This is an important point. I am reading a lot of defence on here for google and there is little to back it up. This isn't a minor oversight executed by a small team, rather the precise opposite.

I would say Google's reply has been a lie(dare I say "utter bullshit") - an idea like this doesn't accidentally become implemented. It wasn't even implemented in a small way, both being executed from inside google and google finding it worthwhile to pay a separate company to expand the program for them. (A company doing exactly what google has asked of them, to the point of google having to approve the scripts used by callers.)

This is incredibly bad of them, and while "HQ" might not have fully understood the methods being used they wouldn't have not known nothing about it. It's about on par with News Corp executives pretending they didn't know about voicemail-hacking.

Taking responsibility for something stupid your employees do, sure. Equating that stupid thing with a sanctioned corporate action is ridiculous.

Following the same reasoning we shouldn't laud Google for all the great stuff they did either, like GMail, Search, etc.

Sorry it's one or the other.

I know I like to say, we're IT and if anything goes wrong it's not our fault, but if anything goes extremely well, we'll take the credit--but then I know I'm being facetious :)

> Following the same reasoning we shouldn't laud Google for all the great stuff they did either, like GMail, Search, etc.

You know, why not think of Google (or Microsoft, or any other Zaibatsu-pretending-to-be-one-brand) as companies resident within a start-up incubator? Treating Google's Adsense team as the same "culture" as Google's Search team makes about as much sense as treating Sony Pictures as being the same company as Sony Computer Entertainment, or Virgin Airlines as being the same company as Virgin Mobile.

So, don't say "Google did this to GMail today" or "Google's search is amazing" or "Google merged their Page Creator into Google Sites"; instead, say "The GMail team launched this today" or "I love the Google Search folks" or "Google Page Creator got bought out by Google Sites."

If YCombinator funded/supported say a company that allowed your house to get trashed with no reparations or attempt to make good, then yes I'd hold that against YCombinator. Ultimately Google Inc. is where the money funnels to & is ultimately responsible for it's subcultures.

This idea that Google can't be held responsible for bad employee behavior is borderline religious. Praise Google when it does something good, let Google off the hook when it does something bad.

Nonsense. You can't draw an equals sign between two actions just because they sounds similar. One is a completely legal action by an employee in good standing. The other is a crime. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.

Yet they are both done for the profit of the company. What is the difference you see?

Are you sure? Are you sure that people working at Google didn't just do something for their own profit?

The guy talking to businesses wasn't talking on his own behalf. He was representing Google and acting on Google's behalf. It's stupid to suggest that he was doing this for his own profit.

Have you looked at the transcript of his conversation? Would he be using an '@gmail.com' address instead of an '@google.com' address if he was doing it on Google's behalf?

I'm sure his compensation was dependent on his performance.