back to article Rupert Murdoch says Google is worse than the NSA

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has taken to Twitter and labelled Google worse than the NSA. Here's The Dirty Digger's missive: NSA privacy invasion bad, but nothing compared to Google. — Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) August 17, 2014 Murdoch and Google have history, with the former accusing the latter of stealing his …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    my guess is

    He doesn't view the NSA as a competitor …

    1. Sanctimonious Prick
      Thumb Down

      Re: my guess is

      He doesn't have a clue.

    2. MrT

      Re: my guess is...

      ...he hasn't seen his own NSA file... ;-)

      1. BillG
        Coat

        Re: my guess is...

        Murdoch's not a part of that debate. His preferred Twitter style is to fire off something nasty, then disappear for a few days

        ... just like 90% of the people that use Twitter.

        1. ThomH

          Re: my guess is... @BillG

          I thought it was more to fire something trivial off, then disappear for 5–10 seconds?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Murdoch?

    Isn't he the guy who quickly closed an outfit because it would have had to pay out gazillions to people whose private live they spied on? Is there a version of the pot & kettle expression involving THREE parties? I guess he's just jealous.

  3. hplasm
    Mushroom

    Anyone can play!

    Murdoch is worse than ebola.

    See- easy.

    1. TheProf

      Re: Anyone can play!

      Your grammar is too good.

      Murdoch worse than ebola.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Re: Anyone can play!

        Even simpler

        Murdoch is Ebola.

        1. ShadowedOne

          Re: Anyone can play!

          In other news, the Reg commenter Khaptain has had a charge of libel filed against them by a Mr. Ebola Virus. In a brief statement to the press Mr. Ebola vehemently denied being anything near as bad as Mr. Murdoch and vowed to pursue the case to the fullest extent of the law.

        2. Fungus Bob

          Re: Anyone can play!

          Even Yoda-er

          Ebola Murdoch is

          Need we Yoda icon!

        3. P. Lee
          Coat

          Re: Anyone can play!

          >Murdoch is Ebola.

          Murdoch is the human fly; climber of walls; spoiler of picnics.

  4. SuccessCase

    It's perfectly possible to be an arsehole and right.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's perfectly possible to be an arsehole and right.

      .. but it's much easier (and more common) to be an arsehole and wrong. In Murdoch's case, QED.

    2. mrweekender

      The "truth", in this case, is riding into town on the back of a vested interest. A little bit like what's currently happening in Oz with the broadband rollout. Trouble is people like Murdoch are greedy, grasping bastards, they want it all and will never stop trying to get it, usually at any cost. There's no attempt to forward mankind, it's purely about the dollars.

  5. dan1980

    Murdoch is a cranky old coot who, whatever his achievements in life and business, is simply incapable of understanding - much less relating to - ordinary people.

    This is the only mitigating factor; he is so out of touch that he seems genuinely not to realise just how poorly his conduct and opinions accord with those of the common folk.

    1. FuzzyTheBear
      Black Helicopters

      For one , I got to agree with Rupert. Google opens every email and checks them , They collect all your searches ever , they know more about anyone and everyone than we care to know.

      The NSA don't resell their users .Google and Facebook do and are the two worse enemies of privacy liberty and freedom ever.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: For one , I got to agree with Rupert

        "The NSA don't resell their users"

        Yet... or even "As far as we know!" given their secretive nature with absolutely everything.

        Wait till the Utah datacenter is built and fully utilized before we jump to conclusions, eh?

        The NSA is several orders of magnitude worse than Google, as nobody is forcing you to use Google services. You can adblock *doubleclick.net for example and you are also not forced to email *@gmail.com domains or even use YouTube.

        However, the NSA is completely unavoidable unless you don't use a computer, Telephone, Fax machine, Mobile phone, or any device capable of remote communication.

        1. Grikath

          Re: For one , I got to agree with Rupert

          "However, the NSA is completely unavoidable unless you don't use a computer, Telephone, Fax machine, Mobile phone, or any device capable of remote communication."

          By which time they would be very interested in you , since you must have something to hide if you....etc...

        2. zen1

          Re: For one , I got to agree with Rupert

          @ AC: They have to finance Obama Care somehow and they can't squeeze the middle class for any more taxes.

      2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        The NSA has users ?

        I thought it had victims.

        1. Tom 35

          Re: The NSA has users ?

          And they don't sell them, they trade them with other spies. They want to collect the whole set.

          You don't even get free email or cat videos how can you be a user?

      3. Vic

        The NSA don't resell their users

        They most certainly do.

        The Snowden documents show situations where an evidence trail has been fabricated becasue someone actually got caught through an NSA snoop, with the data then (unlawfully) being passed on to DEA or similar.

        It is alleged - and unproven, naturally - that snooped data is also passed onto US businesses to give them a competitive edge.

        So the NSA is certainly reselling data - I just don't yet know how much I care about that.

        Vic.

      4. Naughtyhorse

        <cough>

        NSA does flog their wares too...

        to mossad!

        be afraid, be very afraid.

        1. P. Lee

          Re: <cough>

          >NSA does flog their wares too...

          >to mossad!

          >be afraid, be very afraid.

          Mossad isn't bent on world domination. They can be very forceful when protecting their interests but they don't define their interests as "ruling the world."

          I feel much safer with them than with the US.

      5. Gannon (J.) Dick

        @Fuzzy, Lots of Downvotes, but not from me ...

        ... because you are on the right track, IMHO.

        "The NSA don't resell their users .Google and Facebook do and are the two worse enemies of privacy liberty and freedom ever."

        The insidious act here is not collecting data but rather "front running" personal information.

        It rate of collection depends only on the hardware infrastructure. The NSA, Google and Facebook have these resources in megamultiples of you and I.

        Be afraid of the NSA because their minions might act in haste - and irreversibly - on noise.

        Be afraid of Google and Facebook (et al.) because they sell back doors and faster access to the noise product if you are a front runner with lots of cash.

        Things could get worse if the NSA were to behave like Google, Facebook, et al..

        The only way things get better is to fine the bejesus out of spam enablers.

      6. dan1980
        FAIL

        @FuzzyTheBear

        While the the NSA may not directly sell their [information on] users, they most definitely pass it outside of their organisation and - worse - outside of the legal remit under which it was collected.

        The NSA is collecting information they shouldn't be collecting, using it for purposes it wasn't intended for, disclosing it to agencies and (if the leaks are true) commercial entities that aren't supposed to see it, hiding it from the public and lying about it all to congress.

        And you agree with Uncle Rupert that Google is worse than the NSA . . .

        You've got to understand a fundamental difference, which is that Google scans your e-mails (and is up front about it) to better sell you advertising. The NSA scans your e-mails to find key words and phrases and then uses those as justification to compile phone records, car GPS data, full Internet browsing history, and will do so for your friends, family and co-workers as well. It might then choose to forward that information to the DEA or the IRS.

        That's not conspiracy theory time - that's actually what's happening.

        1. dan1980

          Re: @FuzzyTheBear

          BTW - apologies for the "FAIL" icon - I truly didn't mean it and don't know what happened. Maybe an errant mouse-wheel flick or something.

          I don't think your comment 'FAIL[s]', I just disagree.

          1. Anonymous Brave Guy

            Re: @FuzzyTheBear

            "I don't think your comment 'FAIL[s]', I just disagree."

            I think the FAIL icon is quite fitting for his comment, actually.

            Especially in light of the recent Snowden-gate / NSAgate news.

    2. h3

      RE : dan1980

      A worrying amount of those ordinary people seem to buy his papers.

      The scousers are the only ones with any integrity in that matter.

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Murdoch?

    I think discussion like he's trying to start here should be left to grown ups.

    1. MrT

      Re: Murdoch?

      Unfortunately it'll be parrotted out by the editors of all his newspapers soon enough. Still, it makes a change from him having a go at all his competitors (BBC, etc), either directly or by proxy.

      I prefer to hear about the various missives of the Dirty Digger and all Murdocracy concerns by reading Private Eye...

      1. dan1980

        Re: Murdoch?

        @MrT

        Actually, it won't be a change at all because he doesn't have a go at competitors, specifically.

        Murdoch is one of those people who firmly and genuinely believe that it is his right to earn as much money as humanly possible. His newspapers therefore go after anyone and everyone that form a barrier to the pursuit of that money.

        Murdoch's newspapers have always been notable for how utterly in sync they are in pushing whatever objective is handed down. Anyone in Australia during the last election cycle couldn't fail to notice it, with the numerous papers Newscorp owns relentlessly attacking Labor while praising the character of the Coalition.

        He does the same thing in the UK, and the US of course though the near-blanket coverage he has here makes it particularly obscene.

        1. dan1980

          Re: Murdoch?

          For those in the UK, there was the support for Thatcher and the Tories, who in turn helped rush through his takeover of the Times, which then was used to support Thatcher all the more strongly, helping her to another election win. She then supported him through his fights with the unions, both politically and by promising strong police support, a link that has been pointed to as the starting point for the hacking scandals.

          Thatcher later repaid Murdoch's continued support further by helping bring about the merger of BSB and Sky to make BSkyB.

          His turn to support 'New Labour' and Tony Blair was to put pressure on him in regards to the impending cross-media ownership laws as well as regulations to restrict the predatory pricing he was employing to drive his competitors out of business. At least some of his ongoing unholy alliance with Blair is now well known thanks to the Leveson enquiry (which also brought out some of the Thatcher dealings) and they continued right up to Blair's resignation (and beyond).

          After that he switched again, supporting the Conservatives, who were helping him with his bid to take full control of BSkyB - a move that only failed due to the eruption of the phone hacking scandal.

          In Australia he played much the same game, jumping from Labor to Liberal as his needs dictated, supporting Whitlam then helping to bring him down. Supporting Hawke and Keating, who helped him takeover several local tabloids and thus attain dominance over the state-based presses but then backing Howard (again with cross-media ownership laws on the table). After that it was back to Labor for Rudd before the most recent and overt support of Abbott and the Coalition.

          At each stage, he has bargained his support to earn more money - whether it was in helping smash the unions, getting huge subsidies on prime real estate (Fox Studios, say), enabling him to buy more than he should have been allowed to or to head off laws and regulations that would potentially collar his papers. Some believe that his support of Abbott and the coalition owed much to the scuppering of the NBN as he saw it as a threat to his cable television interests.

          So that is Murdoch - someone whose only desire is for more money and power and who will opportunistically support whomever he has the most to gain from.

  7. Richard Jones 1

    Pick any Comparision

    Dealing with opinions of Murdock and his warped views of the world. You have had a few but my opinions of the duffer run along the lines of:

    Murdock is worse than plague

    Murdock is worse than ISIS

    Murdock is worse than Al-Qa'ida

    Murdock is worse than your worst nightmare

    Murdock is worse than a gang of drug crazed muggers

    He ruined the print media, he ruined television, now he wants to wreak the internet.

    Can the devil please come back out of retirement and swap roles back with him so letting the poor demented fool fester in peace somewhere.

    1. dotdavid

      Re: Pick any Comparision

      But remember Murdock was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit.

      1. viscount
        Thumb Up

        Re: Pick any Comparision

        I pity the fool.

      2. whatevs...

        Re: Pick any Comparision

        No he wasn't! He was committed. The other three were sent down...

    2. Stuart 22

      Re: Pick any Comparision

      "He ruined the print media, he ruined television"

      You forgot FOOTY. Glad to know there are no Sky subscribers here. No RegReader would be so duplicitous?

      1. Vic

        Re: Pick any Comparision

        "He ruined the print media, he ruined television"

        You forgot FOOTY.

        Even the very worst of us gets things right occasionally... :-)

        Vic.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pick any Comparision

        "You forgot FOOTY. Glad to know there are no Sky subscribers here. No RegReader would be so duplicitous?"

        Yeah, because not everyone lives in a Virgin Media Cable network you insensitive clod.

        So yes, I do have Sky until Virgin cable gets here, I won't be holding my breath for that.

        Go on hating.. At least I don't buy NewsCorp rags.

  8. Diogenes

    On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

    Looking at my trusty ghosetery - just by looking at EL Reg google tracks me (google analytics)

    I go to say TED.com - oh look google analytics again

    A List Apart - google analyitcs again

    Rapid Elearning Blog - google again

    Adobe TV - doubleclick (aka google again)

    Australian Bureau of Meterology - oh look a google

    There is of course a spectacular own goal - the News Ltd Herald Sun (Australia) - Adsense, analytics AND custom search

    These site are in my bookmarks so I don't just "google" them

    1. Sanctimonious Prick
      WTF?

      Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

      Err, umm, what are you saying? Google did this? PMSL!

      These site are in my bookmarks so I don't just "google" them

      I wonder then, what else do you do them?

      [ giggling like a little grrl ]

      1. Diogenes

        Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

        Let me draw a picture for you then ...

        I go directly to sites without using google that have absolutey nothing to do with google - but I have little option (unless I have ghostery) to hand over my browsing history as google have infested nearly every freaking site on the interwebs - i really don't see anything funny about that.

        Yes the sites decide to opt in, but if I want to access anything at all there is the F!@$~!@%$%@#4 google tracker watching watching watching...

        And the citicism of Murdoch I see here is typical of lefties - play the man, not the argument. Yes he may not be a nice man or have the policies you agree with but that does not mean he doesn't have a point.

        1. Jagged

          Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

          "And the citicism of Murdoch I see here is typical of lefties - play the man, not the argument."

          This "rightie" also thinks the man is a hypocritical arse, jealous of the virtual monopoly created by Google, angry that his own attempts to do the same amounted to little.

          1. MyffyW Silver badge

            Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

            Bravo @Jagged. It's certainly not about Left or Right. The man, through his minions, hacked the phone of a murdered school girl. He has had every UK government since '79 frit of his news machine, not because it shines a light on truth, but because he, not the people of the United Kingdom, sets the agenda.

      2. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

        You should install a little thing like no-script. Its a bit of a faf at first to set up the permissions how you want them. But after that, google analytics and google-anything is blocked from running.

        1. VinceH

          Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

          "You should install a little thing like no-script. Its a bit of a faf at first to set up the permissions how you want them. But after that, google analytics and google-anything is blocked from running."

          He mentioned Ghostery, so that's a good start, but yes: NoScript (once the fiddly faffing is out of the way) + Ghostery + A sensible cookie policy (again with a bit of faffing at first for those you want to allow) = A good browsing experience.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

          Unless the site you want that has the oh-so-exclusive content runs an ad-blocker-blocker, detects you block all the Google stuff, and gives the ultimatum: Allow all the spam stuff or you don't get our content.

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            No problem, we'll get the content from elsewhere.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "No problem, we'll get the content from elsewhere."

              That would mean the content is by definition not exclusive. I've seen plenty of Internet Hobson's Choices to know it actually exists out there.

          2. imanidiot Silver badge

            Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

            " Anonymous Coward

            Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

            Unless the site you want that has the oh-so-exclusive content runs an ad-blocker-blocker, detects you block all the Google stuff, and gives the ultimatum: Allow all the spam stuff or you don't get our content.

            "

            Do you want to go to a site like that?? It actually makes alarm bells and flashing neonsigns reading "MALWARE DANGER, GET OUT" go off for me.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

      It's an opt-in internet if you redirect all of that google analytics, doubleclick ad ware to 127.0.0.1. Makes everything run so much smoother ;-)

      1. Gannon (J.) Dick

        Re: On which internet is google an "opt-in site" ?

        Out of the mouth's of Cow Heards pearls of wisdom :-)

        There is something else you have to do too.

        Make sure the "Country Code" of your Loopback server is "XZ". This is "Installations in International Waters" in the UN-LOCODE system. This is an ISO "User Defined" Code. For a three character code (FIFA World Cup, etc. use those), I use XZZ because either XZ or ZZ are User Defined. The "civil" spooks in the US (NGA) use "UF" for "Undersea Features". You are kind of limited because there are no three character codes defined. However, if a transliteration of "UF" resolves to both "XZ" and "XZZ" you should be ok.

        If the prying eyes of Social Networks were told that everyone were out of cannon shot range (this is where the "Three Mile Limit" comes from) then prying eyes would be shit-out-of-luck.

        The "generic" jurisdiction violations would quickly become hugely expensive - a milking machine for arseholes. Well done Cow Heard.

  9. thomas k.

    fixed it for him

    News of the World's invasion of privacy is nothing compared to the NSA's.

    1. VinceH

      Re: fixed it for him

      Hang on, I think I have a new game here to replace rock, paper, scissors - and is less complicated than Sheldon's rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.

      It's called: News of the World, Google, NSA:

      News of the World beats (is worse than) Google.

      Google beats (is worse than) the NSA.

      NSA beats (is worse than) News of the World.

      Does anyone think it'll catch on? I'm wondering if it's worth getting it patented with the USPTO!

  10. Tim Roberts 1

    In Oz ..

    his influence on the media is known as the "murdocracy". At the risk of being rude my comment to him is FUCK OFF MURDOCH. The world does not revolve around you, and 5 years after you're gone no-one will give a flying fuck about you. You need adjust your business practices to suit the new order, not the other way around.

  11. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

    Sounds like

    Murdoch is a bit jealous (of both NSA and Google).

  12. Winkypop Silver badge
    Flame

    Hey Rupe!

    Bugger off!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it wrong to Torrent Murdoch content?

    Or is it a civil duty?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it wrong to Torrent Murdoch content?

      Only problem with that is, there is no Murdoch content worth torrenting

      1. Kane
        Joke

        Re: Is it wrong to Torrent Murdoch content?@Anonymous Cow heard

        Depends on what value you attribute to "worth". Or what value you attribute to "content".

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Opt-in?

    One problem is that what people "opt-in" to are different nice services, or maybe just the possibility to use their phone (Android) or computer (Chromebook), but what they also get without knowing is different kinds of hidden and secret surveillance that runs without any scrutiny at all, by a private company that actually makes its money by knowing as much as possible about its users.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Opt-in?

      OK, let's look at this logically, ignoring FUD, fanboyism, or paranoia.

      Let's face it; Google must go through more scrutiny than any other on-line company, since they are constantly under the eye of most Governments - they are an easy target, potential monopoly, with a lot of funding (not to mention the tax avoidance).

      Also, they are pretty open with what they do and how they use your data. It's also obvious what they do with it. They're not going to sell it to anyone, they'll make more money from using your data themselves than they would selling it.

      They appear to respect your "opt-out". There have been no reports of them using your own data against you (eg, the hotmail case)

      Pick another large company (even one that doesn't serve ads) - could you say the same about that?

      [Fanboy check: The only Google products I use are search, maps, I've bought a Chromebook for my mother, I once had an Android phone (now iPhone), Chrome is my secondary browser (after FF), I'm a Windows developer]

      1. Keith 21

        Re: Opt-in?

        "[Google] are pretty open with what they do and how they use your data. It's also obvious what they do with it."

        Oh really?

        Forgotten about the whole GoogleView car saga?

        "We're just taking photos, nothing else"

        "No, we are absolutely not sniffing WiFi networks"

        "OK, we are sniffing them, but we are absolutely not storing the data, trust us, we are not evil"

        "Well, OK, we do store it as well, but honest, we don't do anything with it. Do No Evil lollerzzzz"

        Google? Open about what they do?

        That'll be the day.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Notas Badoff

            Re: On a little different note

            And then the gov'ts said whoa! you can't delete that data, we have to investigate so keep it on hand so each group of us can ask for it over and over and ... Years it took for Google to be *allowed* to delete it.

            "Its so sad when there is a bunch of a$$holes in charge of us. Sigh." Yes.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Opt-in?

          Nice straw-man counter-argument, showing plenty of intelligence and independent thought and absolutely no bias.

        3. Jamie Jones Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Opt-in?

          Yes, because Google are so short on internet infrastructure, they need to go wardriving.

          Seriously, they admitted they were storing MACs and their location. This may or may not be something to be concerned about, but do you really think Google wanted to crack the private emails etc. of wi-fi users? Especially when considering there was no way to tie an online user to this data in a way to improve ad targetting,

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Opt-in?

            "Especially when considering there was no way to tie an online user to this data in a way to improve ad targetting,"

            There's always a way to tie an online user. Cleartext metadata will suffice. Heck, didn't researchers show they can correlate identifiable information from an encrypted connection using timing attacks? Face it. Data mining is the specialty of companies like Google. These firms basically strive to ensure no privacy in this world.

  15. J. R. Hartley

    Murdoch

    He's too old for this shit.

  16. Bladeforce

    Murdoch...hmm...

    ...like a little man hanging onto a crumbling empire under the internet, thank goodness free speech will kill off all his ideas soon

  17. Mage Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Pots and Kettles

    Though Google is worse at privacy than Murdoch, who may be envious. I'd not hazard an opinion on which is worse, Google or NSA. I don't want either spying on me.

    1. Jim 59

      Re: Pots and Kettles

      Agree with Mage. The government is accountable to you in at least *some* way. Google isn't, particularly if you live outside the US. Eg. People can issue FoE requests to UK government departments, who must give some sort of answer by law. This has led to the uncovering of several scandals. You can't do that with Google. However, if the guv'mint and Google get together, that is the biggest risk.

      Got Android ? Check below to see if Google has been tracking you (they weren't tracking me)

      http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/17/6025339/google-maps-is-tracking-everywhere-you-go

      1. Hargrove

        Re: Pots and Kettles

        At least in the US, my concern is that those who govern (and their hired and appointed minions) are supremely ignorant of and indifferent to what either NSA or Google do, as long as it benefits the special interests who get them elected.

        The question is whether we voters will get out collective act together, and learn how to use the power of the "net to hold them accountable at the polls, before they gain absolute control.

  18. Ross K Silver badge

    The old bastard must be going senile.

    I'd rate News International as a more despicable organisation than the NSA any day of the week - Google doesn't even come into it...

  19. teebie

    So the boss of the company that has a co-branding deal with Yahoo isn't very keen on Google? How strange.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    LOL pot calling the kettle back.

    I trust Google a million times more than Murdoch or any of his criminal organisations, sorry newspapers, and crappy TV channels.

    Seems he has already forgotten about phone hacking...

    1. kmac499

      Re: LOL pot calling the kettle back.

      When the NSA and t'other Five Eyes snoop in secret it's under the dubious cover of nashonal' skurity and protecting the populace.

      When Gogle snoops, at least you get a hint they're looking in your browsers tickertape,.. under the dubious cover of improving service.. (Anybody here ever bought anything from a targeted ad ?)

      When Murdochs outfit snooped it was to make more money... under the dubious cover of.. nah just make more money

      1. Vic

        Re: LOL pot calling the kettle back.

        Anybody here ever bought anything from a targeted ad ?

        Not really...

        I do, however, get lots of targetted ads for stuff I've just bought

        Idiots...

        Vic.

  21. John Savard

    Interesting

    I'd be more concerned if Vladimir Putin said that Google was worse than the NSA. That could have consequences for people in Russia trying to find things on the Internet.

    Had Rupert Murdoch said that Facebook was worse than the NSA, then one could have a rational debate; the NSA eavesdrops on people who haven't first entered into a contractual agreement with the NSA, for example.

    It's true Google is more ubiquitous than Facebook, but so far they only appear to be keeping track of our search habits to serve us advertisements. Of course, the NSA does absolutely nothing with data on most of us, so in one sense Rupert Murdoch is quite right.

  22. Unicornpiss
    Flame

    More money than brains

    Some people's only "skill" in life is to be a nasty P.O.S. It's reasonably easy to get rich if you don't understand ethics or fair play and have just enough brains to not get caught, along with a loud voice for giving orders.

  23. Decade
    Big Brother

    Google is not opt-in.

    "So we've no idea just what his complaint is with Google, why he thinks an opt-in site is worse than a perhaps-not-entirely-constitutional surveillance program that collects data on individuals it has no reason to suspect deserve any scrutiny whatsoever."

    People keep forgetting that Google is not just that cheerful lab that produces the best web search engine.

    It's also Doubleclick, the biggest and most feared online ad network.

    It's also Google Analytics, which webmasters invite onto their own web sites because web hosts suck at providing useful data. In the process, Google gets even more data from me about every site I visit that has Google Analytics. I didn't sign up for this.

    It's also Google Maps, that has pictures of my house and my place of work from many angles, along with detailed information about all my wireless routers. Sometimes, it has recognizable pictures of myself or someone close to me; they blur it, but I'm sure they have access to the originals.

    It's also Chrome, which is influencing web standards in a negative direction. We do not need a new binary web app format, since the demise of Flash and ActiveX. We do not need more patents. We do not need more DRM. All of these, Chrome is promoting.

    It's also Android, which is increasingly Google "Play" and not Android Open Source. That flap about Facebook Messenger? That could totally have been avoided if Google had finished developing fine-grained privacy controls for Android. Instead, they're going the opposite way, allowing programs to share permissions with less user awareness.

    I don't know why Murdoch has issue with Google, but I can understand why people think it's not good for privacy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Google is not opt-in. ajax.googleapis.com is another threat

      "Doubleclick", "Google Analytics", "Google Maps", "Chrome", "Android"

      And yet folks don't seem to have cottoned on to ajax.googleapis.com which webmasters everywhwere seem to be embracing.

      Unlike Analytics, you can't block ajax.googleapis.com and get full functionality out of these sites.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Google is not opt-in. ajax.googleapis.com is another threat

        And before you say, "Just don't visit those sites," many of them host exclusive content you won't find anywhere else, meaning it becomes a Hobson's Choice: you either submit or be forever denied.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Google is not opt-in. ajax.googleapis.com is another threat

          What's the alternative? Whipping out your credit card whenever you visit a site?

          How much would you pay to read this site?

        2. P. Lee

          Re: Google is not opt-in. ajax.googleapis.com is another threat

          Private browser anyone?

          Be someone new, every time.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Google is not opt-in. ajax.googleapis.com is another threat

            They'll probably be able to see through your private browsing based on uniquely human traits such as typing styles and click rates or they'll use scripts to determine stuff from your ISP which you can't disguise. These will be extremely hard to cover up.

    2. DaveNullstein

      Re: Google is not opt-in.

      I agree that Google may kill us all when/once it falls into the wrong hands however, at this point they are still mostly trustworthy and all of their spying is done by algorithms. What we need are laws & mechanisms to ensure it stays that way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Google is not opt-in.

        Ink on a page. Laws are only obeyed when it is convenient for those in power. Any other time, they just lie about it. That includes information requests.

  24. Mystic Megabyte
    Gimp

    I've been forgotten

    He should hire Max Mosely as his internet spokesman.

    Oh wait! No one can find his email address* anymore.

    *apart from the NSA obviously :)

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing but repeats

    Murdoch as always banged on about "the establishment" by which he always means "people who do things I want to have a monopoly on".

    Like father like son, like grandson.

  26. heyrick Silver badge

    Oh, the old coot is just pissed...

    ...'cos we're giving attention to Assange today.

    Or something.

    Like I care. I cannot value anything to do with integrity and the like spoken by that guy.

  27. Naughtyhorse

    replusive cunt

    why is he not dead yet?

    1. mrweekender

      Only the good die young.

  28. DaveNullstein

    Only if you're a pedophile.

    Please elaborate, Rupert....

    Snark aside, I'll take my chances with Google over a shadowy, prone-to-lying and off-the-leash intelligence organization any day. At least I can opt out of Google.

  29. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Just Murdoch's ...

    senility showing again, last time he ditched Wendi.

  30. Someone Else Silver badge
    WTF?

    Just one question:

    Why the flying fuck does anyone pay attention to this twit?

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Title

    Title should read; An elephant said to the pig "You're fat!"

  32. chivo243 Silver badge
    Coat

    I'm confused - Worse = Better?

    Is Google worse at getting my info than the NSA or better? Isn't someone gathering your information just bad in any case? I'm confused, I guess that's the way Ruppy wants it?

    Yes, getting my coat dear, cause it looks like rain...

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pure jealousy.

    Can't we put Rupert, Google and the NSA on a spaceship and sent it to Mars one-way?

  34. W. Anderson

    Rupert Murdock's Media empire spied on the text medssages of a dead girl's cell phone, just to post sensationalist story in one of his gossip rags. At no time di he publicly denigrate such heinous behavior, or even to a degree that he spews hate on Google.

    No action taken by Google or any other Internet entity have or can reach such a despicable low as that.

    Kudos to Rupert Murdock for being the scumbag that he is. If Comcast or Mr. Murdock are allowed to purchase Time Warner Cable (TWC) - which already scores a "fail" (F-) on quality of Service meter, then TWC customers who do not vigorously and insistently fight these draconian behemoths potential purchasers deserve the idiotic treatment they will receive.

  35. Battsman

    Murdoch = Tool. Google & Big Data = Vampires

    Murdock is just a narcissistic pr!ck...

    Google & the rest of the big data trolls are equally pr!cks, but throw in a little measure of blood sucking parasites. Everybody loves vampires, right up until they drain you.

    Seriously, don't be naïve enough to actually believe the "do no harm" crap from Google - even if by some stretch of the imagination they are actually living it right now; sooner or later they won't and that's why the breadth of the data they have collected and stored is beyond scary. If you don't trust the NSA to collect data, why would you ever trust Google? Or any other big data aggregator? These large business have shareholders and are driven by quarterly results just like any other large business - why would you expect them to behave any better than other corporations over the long run?

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      If you don't trust the NSA to collect data, why would you ever trust Google?

      Who says we trust Google? Or the NSA? Or News Corp? Or Murdoch himself?

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Murdoch and Google have history, with the former accusing the latter of stealing his newspapers' content (yet never putting in place a robots.txt file that would prevent search engines crawling it). "

    Well, wouldn't Google indexing his content him pull readers in when they search for something? I'm sure his competitors are more than happy to take the traffic

    "Uncle Rupert has also criticised Google as enabling the theft of films by indexing torrent sites."

    So, it is the job of Google to do censorship? Doesn't Google just hit an address on 80 and 443 before moving on to the next address? I would assume that there are certain sites that Google is going to check much more often though.

    Maybe the film industry should try to give the public what it wants rather than telling them what they will get and like it.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Murdoch for page three !

    Rupert is worried that peoples privacy is being violated by those nasty people over at Google, "that's our job" he giggled flirtatiously ..

  38. Medixstiff

    Hurry UP!

    Murdoch is one of those people who seem to hang on too long to drop off the perch. Why do we lose someone worthwhile like Robin Williams and keep and old greedy spiteful old fart like Murdoch?

  39. AbeSapian

    Moment of EW!

    I've been saying this for a while now, and not just about Google. Corporate spying is far more insidious than even the government spying, because, unless your a major stock holder, you have no say in what information corporations collect or how they use it. And even where there is a privacy statement, it usually boils down to " you have no rights so suck it up."

    Of course being on the same side of an issue with Rupert Murdoch gave me a real moment of EW! But even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital).

  40. nigelc

    The sooner Murdoch is gone the better place the world will be.

  41. phalanges_fraud

    pictures or you're lying

    I like how the comment implies that there is a separation from Google's databank from the NSA. haha!

  42. Tom -1

    I'm rather surprised at how many people reckon Murdock got that one wrong. The NSA just grabs data to look for stuff that can trigger the natural American fear of everyone non-American and most Americans (almost any data). Google grabs data to look for absoultely anythinganyone that that could be sold anywhere (absolutely any data).

    Don't ask why I say "natural American feara". It's perfectly natural to believe that everyone wishes you ill when you are insistent on them subordinating their ideals and their wishes to yours.

    Using absolutely any data to is nastier than using almost any data. After all, the NSA tries to eliminate data that doesn't indicate a threat - but Google doesnt care whether it indicates a threat ornot.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like