Google doesn't know which of her most-emailed contacts are likely to abuse her. She does. It's her responsibility to set her privacy settings and buzz accordingly. I'd support laws that would prohibit Google intentionally misleading people about what is public and what stays private, but Google buzz is not a good example of that.
Schmidt's address is certainly not a matter of public record. Read the original source [1]. The town and his wife's name were found through a local newspaper, and his home address was found through her political donations, which she unwisely entered as originating from her home address, without realizing that those are a matter of public record and would be published by the FEC. The only role Google played here is indexing the newspaper article and providing an the software The Huffington Post used to visualise FEC data. Google did not "collect" this in any sense appropriate here.
Schmidt's address is certainly not a matter of public record. Read the original source [1]. The town and his wife's name were found through a local newspaper, and his home address was found through her political donations, which she unwisely entered as originating from her home address, without realizing that those are a matter of public record and would be published by the FEC. The only role Google played here is indexing the newspaper article and providing an the software The Huffington Post used to visualise FEC data. Google did not "collect" this in any sense appropriate here.
1. http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-103...