I’m pushing for more transparency, here’s why

I appreciate the post.

Russel Beatie had a similar but very different post.
He congratulated Google for not giving in, but did not mention yahoo's capitulation and also closed comments for that one post.

i'd definitely involve my customers from the start...the major beef many ppl have with the announcement is that this happened last summer and we found out about it only now...

anyway, i don't see why such data cannot be shared...as long as it's within reason...

btw Scoble...we need some really crazy blogging of that MSN Search event...really need to know what's going on with MSN Search...

from an article at marketwatch.com

"Google search rivals Yahoo Inc and Time Warner Inc's AOL unit said that they complied with their Justice Department subpoenas in a limited way, while Microsoft Inc declined to comment on whether its MSN unit did so."

I remembered this line I read 3 days ago. Hardly transparent :)
MS still hasn't found "trust".
I'll report back when I see the first hint of that.

met: if you're gonna quote that, you should also read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/archive/2006/01...

When a PR guy gets called by a reporter and doesn't know the answers he gives an answer that's like what Marketwatch gets. That's unfortunate, but whenever you see a line like that that's how you should read it.

MSN got that post out within a couple of days which is still pretty quick turnaround for a big company.

oops..
over there I was referring to trust among the masses and reporters.

People read MS restricted mp3s on Verizon phone - think its the truth.
People read Macintels are not doubly fast - think the processors are fast, no one said computers are fast.
People read Google's keynote was boring - think they have stuff up their sleeve (or maybe not :) which is why this is such a good publicity for them)

Robert,

I'm sitting on a job offer from Microsoft, and it's just these sort of issues (not only a lack of transparency, but a lack of, well, civic cajones) that give me pause. Even on a shallow note, I don't feel like having to defend my employer to fellow geek friends; it's fine to joke about MS as "Evil" but I don't think the company's critics really need new fodder at this point :D

On the other hand, I do greatly admire the corporate openness which encourages blogs like yours and others at Channel9 and so on. It's a bit of an ironic juxtaposition!

Some guy: if you think Microsoft is a rough place to work, I guarantee you that working at companies that don't allow employees to blog openly is far worse.

Robert, would we have heard anything about this if Google had handed over their data just like everyone else?

Is this not the DoJ simply setting a precedent for asking for far more specific data in the future? And as such shouldn't MSN have resisted the demands?

I'm a bit dissapointed. MSN search is part of Microsoft, yet we are all acting like this is just an MSN search issue. It's more to do with the whole firm. We're entering an era where data is going to be very important and the lines on privacy would be blured. Transparency is what we need. Big time.

I find it interesting that google will bend over when the CHINESE government makes ridiculous requests (i.e. "ban search words that we dont like"), but they wont bend over when the AMERICAN government makes ridiculous requests.

I mean, its good that Google didnt give up the goods -- I wish MSN hadnt either, but how do you decide which set of stupid rules to follow?

Good point about the China issue Bill. Recent actions by several major tech companies there have been at serious odds with both the spirit and the letter of Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which makes discussion of a particular company's restriction on employee blogging, for example, look like a pretty trivial matter in comparison)

Although the actions I'm referring to didn't exactly go unnoticed by either the blogging community or the general media, nevertheless the resulting fallout has been relatively low key - particularly outside of the technology community.

I guess it's a lesson teaching us that the power of economic expedience should never be underestimated, and can dissolve all and any inconvenient ethical obstacles that may threaten to restrict trade or investment -- even those enshrined in UN covenants.

The hypocritical nature of the matter seems further highlighted when one considers that some countries experience military intervention as a result of their failure to abide by UN conventions.

When I use a search site, I have certain expectations. In some ways they are similar to the expectations I have when I install a piece of software, be it beta or not.

In the latter I expect that no third party software will be put on my computer without my explicit consent. In the former, I expect respect for my right of privacy also.

You know what? MS did exactly what I expected of them. (I mean this in a good way.) After resisting the request from the governnment, they worked with them... finally giving them info that kept my right to privacy intact.

Google OTOH is starting to come off heavy-handed. First was China. Then came the opt-out of scanning books. Now this. All told, Google - by NOT being transparent - is telling everyone that it is THEY who knows what is best for everyone.

Now, if anyone knows of my comments here in the past - I've left MS for Apple, absolutely hate MSN, and still use Google for my web searching at work. But in this case I appreciate how MS has acted better than Google.

The Evil Empire has all the transparency it needs. What's lacking is performance, skill, quality, ethics, and vision.

You say, "One area that isn’t possible is when there are crimes involved," as if this creates a "different" situation that must be treated differently by companies such as Microsoft. However, in every case that I'm aware of, whether in the US or China, it's precisely "when there are crimes involved" that government has demanded something (censoring a blog, information on searches, etc.) and Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google have reacted as they have to those government demands.

As I understand, the Justice Department demanded the search information to identify potential _crimes_ involving illegal pornography. In China, the government demanded that certain blogs be shut down due to their representing illegal speech. In both cases, the companies involved responded as companies must: what other choice does a company have when a gun is being pointed at its head? Whether or not one has a fundamental disagreement with the government involved, the company is merely doing what it must, or face going out of business when all such cases are taken together.

All of this is interestig to me for a few reasons.

First, so many in the IT industry have supported government's actions against Microsoft in the realm of antitrust law, an area just as immoral as China's repressive laws regarding free speech (the antitrust laws are arbitrary, undefined, and retroactive, and attack companies not for otherwise illegal acts but rather merely for being too successful). So, when Microsoft fought against those laws and refused to abide by the terms of various "agreements" (signed only because there was a gun involved), why did so many in our industry decrie Microsoft's lack of cooperation? The company was, after all, just fighting against a set of laws and regulations that it considered unjust...

Second, again, what is any company to do when a government makes such demands? The government is that entity that holds a legal monopoly on the use of force within a geographic region. A private company only has one choice: either do business within a geographic region or economic market (e.g., China or Internet search) that might at any time be subject to distasteful laws and regulations, and abide by those laws and regulations, or not. Otherwise, the company merely faces being _forced_ out of business at the point of a gun.

More emphasis should be placed on fighting the laws and regulations, rather than on blaming the companies involved for doing what they must, indeed what we demand them to do. How many of us would really expect Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google to stop doing business in China, particularly when their presence there generally contributes to the long-term detriment of the totalitarian regime? And, how many expect any company to abandon the Internet search space because the US government might desire to use it for nefarious purposes? Yet, that's any company's only choice, short of arming itself against the government's use of force.

Finally, I do find it fascinating how so many people seem to be chomping at the bit to blame Microsoft for the whole thing, as an example of Microsoft's general evil nature. The fact that Yahoo! and Google are engaging in precisely the same activities is only slowly bringing them to the same state of scorn, and very little effort seems to be made to argue against the generally immoral nature of the government actions themselves.

Ahhh, it's all par for course, when you are a Cynthia Shapiro-like cynic like me, as of course privacy means nothing, when push comes to shove. Not that anyone is really using MSN anyways. Google is all noised and gunked up, horrible, too much advertising tie-ins. MSN is only pretending to be a search engine. Yahoo is best, but it's graphical ads overdose (esp. their new mail client). AOL has been a lost cause for a decade.

The thing to do, is just Tor and Proxify via Firefox for or Proxy for privacy. Child porn is an easy one, no one can be for that, but when they change the game, to say something more political or revenge mode, or corporate spying, well, then everyone would be up in arms. But it's the same principle, 4th Admendment and all.

You can't have it both ways. You state that Microsoft should be more transparent when it gets government orders/requests, but that criminal cases are somehow a different beast. I beg to differ.

I would like to see every order/request made public. I think we would all be shocked at the number, especially Google. Since they are the biggest fish they no doubt have the most requests.

Transparency is transparency. Let it be so in all situations, not just the one that fits the blogger's bias du jour.

rg: I was specifically thinking about when criminal cases involve a specific person. There are issues like libel and slander involved there. But, I agree that even in those cases the fact that something was handed over should be disclosed.

If I worked at Microsoft I'd get tired of having to defend my company's actions or take it to task because they made another bone-head decision. The more time Scoble spends doing either is less time he has to talk about why someone should use MS products. That's got to be a frustrating position to be in although maybe that comes with the job of a blogger 'evangelist'.

It's just one big distraction after another at Microsoft, while Apple is loving life as so many people talk about their products.

Transparency: Social Web Product Management 1.01

MS used to present itself ‘behind castle walls’, then announce a new product. This no longer works. To develop any market for new products and develop return on investment, companies must be seen as open and accessible, allowing their user base, to participate in their, knowledge base. Conventional and video, web logs help. They are an interesting marketing lesson in openness, transparency and the promotion of value a company has to offer. Obviously there are limits to openness; exposing intellectual property too soon would be foolish.

These new methods allow viral product knowledge market growth. Market development grows via a community of interested observers. This blog is an excellent example of the social aspects of communication the web provides. Users are free to comment and respond publicly on web log pages. This feed back is essential to fine tune product development before release. Microsoft has many beta software elements available for interested users to test. This also plays an important part. No longer is it necessary to wait for key note addresses, or the excellent and professionally well stage managed shows of Steve Jobs, their days are over.

To keep up with events/developments at Microsoft, I also like to watch 'Channel 9', a video blog. I am sure there are others; perhaps you may list them. Consider: video blog http://channel9.msdn.com/

More transparency you say? Ok, let's get real then, post your team-comparison salaries, review scores and the benefit-scale plans, and about those NDAs and competitive advantage release dates? Forget them, be more transparent. Talk about lawsuits in progress, hey transparency, you say. Still more transparency? Ok, full open-source code with no legal clauses. Tell me all about your M&A plans and your partnerships. Invite competitors and governments in for strategic meetings and leak everything and anything to the press. Handle personal issues under public glare, trial by blog, not just "he/she left to spend more time with family". Share developers concerns, in progress, per redoing the stolen code. Share the contents of all those missing Burst emails, share how you managed to sign a double-bill contract under the guise of a subscriptional plan, share how little your CFO is doing to deal with shareholders. Show me all your HR policies, and your policy handbook. And all that stuff marked and emailed CONFIDENTIAL, why that's not being very openly transparent, let the public know. Information wants to be free you know.

Come on, if you were, truly seriously, transparent, you'd be fired in a few micromilliseconds.

The deed is done, sometimes better to admit (hopefully learn from, ie Gator purchase plans) and move on than to wallow in self-introspection totally. Besides, it's all make-believe fluff, as until it impacts the bottom line it matters not a single iota, and you are just a marketing court jester, entertaining everyone and fooling lots, but changing nothing.

Look, with all due respect to Mr. Scoble, who I am sure is a perfectly nice guy, the bottom line is he's a marketing hack who works for a giant monopoly that does not, and never will, give two shits about the consumer. He's going to throw out buzzspeak like "transparency" (along with "compelling content", "added value", and the Gatesian "super"-anything) whenever MS needs some spin control, such as in this case. Scoble's corporate "blog" is about PR and helping to rid the company of the "Evil Empire" image than it is about actually attempting to make any changes or to open up a frank and honest discussion with potential customers. Scoble can say that he is going to "push for transparency" all he wants, but the truth of the matter is, he is saying this for public effect only in an attempt to head off any potential bad PR. If this story had not turned out to be headline material, he never would have mentioned it. Scoble, much like the rest of his company, never acts, he just reacts (always imitating, never innovating). He knows nothing will change at his company - MS will roll over like a ten dollar whore whenever ANY (US, Chinese, whatever, it's irrelevant) government asks them to, all in the name of the almighty dollar and preserving their monopoly. And yes, it goes without saying that Yahoo and AOL's actions were just as shameful and reprehensible as MSs, so I am not giving them (or Google, for that matter wrt to the Chinese)a free pass - the only difference is that those companies don't have a "technology evangelist" out front to try take the heat for there PR f*ck-ups.

Google's almost certainly going to have to give up the search data. They're just objecting to get good publicity. (Pretty smart in the short term, but dangerous in the long term. Once you thumb your nose at the government often enough, they come back and regulate you -- just ask Microsoft.)

FuzzyBlog: and Google has gained most of that back.

Oh, and the reason it went down? Cause Yahoo showed bad advertising numbers.

" If it were up to me I’d blog whenever governmental requests come in. "

NOTHING much is up to you, Scoble. That's the problem. You are a figure piece. Nothing much else.