Step 1:

http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people

Why bother waiting around for American Big Brother to get its act together? We're already subsidizing every large company; might as well just let them take the reins.

The generous explanation for Schmidt's statement is that he's revolutionized his thinking since 2005, when he blacklisted CNET for publishing info about him gleaned from Google searches, including salary, neighborhood, hobbies and political donations. In that case, the married CEO must not mind all the coverage of his various reputed girlfriends; it's odd he doesn't clarify what's going on with the widely-rumored extramarital dalliances, though.

Schmidt's philosophy is clear with Bartiromo in the clip below: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." The philosophy that secrets are useful mainly to indecent people is awfully convenient for Schmidt as the CEO of a company whose value proposition revolves around info-hoarding. Convenient, that is, as long as people are smart enough not to apply the "secrets suck" philosophy to their Google passwords , credit card numbers and various other secrets they need to put money in Google's pockets.

Big surprise there.

Google now tracking logged out visitors.

The company explained: "What we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. This addition enables us to customise search results for you based upon 180 days of search activity linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser."

I don't think anyone seriously believed they haven't done this before. Perhaps I should change the headline to reflect the fact that this probably makes them LESS evil.

Bloggers must now disclose when they receive freebies in exchange for blogging

Dallas Observer Unveils Hot New Management Plan: Reporters to Report Directly to Sales Managers

Labels: capitalism, horror show, human rights

In the wake of the Great Recession, how are employers keeping employees on their guard so as to maximize the lack of raises, cutting of hours, and extreme demoralization?

According to employees, threats are on the rise:

Employees repeatedly described threatening communication: “Be thankful you have a job,” “You can be replaced,” “There are lots of qualified people on the street who would love your job.” Such statements remind workers their jobs are on the “chopping block.” According to Rouse, some supervisors seem to purposefully foster a “culture of fear” to maintain control during the financial crisis. “Several people believe employers are using the crisis as an excuse to ‘throw people under the bus,’” she said.

According to employers, however, the story is different:

Despite significant economic changes, leaders reportedly have not changed the way they communicate with employees. Approximately 64% of working adults in the study reported supervisors use a ‘business as usual’ mentality during the crisis; 82% of working adults expressed frustration with supervisors’ lack of adaptation during the crisis. Senior leaders expressed significantly less concern about employee issues, such as layoffs and downsizing, than front line workers. Instead, senior management focused on market-related issues, such as declining sales.

Could both be true? Could threats, looming layoffs, under-busing (© googletrickedme 2009), and intimidation be business as usual? Apparently everyone surveyed thought so; while still clinging to the hope that when this whole recession thing clears up, their bosses will turn into respectful, humane leaders:

Working adults expressed a strong preference for leaders who are transparent, honest, and visible. The majority (55%) of participants who shared open-ended comments recommended increased supervisor openness; 33% wanted more honesty.

You can find the full results in pdf form, courtesy University of Phoenix Online.

Labels: corporate bullshit, employer bullshit, lies, study, usa

Why don't we just apply HIPPA to individual plans?

Wouldn't this fix approximately 80% of the problem with existing health insurance in the US without adding trillions in cost? Why shouldn't health insurance coverage be portable to individual plans? There is no legitimate reason to protect those taking advantage of employer's plans to be saddled to a job just to get health care.

Labels: health care reform, hippa, you idiots