Google Sides with Wikileaks

It is stunning that Google's decision to side with Julian Assange's Wikileaks and make all the stolen secret, private and proprietary Wikileaks information universally accessible to the world via Google search, has gotten virtually no media attention, given the:

• International carnage and controversy caused by Wikileaks reprehensible actions;
• Media's broad coverage of Wikileaks;
• Google's serial disrespect for others as evidenced by its serial privacy, IP, cybersecurity, and antitrust problems around the world that have been broadly covered by the media; and
• Google is the world's leading source for accessing Wikileaks secret, private and proprietary information.

When Google's Acting CEO Eric Schmidt told the DLD media conference in Munich (as reported by Reuters):

• "Has Google looked at the appropriateness of indexing WikiLeaks? The answer is yes, and we decided to continue because it's legal."...
• Reuters reported: "Schmidt said Google had considered stopping indexing confidential cables released by WikiLeaks, but had decided to carry on. Some other U.S. organizations have bowed to government pressure to stop cooperating with the controversial site."

Does no media outlet other than Reuters believe it is newsworthy that Google has purposefully and intentionally decided to effectively partner with Wikileaks and organize all of Julian Assange's stolen secret, private and proprietary Wikileaks information and make it universally accessible and useful to everyone, including all the bad actors in the world?

Whose side is Google on?

• Just because something may be "legal" does not make it right or responsible.
• Amazon and eBay-Paypal have done the responsible and right thing in not siding with Wikileaks.
• Why has no media outlet demanded a fuller explanation from "Don't be Evil" Google?

This official Google corporate decision to essentially aid, abet and globally facilitate the widest dissemination possible of Julian Assange's Wikileaks cyber-terrorism (which he cloaks in the rhetoric of transparency and "Open Government"), should send chills down the spine of anyone in the national security, cyber-security, privacy, and intellectual property communities.

• What must the super-secret NSA be thinking now about whether Google can be trusted as a partner in cybersecurity vis a vis China's alleged uber-hack of Google last year?
  • If NSA info somehow gets out in the public domain, can they expect Google to ensure the damage is maximum by making the information universally accessible and useful?
• What must the top-secret National Geospatial Intelligence Agency be thinking about how much it can trust Google given that it awarded Google a top secret and controversial no-bid contract last summer?

Does Google believe it has any obligation to protect national security information and not make it universally accessible and useful to terrorists, criminals and other bad actors?

In sum, Google siding with Julian Assange's reprehensibly irresponsible Wikileaks of secret, private and proprietary information, is undeniable proof that Google does not share the same values and concerns of those responsible for protecting national security, homeland security, law enforcement, IP protection, and privacy protection.

*****

For those who want to learn more on this problem of Google's deep disrespect for privacy, secrecy, and cybersecurity see my:

• 22-part Publicacy vs. Privacy Series:
• 16-part Open Internet Security Problem Series; and
• 9-part Security is Google's Achilles Heel Series.