Shared publicly  - 
 
Et tu, Google?

I hope ZDNet simply got their facts wrong. I'm not above packing up and leaving here, living on a beach in a hut somewhere.

The level of Big Brother creepiness that #CISPA opens the door to is 100% un-American and, quite frankly, disgusting. It's not even something Congress should be entertaining in the darkest recesses of their senile minds, much less legitimately trying to turn into law.
11
12
seth shore's profile photoLisa Miller's profile photoAndrew Cheong's profile photoMichael Long's profile photo
18 comments
 
If this passes it will be bye bye Google+, Gmail, Chrome ect ect for me.

Google need to take an active role in fighting this, not getting behind it
 
This ZD article is just a camouflaged nymwars flame post - do not trust it.
 
How do you know +Isabel Draves?
And I might have to agree with you +Matt Hancock (as much as I don't want to) ... If #Google is in full support of #CISPA and will not change their position then I may have to drop all Google products. Which would be a shame because I really love Google and the people within the community.
 
You have the connections and the passion to pursue this, David. Please do so and tell us what you find. I'm very concerned.
 
I love Google as well, and I tolerate the data mining for advertising purposes. But if this bill passes, it will be no more Google services for me.

I would love to see Google take an active stand against this as they did with SOPA. TBH I think we need the backing of companies like Google, Wiki to stop this from passing.
 
Does anyone have evidence outside of this article Google supports CISPA? No? Then it's bullshit because the source is a ZDnet article.
 
Its been reported in several places that the author of CISPA claims Google supports it, but no firm statement from Google itself. I'd love to see some clarification from Google myself.
 
All I can find is Mike Rogers, the guy who wrote the bill, blowing smoke and using vague language about the writing of the bill and Google's involvement. Google has yet to make a public statement.
 
+Andrew Cheong if you go back and read Violet Blue's posts about nymwars, you'll find that she suffered from them mistakenly thinking she was using a psudonym, which was not permitted, and ever since she is adamant about how important it is for people to be able to use G+ anonymously, and at the bottom of the article quoted here, where she talks about people's livlihoods and families depending on privacy and even their ability to stay alive, that is all referencing the argument for allowing stalker victims, etc. to post anonymously on G+... it's just the same accusations she always makes about Google, and nowhere is there proof that Google influenced the bill in a positive as opposed to negative way... just not good journalism, written by a journalist who has an axe to grind and a history of grinding it.
 
This info was brought up a while ago on a few radio programs close to when Google changed privacy policy aswell. If you look at how the Ad whore giant works you'd have some realization as to if google would do this or not.
 
+Joe Hanley Then get off Google+ if you think they;ll share info and are propping CISPA up because of a shield. Othwerwise, stop the bullshit assertions and come up with some proof.

Also, Google isn't an ISP. That provision is meant for people like Comcast and Time-Warner.
 
While much of this may be true, it's all hearsay at this point without an official statement from Google. The width and breadth of the article is based on about 9 words from a blog post on "The Hill," which isn't exactly my idea of a proper media outlet, anyway. I do wish that large media conglomerates like the CBS-affiliated ZDnet would preface that sort of thing rather than making me do my own research. Maybe that's just a bit too much to expect from journalism in this day and age, though.
 
It's not shocking as Google has been oddly silent on #CISPA.
Add a comment...