Without knowing who he was, I remember going to namebase.org quite a few times. I checked out his name via Google (is that irony?) and here were some of the interesting links.
http://www.namebase.org/
http://www.aaronwall.com/archives/000365.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/hand01032003.html
http://www.google-watch-watch.org/
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03965.html
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9610a/crackcommentary.html
In my opinion, the guy has some insightful opinions about the imperfect state of search engine rules and optimizations, but in general I think he is a crackpot. He definently doesn't have any bullshit filter on unless it is coming from "the man." An example is the Microsoft article on namebase.org. Microsoft definently had cut their teeth sharp in dominating the PC/OS market but he unfairly/biasedly presents the information with the worst possible slant. Same goes for the other articles he writes; in general there doesn't seem to be any balance to his arguments. All of this unfortunately doesn't give much weight to the information he is presenting as fact. I would take this site with a grain of salt as well as the person.
Let's break down the whole argument against google.
http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html
1) Google's immortal cookie:
Google is a company that deals in information. Of course they want to get as much information as possible concerning search inquiries, so why wouldn't they want a cookie that has a long lifespan?
2) Google records everything they can:
They get the IP, date and time!? Gee, how nefarious that they would want geographic information about the people accessing their information. In truth, most data collection companies implement this practice to get a better understanding of their audience.
3) Google retains all data indefinitely:
Once again, just like the cookie argument. Should Google be expected to dump the data at a certain point? I don't see the benefit in doing this.
4) Google won't say why they need this data:
Across the board. If you ask any company about pending litigation, they will undoubtly offer a "no comment" especially if it is not the company legal counsel you are speaking with. This does not imply that Google will not say if they are asked the right questions. I see the link to this argument heavily flawed.
5) Google hires spooks:
Gee, lets see here. Google is a company whose core employee base will be mathmatical genius's and wow the NSA likes to hire those same people. Give me a break. There are many, many people in the computer security and math/information fields that have some sort of security clearance and have been approached by the NSA before. For christ's sake, I know people who have been asked for an interview by the NSA and I would not think them evil just because they worked for them.
6) Google's toolbar is spyware:
He makes the conclusion that just because they quietly upgrade the toolbar in the background and collect your search information, that now Google has "entire access to your disk drive?!" Where is the proof? Has he reverse engineered the program and saw that the software is accessing data on the drive other than search data? I am sure if this were the case, it would have already been exposed by now like it has many times in the past with software.
7) Google's cache copy is illegal:
He is basing this on the precendence of the Ninth Circuit. The same Ninth Circuit that is filled with judicial activism and is constantly overturned by the higher courts? He could write another essay that tore as much ass out of the courts understanding of copyright as he has on Google. Let's not pick and choose here. I agree there are issues with the cache and how it can reveal security flaws, but cache'ng is nothing new (even before Google) and warns us why we as webmasters should be careful when designing a site that is publicly accessible.
8) Google is not your friend:
The algorithms are not that secret as he makes it out to be and the truth is if you are trying to cheat the system then you deserve to be black balled. There is way to much crap out on the web that is there for just money and not original content.
9) Google is a privacy time bomb:
I wish he would elucidate how the pooling of this information could be damning and what would cause this to "bomb" unto the world. What facts can he hold up against Google that actually stand scrutiny.
In general, he is just trying to create more FUD and doesn't really back up what he has to say. It all ends up just being conspiracy.
