    And besides, what did it cost Google to put that little page together? An infinitesmal investment to show people they care ;-)

  • Why should the people listen to Google? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ooby ( 729259 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:49PM (#9208758)
    Because they, unlike other Robin Hoods, speak with an English accent.

  • Asimov's laws? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Annirak ( 181684 )
    Is this, by any chance, playing off of Asimov's laws?

    I think that with the coming of iRobot, we're going to see more things playing off of Asimov. This may just be Google attempting to create a set of "Google's laws for the behaviour of software"

    On a vaguely related note:
    In my city, I recently noticed that Asimov's laws for the conduct of robots were on plaques attached to a series of benches in front of the police station. I can't for the life of me figure out why those would be out in front of a polic

  • certification (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cafn8ed ( 264155 )
    One reason that companies may wish to follow Google's guidelines may be to ride on the coattails of success. They could do so by declaring themselves and their products to be "Google Certified" in much the same way that movie theaters with the right sound equipment can declare themselves to be "THX Certified".

    This presumes the continued (and increasing) success of Google and its internet presence, but if that's the case, then such a "certification" could do much for the marketing potential of an internet-

  • The Real Reason (Score:4, Interesting)

    by njfuzzy ( 734116 ) <(moc.x-nai) (ta) (nai)> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#9208838) Homepage
    I don't really think Google expects to change the mind of the Malware companies. Afterall, without shady practices, they would have exactly no business. Rather, I think there are two things going on here.

    First, it's a little pure and simple shame. The more people who say that malware is evil, and the more prominent those people are, the harder it will be for companies to justify those practices.

    Second, there's secondary shame. This can actually make a more direct difference. Basically, how would you feel if you used malware (bundling, advertising, etc.) and everyone was talking about how evil it was. Maybe Google can get a few companies who use malware from other companies to reconsider how they treat their customers.

    Or maybe it's just marketing, and Google wants the brand loyalty that comes along with being one of the Good Guys.

  • a call to cynics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ajayvb ( 657479 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#9208839) Homepage
    In this cynical world, where everyone claims success comes only by bending the rules, or being 'wordly-wise", this is a company that has become successful by sheer ability, and the quality of its products and services. If, today, they say that it can be done their way, they've earned the right to say it.

    *A dreamy-eyed idealist, who still believes in old-fashioned things like principles and ethics, and that you don't need to bend the rules to succeed*
  • Is a piece of software really spyware if the user knows its spying on them?? Google has always been up front with this and even gives the user the option to turn it off.

  • Spyware is not always "spyware" on purpose (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arethereanyleft ( 442474 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#9208841)
    There are companies (maybe not the majority, but some) that have had their software labelled "spyware" that don't want to be spyware. Maybe a powerful Marketing or Sales VP demanded a feature, or maybe a business partner wanted to track some data with permission, and the implementation wasn't strict enough. Whatever the cause, there are companies who would like to see the term "spyware" defined so that they aren't subject to the whims of companies who are trying to make the "best spyware-removal tools", and can only do this by removing everything that has even a slight problem. I mean, it is now considered a crime to leave shared files installed after an uninstall of one product in a suite. Sheesh!

  • Building Loyality (Score:3)

    by PineHall ( 206441 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#9208852)
    I appreciate Google's attitude and ethics. It makes me proud of them and makes me want to continue to use their products. They are saying you can trust us. This builds loyality. And so far they have been true to their word.

  • ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @03:58PM (#9208861) Homepage Journal
    Those shouldn't be guidelines. They should be legal requirements.

  • Google already going out on principles (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:06PM (#9208924) Homepage Journal

    "2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.

    Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat."

    Yeah, Google doesn't do news, Google doesn't do e-mail, Google doesn't do social networks, Google doesn't do blogs, and Google certainly doesn't do price comparisons.

  • Lots of non-high-tech markets have industry groups that regulate quality and standards, above and beyond (sometimes below) governmental standards. Sometimes this is just for marketing reasons (e.g. "Intel Inside" but other instances it has significant meaning to people who know what to look for (e.g. "not animal tested", "OSI approved").

    Google could do the world another favor and let software groups put the "We follow Google's lead" seal on their internet software that lets users know, just from seeing the

  • Principles Change (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Merry_B.Buck ( 539837 ) <(MeriadocB_Buck2) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:10PM (#9208964) Homepage Journal
    In 2000, Google's founders defined [stanford.edu]a set of principles for a quality search engine:
    [W]e expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers...[W]e believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

    Today, about 95% of Google's $1B+ revenue comes from advertising, and Google's lawyers forgot to to check the "This will be an academic-only IPO" box on their SEC paperwork.

    Four years from now, will Google's institutional shareholders feel bound by today's Software Principles?

  • This is Google being Google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bonewalker ( 631203 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:30PM (#9209188)
    They are trendsetters. They see clearly. They have integrity.

    This press release is simply further proof that the Google officers are not only interested in themselves, but in the community around them, the nation as a whole, and even the world.

    Sure, they are a for-profit organization, but they are showing it is not a contradiction in terms to be both for-profit and civic-minded.

    Even if I have completely misunderstood their intentions, it sure looks as if they care, and that might just influence a few other companies, (are you listening Microsoft?) to adjust their thinking, put consumers first, and hold themselves to a higher standard.

  • Principles aren't for spyware companies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <ra5pu7in@@@gmail...com> on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:38PM (#9209255) Journal
    Google's principles aren't expected to change the behavior of the worst companies out there. They are designed to set the bar of what the best companies should behave like. If every company making legitimate software clearly stated what their software did and made it clear and easy to install or uninstall, the gulf between "good" software and "bad" software would be very large.

    You could divide people and companies into one of four groups -- very ethical, moderately ethical, moderately unethical, and very unethical. Those who are very ethical do not need laws to tell them what is right or wrong. Those who are moderately ethical can usually make the right decision, but are more comfortable with laws that clearly delineate right and wrong. Those who are moderately unethical will routinely take the easy way or the most profitable way with little consideration of whether it is right or wrong, though strong laws with enforced punishments can dissuade them. Those who are very unethical are seldom concerned with right or wrong and often don't even connect their behavior with what is illegal.

    What laws or principles do is widen the gap between what the ethical do and what the unethical do. The more difference between a piece of spyware and a piece of legitimate software, the easier it is to identify and avoid spyware. This is much like spam ... if every email you send has detailed contact information (I include my full name, company name, phone number, and department as well as the name of our software in every email), it is very easy to distinguish from the majority of spam. We know spammers and spyware companies won't suddenly get ethical, but we can make the unethical nature more obvious by raising our standards for ourselves higher.

  • Google's Rules, and the History of Spyware (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boutell ( 5367 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @04:56PM (#9209378) Homepage
    Why would a spyware company want to follow the rules? Well, a lot of the early spyware companies started out as adware companies. Alas, people saw the potential to get a few more dollars by being unethical about uninstall policies and/or invading other people's software. Several companies, including Radiate, couldn't stand the heat that resulted and backed off from questionable uninstall policies, etc. But the idea was out there at that point, and smaller companies created for the sole purpose of building spyware followed in their footsteps.

    If an atmosphere could be created in which spyware couldn't be pulled off, there might be a niche for real, above-board, opt-in adware again. Which might even be a good thing.

    I once polled users evaluating one of my products to find out which they would prefer -- shareware with a timer, or adware that runs forever. They overwhelmingly preferred the adware option. I made plans to follow through on that, but the bottom dropped out of the adware market thanks to spyware and the negative message it sent about all "software with ads."

    (There are a handful of adware success stories that don't include unethical policies as part of the business case, notably Opera.)

  • GSP Licensing Program & Consumer Choice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr_zorg ( 259994 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @07:16PM (#9210431)
    We, as consumers, should openly refuse to buy or install software that does not adhere to the Google Software Principles (GSP). To that end, Google should institute a GSP logo & licensing program. If it is later found that a company is violating the GSP by displaying the logo but not adhering to it, Google would have grounds to sue them. And perhaps such companies would get the message when we all refuse to buy/install their application because it doesn't display the GSP logo... Here's hoping!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close