Earlier today, accusations surfaced from Mocality, a Kenyan company that provides a directory of businesses, that Google had improperly obtained its customer database, attempted to steal its customers, and misrepresented its relationship with Mocality.
We've since learned from a source close to Google that a small team of people were involved in the improper behavior, but that the company's not sure whether they are official Google employees, vendors, or partners. Our source tells us that while there is no existing policy on how to deal with the issue — it hasn't happened to Google before — the company plans to fully investigate the matter and review its protocols. They stressed that it's a very specific issue in one local office, and that the behavior was not authorized by Google — our source says that "as a company, Google was not aware of it," and that the action was "not condoned."
Our source says that Google is in close talks with Mocality over what happened, and that it will do "whatever needs to be done to make it right."
Earlier today, Google's Nelson Mattos, Vice-President for Product and Engineering, released an official statement on Google+ confirming Mocality's accusations, and says that it is "mortified" about the behavior, and that it's still investigating how it happened. We'll keep close tabs on this story, and let you know when Google updates us on its investigation.

There are 112 Comments. Add yours.
If they’re accepting that Mocality’s allegations are true, then are they accepting that Google India did the same thing immediately after? How can they then claim that it was a specific issue in a local office?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:01 PM EST reply Recommend (21) Flag actions
Isn’t the alternative theory that the Kenyan market is so amazing and important that Google would risk doing this kind of thing there instead of across the board?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:41 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
EXACLTY.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
embarrassing typo – all caps, near top of stack, documented for all time.
curses, no edit button. curses.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 5:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I am pretty sure it says they outsourced the calls to India later, not a Google India team started doing it.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Outsourced to India? That implies that they went with a 3rd party vendor in India, but the evidence is that the Indian activity came from Google’s own network.
It is hard to believe that this could simply be the work of a rogue office in Kenya, much less a Kenyan contractor working for Google, when the activity moved, in a coordinated fashion to Google’s Indian network addresses.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:10 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
My posting on this – Mocality Should not Play Victim, they Also Scrape Data and Fake Listings – techmtaa.com/Rp
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:02 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Don’t be evil, except to others who are also being evil? I think that’s covered by the phrase ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 9:47 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Bad Google, BAD!
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 6:19 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This seems to be the way Google handles these things, if they get caught red-handed it’s “nah this is just some random dude messing up, it’s not Google, we’ew the good guys remember?”
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:10 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
First Chrome team hires a contractor to create “Web spam” then this thing with Mocality in Kenya. Google needs to figure out how to manage themselves with all these supposedly “rogue teams” going off and violating their policies. Many large companies have annual required training on company values and ethics. Right now Google just needs to make this right, next step prevent more “rogue teams” from doing this crap.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:37 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Its tough to keep tabs on everyone when you get that big. They say it could have a vendor or partner, that seems more likely. It could have been a small group of rogue employees who were extremely ambitious. Either way, im sure Google won’t let this stand, their employees are incredibly credible, but there are always a few bad apples.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:03 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
I find that unbelievably believable.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:12 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Why?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:40 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I was just marveling at the oxymoron “incredibly credible.” Perhaps I should have said believably unbelievable, since I’m not inclined to give Google the benefit of the doubt here.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 9:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, I’m sure it was a vendor or partner that just happened to have a Google Inc. IP address.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
You really think if this were a “real”, concerted Google activity condoned from above, they would be stupid enough to use Google Inc. IP addresses?!?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:32 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Or get caught? Say what you will about Google, they dont hire idiots.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:38 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
oh really?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369188,00.asp
Suggestion: be more objective and stop defending google blindly.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:58 AM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
a vendor using a google IP address? google just admitted it was them in the article. Do you have reading comprehension?
15,554 scrapes were made from an Google Inc. IP address in Mountain View, California 1 amphitheater parkway…. tell me which vendor is located at 1 amp parkway? Youre clueless. Youre biased. Your comment history confirms this. Stop posting.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 3:01 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
meant 1600 amphitheater parkway…
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 3:03 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Google said it happened, they never said it was them. I am sure we will get the truth soon since they are in the middle of a deep investigation.
Personally I think Google is a smart company and this isn’t an order from above. Not because they would never do such a thing but because they are fully capable of doing it in a way that they wouldn’t get caught. You don’t think Google knows how to bounce an ip? :P
A group of employees looking to boost their commission or a group of vendors looking to boost their commission seems equally likely to me, in response to everyone saying that third part vendors using a Google ip? Of course they would, Google has hired these people to BE Google in Kenya. For all intents and purposes they would call themselves Google because if they didn’t nobody would trust them.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 6:52 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A company is responsible for more than just the actions that were taken as direct orders from the CEO and his direct reports. These guys are the ones who hire the various Senior VP’s who hire the VP’s who hire the directors. A company is responsible to ensure its employees understand the companies policies and ethics and then act accordingly. If company X put forth a sales goal and only met the goal because some sales team sold product to company Y with the promise to take it back on return in the next quarter or some other shady sales agreement Company X is still guilty of accounting fraud and the SEC is going to investigate regardless if the CEO endorsed it or not.
Google needs to run a tighter ship to stop this stuff from occurring.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is true, and for most companies this would fly, but Google’s primary business is keeping tabs on what everybody with a net presence is doing.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 6:22 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
While you’re at it, can you forward my personal information to that Kenyan prince who’s fortune I just inherited.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:05 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s Nigeria.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:15 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
ANother primitive and ignorant Americn speaking there. I guess you don’t even know the capital city of Cuba still
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:11 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Pfft, everybody knows that’s the beatibul city of Bacardi :P
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:33 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
It is Havana isn’t it?
checks wikipedia
CHA-CHING
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 2:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a little confusing. This “hasn’t happened to Google before”? What “happened” to Google? Wasn’t Google the actor here, against Mocality? And how are they simultaneously able to acknowledge that what was reported was accurate but that the behavior was “not authorized”? Either the report was accurate, or Google doesn’t know what’s going on, but both can’t be true at the same time. Either someone is lying, or is confused.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:13 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Google is saying that the basic accusation is true, not necessarily that every detail is correct. This is an upstanding move from a company trying to right this wrong as early as possible, but also acknowledging that it doesn’t yet have sufficient additional information to share as of yet. Any other company would have waited to acknowledge any credibility of such accusations, but Google is trying to maintain its good reputation by standing by its standards of conduct even in the face of violations of those exact standards by others within or directly beside their organization.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:17 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I think you are giving them a little too much credit here. They are in the middle of an in-depth investigation, people are very pissed off with G+ in google search, they are trying to buy moto with as little fuss as possible and they still have all the android legal wars to try and manage.
I think google is getting a lot of bad press and if they didn’t issue a statement the press would have run riot with this.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 6:55 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Not just bad press. Their latest g+ move is now part of an anti-trust investigation. Something is gonna happen to them, at this point too much has happened and is happening for them to be ignored. They are in a unique position regarding the internet, search is almost like a utility in some ways.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 9:59 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Except that with utilities you don’t have a choice. You can choose one of literally hundreds of different searche indexes to use on the internet. You aren’t forced to use google.. You can’t choose to use a different power or gas company.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Read the full story here – http://blog.mocality.co.ke/2012/01/13/google-what-were-you-thinking/
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:01 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Or the TL:DR here – http://boingboing.net/2012/01/13/google-fraudulently-solicits-f.html
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They only found out today, and I find that incredibly fast to react to and investigate something (the already know that it did indeed happen and is not just an allegation) that happened in some local office in a tiny market (no offense to Kenyan readers).
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
they found out today, amazingly right after it was reported by thousands of blogs. amazing how things work right? some local office in a tiny market… right….
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:59 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The blogs were all reporting from one source, who stands a lot to gain by damaging google. He is saying they needed to verify it was true. And in fairness they did do that quickly.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 6:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well kudos to Google for taking such quick responsibility for it and promising to investigate and resolve the issue ASAP. It’s understandable that at its size, management could be unaware of everything that its employees, vendors and partners are doing.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
kudos for feeling bad about something without concrete actions to “make it right” ?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:50 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
News about it just came out today. Jeez, give them some time to investigate properly before they announce what they’re going to do to “make it right.” Many companies wouldn’t acknowledge their wrongdoing so quickly, if at all, and some would even deny/cover it up. You want a full resolution in less than 24 hours?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Right, they did not immediately take action and tell people they are holding it wrong for weeks,
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ahh yes because a remark regarding a phone antenna, which was a tempest in a teapot is just like criminal behavior by a multi-national corporation against a company in a third world country from two continents is exactly the same.
Might want to take your blinders off there.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:00 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
— " It’s understandable that at its size, management could be unaware of everything that its employees, vendors and partners are doing."
I always assumed it was managements job to have an overview of what was happening at levels below them in the business. That’s bad management if they’re unaware of what’s going on and no excuse.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 8:40 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Exactly my point in my post above. The statement that “Google only found out today” is very misleading because it assumes “Google” means “the top execs”. Google has known about this for months and months. Clearly what they did was planned, it required a strategy, hiring, an office, a second office, and eventually a move of operations to India. This is not the kind of thing that just happens. Big corporations have accountants who want to know how and why money is being spent. You have to justify the hiring of hundreds of human Internet spiders and get it approved by HR.
The true statement is that “Google knew” but they just were not managing things well enough to have the level of transparency to stop it. In some cases such obscurity can be used to create plausible deniability.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:59 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Regardless of this, people will continue to trust Google with loads of their private information.
These guys are not to be trusted.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:35 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Good luck trusting your data to Facebook, Microsoft, the magnetic platters on your personal computer or your flashdrive.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well, with MS or Apple, their main goal is to get you to buy return products, because of where they make their money.
Google and Facebook make their money on advertising. Different end goals.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:11 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
In case you didn’t know it, but Microsoft runs this little search engine called Bing? Not that they make any money on it, though, but don’t try to separate Microsoft by ignoring their advertising arm Bing.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
your right, but as you’ve said, it’s not a drop in the water to them. That’s not their bread and butter.
Having different end goals dramatically changes operating procedure. Google’s attention is split between the people they have to satisfy to make money, their shareholders, and their users.
MS / Apple are split one less way. Which, imo is better for the users.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:29 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
In the big picture, I agree.
MS and Apple make their money by selling products to individuals and companies.
Google and Facebook make their money by selling our eyeballs to advertisers.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Better than trusting Bing.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Same shit, to be honest.
But Google has way more information on you than Microsoft ever will.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 5:01 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I doubt the sincerity of a Google spokeperson that can’t even use the words “Google employees” and has to go for “a team of people working on a Google project”.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:40 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
pff, because there are contractors working for Google? Beside the investigation still going on.
“I doubt the sincerity of a Google spokeperson” …yea right
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It doesn’t matter if they were contractors, they were Google employees.
Also if you’d bothered to read the Mocality blog post, you would know that in addition to the 33,261 scrapes made to Business Profile pages via a Kenyan WiMax hotspot, an additional 15,554 scrapes were made from an Google Inc. IP address in Mountain View, California. Now how do you suppose that happened?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:02 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
you know anything about proxying?
from mocality comment page:
…From a cursory analysis, I would say that someone in India is proxying through hxxp://www.google.com/adpreview I think the source IPs for this service are all on 74.125.63.0/24 but I’d have to setup an account with Google to check.
There are several tricks for proxying through Google. For example:
hxxp://translate.google.com/translate?tl=sw&js=n&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatismyip.com%2F&act=url
… will tell you that you’re connecting from 74.125.26.81 (or similar) So anyone who does a whois on this IP which appears in their web logs will see:
NetRange: 74.125.0.0 – 74.125.255.255
CIDR: 74.125.0.0/16
OriginAS:
NetName: GOOGLE
NetHandle: NET-74-125-0-0-1
Parent: NET-74-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2007-03-13
…
There a number of scams originating from India, where someone cold-calls and claims to be from Microsoft, and is selling questionable PC maintenance services.
By stating repeatedly that they represent "Microsoft" or "Google" in this case, it gives an impression of legitimacy. This is an old old old confidence trick.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Clearly you missed the text “Possible Proxy Detected: 1.0 translate.google.com TWSFE/0.9” as well as the fact that “(via translate.google.com)” is appended to the User Agent when you use the service. The hits all had a standard Chrome Linux user agent.
Google would have to be running a transparency proxy that didn’t append any extra info, and last time I checked, no, they don’t.
You seem very, very keen to blindly defend Google?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:11 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
…and here’s a post showing that the Google-owned 74.125.63.33 originates from India and is linked to by a corp.google.com address.
So yes, I’m sure that “a small team of employees working for Google” just happened to be in a Google India call centre and a local Kenyan offce simultaneously.
This stinks.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:15 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Well Microsoft is way worst than Google. Investigation is not over yet so it’s pretty early to judge if the bosses from Mountain View really knew about this.
And about that proxying here’s comment from G+:
I did some analysis and it pretty easy to perform an HTTP request with a google IP address by sending your request via Google Cache.
I read the forensic analysis with some interest, but to be honest it was not convincing to me. I thought: "is there a way I can scrape pages" and "make sure the IP addresses come from a google ip".
And it turns out there is, at least from my browser.
I proxied my queries via google cache – which you can do by using the query string cache:.
In my test I used cache:whatismyip.com
Which resulted in the following URL for me:
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
I then noted the requesting IP and did a lookup on it, and this was my result:
Additional whois information for 66.249.71.37:
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
#
#
#
#
#
NetRange: 66.249.64.0 – 66.249.95.255
CIDR: 66.249.64.0/19
OriginAS:
NetName: GOOGLE
NetHandle: NET-66-249-64-0-1
Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2004-03-05
Updated: 2007-04-10
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-66-249-64-0-1
OrgName: Google Inc.
OrgId: GOGL
Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
City: Mountain View
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94043
Country: US
RegDate: 2000-03-30
Updated: 2011-09-24
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/GOGL
OrgTechHandle: ZG39-ARIN
OrgTechName: Google Inc
OrgTechPhone: +1-650-253-0000
OrgTechEmail: arin-contact@google.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ZG39-ARIN
OrgAbuseHandle: ZG39-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Google Inc
OrgAbusePhone: +1-650-253-0000
OrgAbuseEmail: arin-contact@google.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ZG39-ARIN
#
#
So if I can do it, what stops any random group from doing it?
I am not convinced by the forensic data.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Awesome.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“well micosoft is way worst than google” that sounded emotion driven not data diven. google has already had alot of problems this beginning of the year alone.
01 Jan: Manipulating +1 Upvotes
02 Jan: Chrome Link Buying
10 Jan: Selling Illegal Ads
10 Jan: Search Plus Your World
13 Jan: Google Kenya caught in SME scam
http://www.barryadams.co.uk/2012/01/the-2012-google-clusterfuck-countdown/
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s a LOT of pointless work to defend Google…
The official statement…
This clearly states that it was indeed a team of people working on Google’s behalf, not just ‘any random group’.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
…and calls were being made from a Google call center in India. It certainly doesn’t sound like a local Kenyan company contracting.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
doesn’t mean Google from Mountain View mandated this.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Irrelevant. People either working at or for Google on two different continents, at least one group of which had a Google Inc IP address, were working together.
That takes co-ordination, and it’s certainly more than “a team of people working for Google”.
At the very least, that’s “two teams of people, one working for, one working AT, Google.”.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:33 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
So you think Larry Page ordered this?
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now you’re being facetious. I said it was irrelevant.
Did Nelson Mattos know about it? Probably not. Did anyone US staffers know about it? Impossible to say, and it doesn’t matter.
Is the term “a team of people working on a Google project” a questionable use of PR spin in an attempt to shift the blame away from Google, Inc.’s employees to an unnamed third party? Absolutely.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:41 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
I think its very relevant if execs knew about it or not…
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
in that case no business has ever done anything wrong, ever.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. Now we can move on.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:13 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
The buck stops where?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:13 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
i think its very relevant if you stop posting comments.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Same with the WIFI snooping or the employees spying gmail accounts. All Google.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:16 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You’re not an employee of a company if you’re a contractor. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:23 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, a lot of the comments are missing this point entirely because they are so eager to proclaim Google guilty without all the facts of the matter. i’m not defending Google because I don’t know if they’re innocent either, but you can definitely find out the biases of individual commenters when you read a story like this one.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:41 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
the bias is the google defenders who continue to make excuses. One goog defender said that larry page didnt know about it, so that makes it ok. amazing.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Strawman
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:22 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, they’re biased, too, but I didn’t make that claim either.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 8:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Typical Microsoft!!!! They are irrelevant as much as Windows Phone is, like my toaster!!
I am NOT surprise they resort to stealing other people’s work!!!
OH!! Wait—- It’s Google you say??.. Nothing to see here y’all, move along people/S
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:44 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
am not sure i understand are you saying this is the norm for google thats why we should just move on?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The “/S” is hard to spot at the end!
I actually meant to show the disparity in the comments section between different companies, such as Google and Microsoft.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
…..andddd then someone got 10 million dollars.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Cause we have some sort amnesia to their track record of doing these sort of shady things. Standard practice at Google. Must be the employees 20% time, heh.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 9:52 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I like google and all…but as the information stands, it’s hard to defend their actions here against Mocality.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:23 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
>Google is in close talks with Mocality over what happened, and that it will do “whatever needs to be done to make it right.”
You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I guess the optimistic thing is Google did not deny it and are planning to do the right thing. Other companies, when caught in a PR mess, pussyfoot, drag, or even outright go into denial.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 10:42 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I am pretty sure in this case, they can definitely make it up to Mocality… making it up to the Google customer’s/consumer’s mindshare is the hard part.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s a mess for sure. If they are up-selling them website and domain services, where is the money going? Who is profiting here, would be a good place to start.
Posted on Jan 13, 2012 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://blog.mocality.co.ke/2012/01/13/google-what-were-you-thinking/
The take from modality
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder what other companies had their content illegally sucked by Google in the past. This really sucks.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah you can go ahead and put this in the Timeline (Storystream) of douchebag Mattias stories. Thanks Josh.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 12:58 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hi T.C.Sottek. Would you be updating the post meta, i.e. the source to the actual source – Mocality’s Blog Post – Google, what were you thinking?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 1:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
We originally reported on the Mocality post on Friday morning — we linked to it in this story.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 5:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Okay, so I read Mocality’s blog post about this as well as a transcript of the entire phone call and also the terms and conditions they are said to have broken. Do I get this right? Google employees used a business directory to look up businesses manually to contact them about building a website. They acknowledged that they used Mocality, and they said that they are allowed to look up businesses in a business directory, and that Mocality knows people can look up businesses on their business directory.
Mocality says google is not allowed to do this, because it breaks two parts of their terms and conditions:
9.12. modify, adapt, appropriate, reproduce, distribute, translate, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display, sell, trade, or in any way exploit the Site or Site Content (other than Your Content), except as expressly authorised by Mocality in these Terms of Service;
9.17. access, retrieve or index the Site to construct or populate a searchable database of business listings or reviews;
The first one relates to automated scraping. I understand that all lookups where made manually by call center agents, so I do not see how this was broken. They made lookups?
The second one I also do not understand: Google builds websites for businesses, they are not building a business directory at all. Why are they breaking the terms here?
About the thing with the paying for Mocality: The guy says he does not have proof and it is hearsay. That still does not make it okay, but they did not state that yes and definitely, they said they heard it from some and cannot say it is true. It would be interesting to see if everyone who calls from google (does google even operate its own call centers?!?!? Never heard of it) says that or if it is just one guy trying to fool people.
I do see that something went wrong, but it does look like the company operating the call centers or some local office went a little wild there. At the same time, it does not look like anything illegal happened, or am I wrong? Looking up businesses in a business directory should be legal, or not? And no one knows what they heard from others? Maybe someone took the advertising package on Mocality and did not know he would be charged? Maybe the caller made it up? How to know?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Mocality has as far as I have read, the most accurate database of businesses listings in Kenya.
The fact is that, even if Google didn’t do the scraping of that information but did it manually (Assuming that was not restricted) as evidence points out, they are using Mocality’s database to contact these people, lying about Mocality and misrepresenting themselves as a partnership between both of them.
Still following along? That sounds like a stab in the back to me;
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:27 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Mocality obtained their records by paying users for every validated submission.
In my personal opinion, Mocality doesn’t seem to be doing it for the hits. I think their reputation is on the line; If the possibility that someone at Google managed to call 30% of Mocality’s database and give a bad rep about Mocality, I’d be pissed too.
So I think the use of information is NOT such a high deal breaker as in lying about someone else’s businesses practices, in this Mocality.
This is one of those situations where it sounds so surreal that it’s hard to believe that something like this has happened to begin with. There’s alot to lose for both companies, and I hope a solution to this is found quickly.
The more articles like these ones spread, the less chances of saving face a company has. Sometimes, even a retraction is not enough, because the damage has already been done.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are wrong. They were using the directory, actually they were basically going entry by entry and cold calling businesses. They were soliciting business on these calls by saying they were partners of Mocality when they had nothing to do with them. They also in some cases would make false claims about Mocality to get a sale.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 2:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are wrong. They were using the directory, actually they were basically going entry by entry and cold calling businesses. They were soliciting business on these calls by saying they were partners of Mocality when they had nothing to do with them. They also in some cases would make false claims about Mocality to get a sale.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:03 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You missed the part where the Google reps tell these businesses that they were in partnership with Mocality, when they weren’t.
That’s actually illegal in most countries, let alone unethical.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I love how if this was MS, Apple or Facebook, the Google zealots would be all over this how the offending corporate HQ’s “obviously knew”, etc. Pathetic Google defenders.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:39 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Dealing with hypotheticals to make yourself feel better?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:04 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
“Don’t Be Evil!”
yeah right…
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 5:51 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Google lives and breathes by using others info. That is not wrong. But, the q’n is how do they get that info – legitimately or illegally? Wonder if Google is now crawling my PC for any info :(
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 11:07 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Whoever says that Contractors are not Google’s responsibility as they are not their employees – What if the same contractor did some really good thing to be proud of – will Google say openly that it was the contractor who did the good job and not us? I doubt they will. Google will just boast itself of doing the good thing.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 11:10 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
that was never said…what was said is that the are not Google’s employees…
that’s it…no one said it excuses them but such a distinction is necessary. If a contractor in Iraq goes and rapes a village would you want the news to read “US SOLDIERS RAPE IRAQI VILLAGE?”
No…you wouldn’t.
Yes the USA is responsible, but the type of responsibility is different.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Things like this make me wonder what else the Goog is up to that goes unreported.
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 4:36 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Ho many times does Google have to “accidentally” collect other’s information before people start realizing that Google collects first, asks permission after someone complains?
Google is the world’s largest advertising agency. “Don’t be evil.” is nothing more than an advertising slogan. At what point is the world’s largest advertising agency anything but the world’s largest collection of slimy advertising salesmen?
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 9:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ah, look at all the Google apologists in here, it’s funny;
Posted on Jan 14, 2012 | 10:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Of course it wasn’t condoned. Regardless of managerial involvement, why would Google ever come out and say “yeah, we totally did that”.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 12:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The blog on mocality’s site suggests that it was a person looking at each and every single page, with an average of an minute on each page. I’m surprised that no one is asking “why?” Google could have easily pointed their crawler at the site and dug up all the info in a matter of seconds, why go through the trouble and do it manually?
I don’t want to be the one defending Google here, but seriously why wouldn’t they automate the process?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 2:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And my god, if they knew that they were doing something bad, why weren’t they masking their ip address?
It just sounds like a retard with no technical experience said “oh hey guys i can make money by calling all of mocality’s customers one-by-one.”
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 2:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.