Analyzing City National Bank Case

Google: Don't Be Evil Unless Case Study In general, the article concentrates on the growth and development of Google right from its original operations within a garage in Silicon Valley in the year 1998 to advancing into one of the most powerful technology-driven corporations in the globe. This particular case study places emphasis on ethical issues that encompass Google. However, whereas this is the basis of the case study, the author does restrict suppositions and offers context that appears to be factual.

The author offers a depiction that displays how the Google organization has influenced technology innovations to attain better access to individual users, which, in several cases are more than eager to trade discretion for suitability and free access to competences. There are a number of elements discussed within the case study, including the privacy of individuals, the legal use of maintaining and preserving information conveyed or communication through Gmail, devoid of the user being protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

There is also the general issue of privacy of Gmail offered by Google (Balnaves et al., 2009). 1. No, Google should not censure searches in China on the basis of its mission to offer every individual in the world free access to all of the information in the globe. However, Google bargained to the pressure of the Chinese government to change internet search results in China.

In particular, Google has altered its search practice and procedure to go along with the stringent censorship and security laws imposed by the Communist Party in China. This action goes against the mission of Google and also infringes on the rights of the Chinese people to access to all of the information (Rosoff, 2011). 2. Google was quite adamant about not wanting to supply information entreated by the government, regarding the Child Online Protection Act.

This is regardless of the fact that this entreaty was to assist the Department of Justice in defending the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, the objective of which was to safeguard minors from being unprotected and open to sexually explicit material that is accessible on the internet and web.

I am in support of this stance made by Google with regard to this issue in the sense that this entreaty would make the implication that Google would be ready to expose information and data pertaining to its users, an aspect that is deplorable. I am also in agreement with Google in that this request is very much ambiguous, oppressive and a kind of aggravation to the consumers of the company (Balnaves et al., 2009). 3.

Google's goal for commencing its Google Books Library Project had been to provide users of Google with accessibility to not only online copies but also duplicates of out-of-print and copyright publications for free, in addition to copyright-protected works; this project could have improved the Mission of Google on making all kinds of information accessible for every individual. However, this project encroaches upon copyright laws and is very damaging to authors and publishers who brought about different lawsuits against this project (Balnaves et al., 2009). 4.

In my perspective, the most disconcerting issue amidst other issues raised against Google is with regard to the role of the click.