Google Telephone Number Results

Possible source of ill will toward G?

[Edouard_H]

I'm not sure how long this feature has been around, but SER for telephone numbers present white page listing information as well as links to Yahoo and MapQuest maps of the subscriber's immediate area.

I've seen a flurry of e mails, mainly from females concerned with personal security, that cast this feature in a very negative light.

[jdMorgan]

Yup, I got a dozen of those breathless e-mails, too.

It seems that the phone number listing isn't as upsetting as the map links - I believe this invokes a fear of stalkers.

Jim

[Edouard_H]

Yes, the maps are the big concern. From what I've seen they also don't like the method for removing one's self from the third party database because it requires their e mail address. Whether or not this presents real dangers for anyone, it seems that it's being perceived that way.

[marcs]

While this is not a measure one should have to take, having an unlisted phone number will do away with this issue.

Unless of course someone has your address, in which case they could still use MapQuest. Then again, a regular paper map will do the same for those who have a map of the area in question. If potential stalkers don't have a map of the local area, any realtor in that area will gladly send them a free one if they pretend to be interested in relocating there.

There's all sorts out there. One of my clients manages a web site for a teen actress. We've switched her guestbook to being moderated (only approved posts make it on the web site) due to the number of very, very sick posts.

[Edouard_H]

The information presented is available elsewhere, but this seems to be one of those things that's being forwarded by e mail on a large scale. I've received several today from contacts who don't know each other and I'm wondering if this will develop into a PR issue.

[jdMorgan]

Yes, the info is available elsewhere. But it is the easy association of the phone number to the name and address that seems to be upsetting them.

Judging from the tone of the e-mails I got, I'd say yes, it may indeed become a public-relations issue.

Folks may not realize just how much info is already available on the 'net, and how easy it can be to associate that information to quickly build up a dossier on most anyone. If this gets into the competing-for-ratings-driven mainstream news, you can bet they will not point out that the info is available elsewhere. They will just point out the "One-click-stalking" aspect of it, as if it is some evil Google-Plot.

Frankly, if I was in the corner office at the Googleplex, I'd take this feature down like yesterday! Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should. I am not moralizing, here, but speaking of the unintended consequences of what may appear to be purely-technical endeavors - In this case, the possibility of some very negative press, just from conveniently packaging two existing features.

Jim