Google bears brunt of misleading campaign

Originally Published: March 28, 2019 Last Updated: March 28, 2019
Summary:

In May 2011, emails were sent to journalists and bloggers making critical allegations about Google's privacy policies. However, it was later discovered that the anti-Google campaign, conducted by PR giant Burson-Marsteller, was paid for by Facebook in what CNN described as "a new level skullduggery" and which Daily Beast called a "clumsy smear".

Allegations:
  • In early May 2011, Burson-Marsteller began to circulate e-mails alleging that Google is using a little-known Gmail feature called Social Circles "to scrape and mine social sites from around the web ... and share that information" without users' knowledge or consent.
  • The campaign rolled out on May 3, when Burson-Marsteller pitched the idea to influential privacy blogger Christopher Soghoian. In its e-mail to Soghoian, the firm offered to "assist in the drafting" of an op-ed piece and pitch the article to media outlets including the Washington Post, Politico, and the Huffington Post.
  • Three days later, USA Today wrote about Burson's "whisper campaign" for "an unnamed client." It noted that two ex-journalists -- former CNBC tech reporter Jim Goldman and former political columnist John Mercurio -- were leading the campaign.
Defence:
  • A Facebook representative told CNNMoney that "no 'smear' campaign was authorized or intended." It merely "wanted third parties to verify that people did not approve" of Google's using their personal data -- including Facebook data -- in Social Circles, the spokesperson said.
  • Burson-Marsteller took responsibility for the campaign, and said it should not have agreed to keep its client's (Facebook's) identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined," Burson-Marstellersaid in a statement.
  • Burson-Marsteller said it should not have agreed to keep its client's identity a secret. "Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined," a spokesman said.