Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Says Privacy Worries Are For Wrongdoers
bonch writes "In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.' This will only fuel concerns about Google's behavior as it becomes an ever more powerful gatekeeper of information; though Google says it is aware of these concerns and has taken steps to be transparent to users about the information that is stored."
With that attitude, I guess Google will have to start worrying about privacy!
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
Well, I think judgment matters.
Then we get a voice over and a cutaway. Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it. That's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place' but what was said before it seems to be edited. If the context is search engines (which I think it is), then what he says is true. As in 'if you're looking for ways to murder your husband, maybe you shouldn't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place.' Here's what follows the inflammatory statement:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time ... um ... and it's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
I don't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private. Your searches leave the premises of your private property. They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion.
I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public. You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Do it in the privacy of your own home. If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities. Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.
I would like to hear his whole unedited statement.
My work here is dung.
Herpes is not a crime, but I bet if you had it you would want to keep that fact private.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.
Privacy isn't about hiding a wrong.
But whatever, by his logic he'd be happy to share his credit card details and the key-code to his security at home?
ilovegeorgebush
I don't want Google "to be transparent to users about the information that is stored" I want them to be more honest . . .
I will work only if LE and any others able to obtain said info are all good all the time.
No wonder he says that, given that Google is very likely almost a branch of the NSA. (I say almost, because they were funded independently but seem to have very close ties to the NSA since the beginning.) Also, privacy prevents Google from selling all your personal information to advertisers.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Or perhaps if I have something that I don't want anyone to know, it's NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS! I'm tired of this presumption of guilt that's become all the rage these days. We really need to get these idiots out of positions of power.
That's an arrogant statement by Schmidt (and yes, I read the whole thing). How often have we heard the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument over the decades? Add Google to that long list - and it's not an honor roll! I guess "Don't be evil" is leaving the building. It was a matter of time, anyway.
Do your own thing. And overdo it!
This is the reason that people who want help with social ills are afraid to seek help. A guy who has a problem with drugs or alcohol or a less-than-ideal medical issue are afraid, at the very least, of the stigma of what will be associated with them if they come out to find proper help. It would be nice to think that the internet could be a place for these people to take a first step towards recovery but even those who supposedly do no evil aren't willing to give these people a bit of wiggle room to find themselves the kinds of assistance that they need.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Everyone has "opted in" to be subjected to the same 24x7 scrutiny and commentary previously reserved to politicians and celebrities, thanks largely to the path blazed by Google in its ambitions for world domination (um, service - sorry).
Had Google not moved so quickly and in such a non-reflective manner, chances are societies would've had a chance to have debates on the issue of privacy before the horse had left the barn. Now, the answer will be that it doesn't much matter what laws are passed, millions of web surfers have developed habits and expectations.
It's an obvious fallacy. The old "You have nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong" argument rests on a belief in perfect justice. You'll only be punished for things which you shouldn't be doing. However, history is riddled with examples of people doing and being things for which they should not be punished, but are. Like black, gay, catholic and/or protestant in Northern Ireland, Jewish, a journalist anywhere the state doesn't want its secrets told, etc. It assumes punishments fit the crimes, which in many cases they obviously don't, like becoming a registered sex offender for peeing on a tree in a world where you can kill someone without becoming a registered murderer. You have nothing to worry about if you're not doing anything anyone in the world considers wrong.
News flash: You -are- doing something someone in the world considers wrong.
There are lots of things which are perfectly legal yet something one would prefer to keep private.
My favorite example is a primary school teacher who happens to like BDSM sex. People who are into this adhere to the Safe, sane and consensual principle. (Note: NSFW image in Wikipedia article.) In short, whatever happens happens between consenting adults.
Yet I'd wager that given the average primary school class at least one of the parents will throw a fit if they find the kids' teacher is "a sick pervert".
So no, it's not as simple as simply abstaining from anything you wouldn't like other people to know. This is an extreme example, but I'm sure other people can come up with more subtle ones if need be.
.: Max Romantschuk
"If you've got nothing to hide" is a tool of tyranny. I thought it was well and truly debunked, and yet it seems it just won't flush away.
Individual privacy doesn't need a reason. The goal of privacy is privacy.
If you're going to search for something that you don't want google spunking up 5 years later, to your post democratic, tyrant overlords, you better start taking precautions.
This is a start. https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Are the searches your property, or Googles? Really, if, truly, everything you write on the internet is your content, then you should have the right to revoke the distribution of that content. You can't have strong property rights only when it is convenient, you know.
This is my sig.
> Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you
> don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place.'
Has a Webcam in his bedroom, does he? I can find his medical records with a Google search? Everything he says at board meetings is published?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They certainly should not be negotiating that in secrecy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Google is just a victim of laws that we as citizens let eat away at our privacy. Google cant withold information that the governments asks for if it doesnt have any support in law.
Its also easy to forget that Google is just one player, ask yourself what other information is readily avaliable except internet logs? Utilities, water, credit receipts, health records, travels etc etc. Even if you could be 100% anonymous on the internet your private life is still non existent.
The problem is that privacy has been abolished everywhere and people just dont seem to care about it. History repeats itself, again and again...
HTTP/1.1 400
I just want them to not invade my privacy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Me, and just about everyone else I know.
While we may or may not have done something wrong, this most likely will not be revealed by our search histories. I like privacy because I enjoy my privacy. That's all there is too it. Why do I need to want to hide something so Google doesn't know about it?
I'm sick of Google. Is there an alternative search engine that might have some concept of privacy rights?
I suspect that for many of us, there are two kinds of Google searches we do that we don't want public:
(1) Things that we wouldn't want our mothers to know about.
(2) Things we wouldn't want our employers, potential insurance companies, or dictatorial governments to know about.
It sounds like the Google guy is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He might have a point about (1), but his comment also seems to dismiss (2), and that's a real problem.
The purpose of privacy is to protect the people who are protecting the public
from governments.
Governments are the biggest evil, and therefore our society needs privacy.
It is not criminals who are the biggest threat to society.
By dissalowing privacy, it becomes impossible for institutions like the press to
hold governments accountable.
Democracy functions on the pillars of human rights not only because of moral
concerns, but because those pillars are necessary cogs in the social machine.
- Right to privacy
- Freedom of press
- One man one vote
- Separation of church and state
- Term limits
- Independence of the supreme court
etc.
Remove any of these pillars and democracy stops working.
A recent example is George W Bush - America blurred the line between ...and look what happened.
church and state by electing someone purely because he stood against
abortion... elected in spite of the fact that he had no other positive attributes
besides being a devout Christian.
-paul
Privacy debate for dummies:
Supposition: You are only concerned about privacy in matters that are clandestine, evil, or shameful.
Negation: You have a penis? Is your penis a terrorist? Is it defective? Are you ashamed of it? Even if you answered no to the last three questions, I highly doubt you want details of your c*ck becoming a matter of public record.
It's as simple as that.
> Isn't this the kind of reasoning that the neocons use when confronted about
> wiretapping and such?
Yes. The "Left" on the other hand, explains that the government is here to help you and needs to know all about you in order to give you the help it has determined that you need (whether you want it or not).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I want video of you having sex on the internet. I want your home phone number, social security number, and address too. After all, you have nothing to hide because you're not doing anything wrong.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
As far as I am aware privacy is a *fundemantal* right of any citizen.
My house is in a "public" place with everyone else but within the confines of my home is totally my business no one elses.
Same thing with the internet - you can use "public" services or an alternative that would respect your privacy - there is always encryption too.
Schmidt's comments I imagine is in context of using Google services.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt posts social security number, credit card number, his home address,details of where his children go to school etc etc on google.com homepage. Yeah I thought not.
For the first time, I think that they have taken a step towards being like MS.
Hmmm. Maybe it is time to take a little closer look at Google.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Google and privacy. You might want to check out this, this, this, or this. People also forget that the majority of the world population is not living in the USA. US agencies are allowed to spy on non-US citizens as they like, although this is usually not emphasized for diplomatic reasons. Thus, not only terrorists and wrongdoers should be concerned about their privacy...unless Schmidt thinks that all non-US citizens are terrorists. Foreign governments should actually be much more concerned about Google than they seem to be, but as far as I know only former French president Chirac was concerned about Google and as a politician he turned out to be a wrongdoer, of course. LOL
You can make scroogle your search engine of choice although we all know that it helps less than some people might expect, because normally configured browsers leak a lot of information.
1984 meets Neuromancer
This is a laughably lame argument. It's the same one spouted over and over again by authorities who want to push the envelope when it comes to our privacy.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Seriously, in the US it's expected that you're going to hide your pr0n. If you're not into "just the normal in-out, in-out" then you're REALLY going to want to hide it.
And what about the children? Won't someone think of the children looking at your pr0n? :p
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Taken out of context this group might scan what you're saying, but keep in mind an unfortunate percentage of your adult audience can't find Australia on a map.
We know what you meant, but it's really okay to pause during an interview to give yourself a second to think. There's a natural tendency to keep talking when the red light is on.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Yes, wrongdooers have privacy issues, and so do the rest of us. Google isn't winning any friends over this statement...
--E--
Same false argument has been put forward to defend of CCTV.
I prefer to shit in privacy, but it seems Eric Schmidt doesn't.
He should read this article.
Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
Google will do no harm.
Google is the uber employer.
Google is not like old fashioned corporations.
Google, Google, Google; see, it's even fun to say.
Google uses the Linux.
You wankers.
Yeah, this statement is going to come back and bite him.
(And no, I’m not suggesting he’ll make any private information about himself public. I’m just pretty sure he’ll quickly realise precisely how stupid his comment was.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I changed my default search engine to (shudder) bing.com. I hate having to choose between fecal matter and something that stinks really bad.
Please stop spewing out ridiculous maxims. There is only one definition of a wrongdoer that matters here, and it's defined by the law. You break the law and you can expect some consequences, especially if you leave a record of it. It's simple enough.
I have long suspected that you and your company were, in fact, completely evil and not deserving of the hype surrounding you, nor the trust placed in you. I will now no longer be using my Gmail account, which I have had for years. The few things which are still sent there regularly, I will be changing to send to another address on my personal mail server. I will continue not responding to Voice and Wave invites. I will no longer be logging into Google for search results, nor will be accepting cookies from you, and as soon as I can find a reasonable search engine to replace you, I will not be coming back.
At least this will give me something to do this morning.
...everyone is a criminal by some law's definition.
He's just citing an old chinese saying.
I wonder how Thomas Paine, George Washington, and the rest felt about the need for privacy and secrecy in late 1776?
I wonder how those running the Underground Railroad felt about the need for privacy prior to the end of legal American slavery?
I wonder how those who have "alternative lifestyles" feel about keeping certain facts away from their employers and family members?
I wonder how Google's employees and executives would feel if Human Resources records were open to the world?
Privacy is for everyone.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
All he is saying is that if you want complete privacy you shouldn't be using the cloud or internet services. Everyone already knows this. Apply a real world scenario:
You are a criminal, and you don't want to be found. Intuitively you would not open a checking account under your real name, get a membership at the local fitness club, or do anything else that someone looking for you will use to find you.
How is Google any different? They have to abide by laws, that means surrendering user data when required legally by law enforcement (illegally is an entirely different matter). If you want complete privacy, don't use google. I never ever for one second think that what I type and send across the internet is private, unless it is explicitly said so and the connection is encrypted. I think that its pretty common sense to assume so.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
If I was just about to take the major shit, ahem, maybe I shouldn't.
I don't mind when they tend to display ads that I want to see, but it is really a problem when they start doing what I am planning to do.
You don't need an embarrassing social disease to have a legitimate desire for privacy. Walk down any residential street: how many of the houses have curtains in the windows?
Clearly these people have things they want to hide. But it's too much of a stretch to say they're therefore dong something wrong.
That said, I too will wait for the un-edited interview before I pass judgement on Mr Schmidy
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I completely agree with your point about context being very important, but there are many legal things people may search for which they still might not want to be public knowledge.
Suppose you did some searches on atheism, then non-believers were the target of the next witch hunt?
How about looking for information about an STD that you've contracted. Do you want everyone to know about that?
What about questionably illegal activities? Suppose you and your wife decide to try anal sex and search for some advice on avoiding problems. What if you live in a state (not sure there still are any) where that is illegal?
Guess it wasn't a motto, but a command to us to follow, then we have nothing to hide, eh?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Someone should follow him around and post everything he does. After all if he doesn't want everyone to know then he shouldn't be doing it. Get pictures of his children going to and from school. After all if he didn't want that information public he shouldn't send his kids to school. Go through his garbage and post everything he eats and every magazine he reads and every piece of junk mail he receives (including any interesting adult video catalogs he gets).
I guarantee you that anyone who got to be at that level in a corp has several skeletons in his closet just waiting to be shown the light of day.
...skynet is here, and it's growing big.
Google started out with honest, idealistic and good intent by a couple of smart innovative guys that wanted a better alternative to search engines, something that people wanted - uncensored access to information, regardless, boundless - and neutral.
This has in fact been part of Googles policy for a realy long time, but as with any big business that grows into a majority of power and influence, evil is bound to happen - no man are created equal, greed and power hunger is universal and history repeats itself.
Now - this may come off a bit cheesy, but let me explain where I'm coming from:
I, like many of you - grew up in the age of information technology, we started with electronics, had our own personal computers - when the computers indeed were personal, so we got a very good grasp of the concept and the possibilities.
Picture this:
1) You have everyone logged onto YOUR network, you have their IP, their OS, their Browsers, their surfing habits, and a database so powerful that it can connect all the dots of habits, locations, IPs, Names, name-searches (ego searches), friends searches, friends-network, friends job, salaries, habits and anything you want.
2) You have unrivaled access to their information, not even your own government know this much about you and what you like.
Now - in the right hands (such as the original guys), this would probably not be an issue, but when you grow big - you get power - power changes everything.
3) Information like this is worth just about any price you would care to mention, why? Allow me to explain - imagine you were to hire someone for a very important job in your already growing company, you want someone competent - someone with a proven history of success in life, we've all "Googled" our candidates..don't kid yourself, you'd do it too! But we don't get the same information that Google has, and thank the digital-circuit in the sky for that, but they DO have this information - and YOU want it - BADLY.
Now...Google has a motto, Do no evil, but when power changes hands, the motto doesn't always follow. And besides, what's evil to YOU anyway? We all perceive "Evil" differently, also what is considered good. We have LAWS for this, Google - as with any other company in the world - has to abide by the law just as we do.
But do they, really? How do you know? Can you prove this? Let's take a look.
Let's start with the very nature of a powerful search engine like Google. It picks up anything you let freely out there - gobbles it up like a hungry hamster, and spews it out for your searching pleasures.
They also employ a massive horde of people to "sift out" material that could potentially damage Googles reputation, or their clients. This is more important now that they're big - than before. This is pretty evident with eg. China - whom Google work together with - blocking content and filtering out content that the Chinese government doesn't want it's users to see, in other words - Censorship.
The Censorship is pretty evident in itself, if you're a PROXY user - then you already know this far too well, you can try searching something "on the edge" via eg. a German Google, (via a German Proxy), and then a Russian version, vs an English version...and yes...keep trying that, and you'll see how well Google filters content, yes - I am not kidding here, try it if you didn't already know it.
Google is excused here - it HAS to do this, otherwise it would not survive.
But here's where things get far more sinister:
The "Feds" & Governments all over the world - are very aware of the power Google contains, they don't really want to stop Google from having this power - as long as Google "play ball". Imagine this yourself, a country wants to have the upper hand, politicians wants the upper hand - otherwise they'll be unable to govern. Google can provide the country with ENDLESS and VAST information on:
- Peoples "bulk" feelings
- How they're doing as candidates
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Maybe Mr. Schmidt would do well to remember the time he complained in the media about the fact that a lot of his personal details, including his address, etc - were found in Google search. Apparently he was doing something wrong, and had devious plan - I mean, if we listen to Mr. Schmidt, his apparent concerns at the time were enough to justify many articles in the mainstream press....Hashe been investigated yet?
Maybe Mr. Schmidt shouldn't be the CEO of a company that deals with so much personal information if he doesn't understand the need for privacy and how important it is to most people.
The argument he makes is the weakest argument people who advocate destroying personal privacy can make - and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trusted. One of the main premises of the way our system is supposed to work is checks and balances, they point of which is that we aren't supposed to trust authorities, this is WHY we have checks and balances....and corporations - please.
He should stick to his word with his own bathroom that has a webcam connected 24/7. I mean, sure, what you do in the bathroom is private...
If this is the way Eric feels, then maybe he wouldn't mind people trolling for private information on him and publishing it on the web? His remarks are just asking for people to make a counter point with him being the focus of it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
In that case Mr. Schmidt, can you give use your private phone number, your cell phone number, your social security number?, and oh yeah.. while you are at it.. post you Visa Platinum card number too!.
You mean like all that proprietary code Google owns which made them an internet search behemoth and personally made Eric Schmidt a bijillion dollars? You mean like that information you might not want anyone to know?
In case nobody else linked this yet, back in 2007 Slashdot posted a link to a very interesting article detailing the flaws in the "I've got nothing to hide" argument against privacy: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219
For me the most important thing to consider is that not only are we all considered "wrongdoers" by someone else's judgment, by even the common understanding of wrongdoing changes over time, whereas the data I make public in any fashion can stick around for quite a while.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't live in a judgmental society which bases its morality on a code of ethics that has been outdated for about 4,000 years now and is purposely designed to make you feel bad for being human.'
There, I said it. Our society looks down upon individuals for engaging in such a wide swath of behaviors that you either have to avoid living your life to the fullest, or keep some things to yourself if you want to be a productive member of society. Hopefully we can get to the point where people learn to mind their own business about such things, but until then, we all have a damn good reason to want some privacy.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
He has no trouble with a play by play of his sexual activities being make public? If he doesn't want it known he shouldn't be doing it.
Is he willing to turn over his bank records?
Anytime someone brings up this argument it should be followed by:
"Please strip naked I think you have (random illegal item) secreted on you."
or
"So you have no trouble with installing cameras in all rooms of your house? Since you're doing nothing wrong it shouldn't be an issue."
or
"Please show me your bank records. I think you're (performing illegal financial act)."
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Google is the next Microsoft and will be hated as much as MS ever was or more.
I find being offended by me offensive.
it had truth in it. Privacy in America is mostly an illusion.
Orgs and people only pretend not to know everything about you / not have access to everything about you.
The best you can do is accept yourself as you are and avoid being a dick to people so that will not use your information against you.
If you're not guilty of something, you have nothing to hide. That always works out well. What next? Think of the children?
...and the Google fanboys who routinely moderate down any comments that disparage Google are strangely silent.
As I've stated in the past: Google is dangerous. Make no mistake about it. Having a monopoly on data (as well as controlling how the data is accessed, and in what ways the data is aggregated) is the death knell for anything resembling personal privacy. Google is a for-profit organization, and they certainly aren't gathering data for altruistic purposes.
But who has access. That's Part 2 of the information people need to make a considered decision about whether to give up their information. Organizations and corporations are even worse about disclosing that than they are about disclosing what gets stored.
The problem I have with this sort of stuff is look at Tiger Woods, even President Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc...
People without skeletons in their closet are extremely rare. Nearly everybody has something to hide, if not from criminal matters, from embarrassing personal matters.
Then again, yeah, if you lack even those personal embarrassments, you really do have nothing to fear. But then, most people who make these statements DO have skeletons in their personal closets, and sometimes their own laws catch them.
I don't read AC A human right
So it begins...
I was under the impression that what he meant is if you are searching for something you know is illegal, maybe you should not do it on a website like google where the information could be requested by law enforcement. In the end google can try to give you privacy but they still have to obey the law. Same goes for other sites where you probably should not put stupid information (facebook, twitter).
Be smart about it. Only stupid criminals get caught. You have to realize that their is no free privacy on the internet. If you need it, you have to work to get it (even with tor+ssh+... it's hard to not leave traces)
The headline here "Privacy worries are for wrongdoers" seems interpreted, not a quote. Only miscreants worry about net privacy is an editorializing statement, which is attributed to Schmidt but never quoted nor referenced. These are the things we come to expect from El Reg.
I don't think it will change anything. He's right, after all - the citizens are subject to the laws of the land, and he was merely pointing this out. There's not much Google can do to help, given their business model. If they throw away search data, there goes Google Trends. They also throw away great test sample data to compare search engine updates - real queries by real people. I suspect this was the reason for his quote, more than anything. For that reason, I'll paraphrase.
"Our business model requires that we retain certain data for internal purposes, and if you happen to live in a place where those searches are within asking distance by your authorities, that data could be turned over to law enforcement."
Also, as a publically traded company, the CEO really should avoid saying things like "Break all the laws you want, we got your back." Even if he wanted to, he shouldn't.
Now let's turn this around a little. If I want to search for growing illegal drugs or ways to harm someone, no one is going to come knocking down my door because I put a search into google. Or any other provider for that matter. If I'm suspected of doing something, the searches become important and might be requested. At that point he's dead-on. If you're worried about your privacy, maybe you shouldn't be broadcasting what you're doing to places like google, myspace, facebook, or wherever else people do things these days.
The KGB used to say "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." Then you knew you were in trouble. They would always find something to pin you down.
Oh, and by the way... In Russia, DNS searches you!
This is about the third or fourth time I have posted this on Slashdot. I'm glad I copied the text of the post when I saw it. Please note, the text is not mine. I just found it brilliant, that's all.
Please help metamoderate.
I'm the meek kind a guy and I don't have anything to hide when push come to shove.
However, I completely despise the argument that if you're not a wrongdoer you have nothing to fear. Being a wrongdoer is mostly a definition of the government you fall under. Almost all god fearing and tax paying citizen are well off in the USA. But ideas you may freely express in the USA are considered as wrongdoing in certain bastard states.
If google were to comply by laws of bastard states it most likely would have to hand over data from "wrongdoers" who'd be completely innocent in democratic states.
Privacy from any government, not only from the bastards peeping Toms, is the minimum I'd be satisfied with.
So, my rule of thumb is that any critical arguments coming from my person will never be stored at an email provider.
The hard part is finding inspiration to criticize. Will do so in due time.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Slashdot serves Google's AdSense ads which means Google knows you are here as well as Google's advertisers. Beside search terms being recorded, Google knows where you have been with the help of AdSenses embedded in content publishers web pages. That goes the same for Google Analytic. Creepy. Evil.
Don't be evil + Don't be creepy.
Ok, that's just really, really scary. Isn't there ANYONE we can trust anymore? Dammit!
"Privacy worries are for those using disruptive technologies."
Oops, then it seems most users will then have become part of this witch-hunt.
Will Google be doing all negotiations in public from now on?
What a moronic thing to say Mr. Schmidt...
That statement is exactly in line with the ugly police state mentality that asks, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" The answer is that as a responsible, law-abiding adult in a free society, you have the RIGHT to go about your lawful business and live your life without interference from either the government or other citizens.
There are many, many things some people within a free society might disapprove of, and they might very well have the opportunity to affect your life. Try getting hired at a company full of true believers if you happen to be an atheist...and they know it. Or watch what happens to your kids if your standards of acceptable behaviour (though legal) aren't the community norm.
If that's what Eric Schmidt actually believes, he's a crypto-fascist, and we'd better start keeping a very close eye on Google.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What a week.. First I find out my golf hero is a cheater, and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is. Eric Schmidt is an asshole.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
That is a massively damaging statement by Eric Schmidt, especially considering the large amount of personal data held by the company. Acceptable statements would be "If a user is committing an illegal activity, we have to comply with local laws" or "If law enforcement turns up with a warrant for personal information then we will be obliged to turn it over".
However, ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" is (if not taken out of context, I am waiting for a statement from Google) kamikaze. I would also be interested to hear a response from Bing, and what their privacy policy is. I love Google, but I wouldn't be crazy enough to carry on using them if that really is their policy.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Honestly, the internet is no different than any other public domain. Too many people sit behind their keyboards and feel they are entitled to do things that would constitute criminal activity in the real world, or just display what cowardly, anti-social jackasses they really are behind the veil of anonymity. If you don't want the rest of the internet scrutinizing what kind of citizen you are, maybe you aren't such a good citizen in the first place. The problem I have with the EFF and their ilk is that what they want benefits thieves and pedophiles as much as it does the paranoid individuals who prize their privacy so much. Tell you what, go start a family, have children, and then tell me you don't think every pedophile deserves a bullet in the back of the head. What you do and say on the internet should be subject to the same inhibitions and legality that what you do and say in the real world is. If you are that afraid of what someone might do with some info on you, disconnect your phone and internet and don't leave your home.
http://pseudoexpert.com
and he's backing them by scattering live streaming webcams throughout his house that anyone can connect to. Oh wait, he's not? Oh...
A couple of things wrong with this picture:
First, this undermines the motto of Google: Do No Evil. It shows that they are starting to get the Swelled Head Syndrome, thinking that they have the most power by the massive databases they have compiled. Wrong way of thinking!
Second, CEO's do NOT make such comments unless they are permitted to do so by their assistants. Same goes for any leader of any company or country. He overshot this mandate badly by making this comment.
Officially, he just walked into a minefield almost completely filled with pratfalls and booby traps concerning personal privacy.
I think Google should issue a retraction and make a personal apology, SOONEST!
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
..talk about taking someone's quote out of context.
Then he won't mind me watching him make love to his wife. Because if he does, he shouldn't be doing it.
``If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.''
What a great idea!
. . . said the teenage girl impregnated by her stepfather
. . . said everyone everywhere who has a disease that they want to keep secret
. . . said the Chinese dissident trying to communicate with her child
People use envelopes on their personal letters to be private, not criminal. People keep their medical, and other, records private because they're personal. ``None of your business'' does not mean ``I'm committing a crime.''
Privacy is about being a human being.
Doing anything new or innovative.
Taking pride in my work.
Discussing trade secrets with colleagues.
Discussing competitive business strategies.
Uisg any word that could be misunderstood my someone as something illegal.
A few years ago, I was at a bar with a client. He had observed in his web-site logs that many of his visitors arrive from searches for "child pornography". My client is a comedian, and one of his blogs used the words within a joke. Suddenly, some drunken idiot from across the bar stumbled over with the intent of physically brutalizing us -- having overheard two words out of two hundred. Needless to say, drunken stumbling idiots aren't difficult to subdue.
I do not want the Scientologists, nor the Muslims, nor the Objectivists ... (well, it's a long list) to know that I, personally, am both certain that their "prophet" is a fraud, but also that they follow that "prophet" at great risk to both themselves and to much that is good in this world. So maybe I should stop saying such things. Because they might like to kill me for it. Even though nothing may be more important to the future of humanity than that we stop following false prophets. Please don't count on me any longer to contribute to that future. Because Google has warned me that if I don't hide thoughts like this, maybe I deserve what's coming.
They're clearly aligning themselves precisely with evil here. Because it applies across the board. Even if you don't agree with my list, any group following any false leader that you might expose as such, and that might be truly threatening to you, Google wants you to be naked to their retaliation.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Is Google the new Microsoft? kdawson always has the juiciest (made up) gossip about the heavy hitters.
You just alienated the largest pool of geeks on the Internet.
"You may think you're not doing anything wrong, but you may indeed be wronging someone you don't know."
"But who defines what's wrong?"
"Someone you don't know."
Excuse me while I iron my burka...I'll probably be needing it soon, just to be sure I'm not breaking any future laws.
I'm surprised that the senior officer of a company that does nearly all its business on the web could spout such an absurd comment with a straight face. Do the words "identity theft" not resonate at some level, or the fact that the information collected by these companies can be abused by anyone that wishes to take advantage of someone by knowing something about them? Companies have long understood the absolute necessity of maintaining the privacy of their information to avoid making things easier for their competitors to use it against them. The entire industry of programming, service applications and other valuable intellectual property is based on the maintaining of valuable knowledge. How blithely foolish does someone have to be to fail to understand that if "knowledge is power", privacy is the only currency of value. "Don't worry about what we collect, it's harmless unless you are doing something wrong...." I've faced enough discrimination, fought enough battles with healthcare companies over what they consider pre-existing conditions and dealt with enough credit scammers and spam to value my privacy far more than google seems to. I wonder how the person would feel about his purchasing habits, social security number, home phone number, bank accounts, private club memberships and web browsing history posted as the new home page of Google. After all, he's not doing anything wrong... what would he have to worry about?
We've all heard the stories of people walking out of Federal Research Laboratories with paperwork and thumb drives full of information such as Jessican Quintana. While stealing nuclear secrets might be a bit harder to use/sell than say 10million email addresses plus associated personal information. I'd be a bit more concerned about some angry employee grabbing a tape (which I doubt they back much up to tape) or just copying off some data onto a thumb drive and walking out the door.
This might not be so hard under their "20% personal projects plan"...
"Hey boss, I've got an idea for a personal project.. I'd like to create a google map that maps someone and all of their friend's email addresses on it! Kind of like overlaying their email address next to their home address and phone number. I just need access to that personal data."
While the CEO can say all sorts of stuff about privacy, there's nothing stopping some kid who makes 1000x less than the CEO and will never become a millionaire from walking out the door with this information and becoming a millionaire that way. If you don't want people to know a secret, don't tell them. Google shouldn't be allowed to collect this stuff anyhow, that way it can't leak out to begin with.
I've been meaning to look at if Google's DNS will make any difference for me, but now I know I don't need to bother. I also know I need to start taking my business elsewhere when there's a reasonable alternative. Congratulations Google, you've crossed the boycott line.
Lets suspend all privacy already! If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide right?
Big Brother is watching!
doubleplusgoodspeak/
LOL for someone suspected of being so smart, what a stupid thing to say. Bad CEO, Bad!
Same issues but different context. "One who is deaf cannot hear music. Neither can he hear the radio. So he might say, never having heard them, that such things do not exist." The palm reader's reply to Robert Jordan. From: "For Whom the Bell Tolls." Earnest Hemingway.
The collapse of privacy into full surveillance is not a binary event, it is more like radioactive decay - its' unstoppable. Like a slow leak through a pinhole, overtime Privacy drowns. The modern problem with "reading and collecting everyone's stuff," is that the search for the is tentatively for an indefinite period of time - principally occurring whenever [...] according to a fee schedule.
With continuous unabated surveillance and aggregation, Google searches for the notional and variable among us. Notional when and why justification is needed to control surveilliance otherwise a qualified "no" ceases to exist. In the coming generations, it is possible they may have no personal privacy ever. Having never experienced a private moment; they might say that such things do not exist.
You can argue that people can protect their privacy but the core problem is that people have no idea when they are being surveilled because aggregators like Google re-assemble a user's activity at a later date. People do not know when their Privacy is being compromised; they are unable to appreciate the privacy threat as it is less tangible. Therefore, they are unable to take proactive steps to protect it. What is the motivation to trust Google when they themselves have reached a size where information has become a force of real power - Google saying "trust us," is a way to reducing the profile of a company that has reached or will surpasses the force-multiplier threshold of aggregated information as a projection of power.
Just because its not private (anymore) does not mean that it should remain un-private. Old rules don't apply anymore.
Der Wachter
Stupid or not, one can think of it as a Freudian slip, or maybe his 'Tiger moment'. Google clearly has inflated its corporate ego to Galactic size. They assume (with some justification at the moment) that they can do as they please because they are too big, smart, and rich to have to worry about repercussions. So now they even baldly state where they are coming from, because they think it doesn't matter.
How about if I'm:
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Didn't we just have a story this weekend on Iran's government using the public information to arrest and intimidate their people! Whether some act is wrong or right depends on the perspectives of observer.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/2044243/Iranian-Crackdown-Goes-Global?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+(Slashdot)
Seems like GP never heard of SRI. Or was being sarcastic...
So many different ways wrong.
I don't want people knowing how many times I wanked. Or when the last one was. Or who I was wanking over a picture of.
This doesn't mean I don't care if people have that information.
Eric, how about if people know the state of your kecks? When you have a turtle-head and a shitstreak? Would it bother you people are ASKING about it? Would it bother you that that information is made available (all they need to do is check your laundry basket!)?
But if someone DID find out, would you be embarrased?
Oh yeah.
If someone was looking, would you be worried?
Oh yeah.
Would you not shit any more?
Eeew. No.
And all this time we thought Google wanted companies to trust them for their business applications.
I guess he's basically saying, putting anything that actually matters into Google Apps is something you shouldn't be doing.
None of my illegal activities are trackable online, but, one could probably determine that I'm atheist, vasectomized, childfree, mocking of most naivety (ie, religion and various other cultural norms), vegan, polyamourous, and have a porn addiction.
None of those things are illegal, but I sure as hell don't want this to be accessible information. My Facebook page reveals nothing but the veganism, and I fear that day when my browsing habits are enough to make more information publicly known. (maybe I shouldn't be posting it here).
Lets have a look at Google's business dealings.
If they are worried about people finding out, maybe they shouldn't be doing business that way?
Google should publish all corporate documents including contracts and agreements for all to see. If they have any thing to hide then maybe they should not be doing it!
I don't use ANY other google services besides the search engine at google.com. This statement actually made me think about switching to some open source search engine or "less evil" alternative.
IANAL. However, this meme is based on this court decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
The article linked offers a refutation of this interpretation, which I am not competent to support or argue with. I ran across this meme first while reading the book version of The Corporation, which may have helped spread it lately.
Please mod TFA as Troll.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
For those who missed it, Schmidt's statement is very likely an indirect reference to Climategate. Google is heavily invested in climate-change mitigation initiatives such as RE<C through its non-profit arm Google.org. The Climategate scandal would be on his radar and the description of people "who have something that you don't anyone to know" and who "shouldn't be doing it in the first place" fits the perpetrators of Climategate to a tee.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If everyone, gov't, corporations, individuals, you name it have no privacy, what would be the result? Oh, so and so two cubicles down is making 20 grand more than me and does the same job? Why? I get fair pay.. No more discussions behind closed doors by gov'ts trying to snowball and hide their true intents, no lack of information on why anyone is doing anything? Makes it easier to knwo who you want to shake hands with and who you would rather not.. Maybe privacy is only an issue when some have it and some don't? But if no one has it, then, as long as you have nothing to be ashamed of (or simply don't care), you will have no issues, right?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
..then you ought to worry about privacy. And if you're doing something you don't want people to know about, why are you knowingly transmitting it to a stranger (as well as unknowingly to other strangers, since people still don't encrypt)?
I don't get how people can whine about Google's power and completely ignore where their power comes from. Google doesn't know anything about my search history that I didn't tell them (while also telling my ISP and anyone else on the wire such as NSA).
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Like Google handing over IP address of anonymous blogger critical of Israel municipal council member.
The argument he makes is the weakest argument people who advocate destroying personal privacy can make - and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument
I think it's also rather undanish, ungerman, unnorwegian, probably very unswedish, not particularly finnish either, etc.
True, Google is seated in Mountain View, CA, in the US. But it operates elsewhere, and will probably need to respect local laws in ${not the USA}.
Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft program manager, (1996): "If you want security on the 'Net', unplug your computer."
Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, (1999): "You, us folks, peasants, you already have zero privacy. Get over it."
Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, (2009): "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Our corporate masters have always felt that our private lives are their property to abuse as they see fit.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
The real badguys already use proxies, so way to go google, punish the stupid wannabe badguys >_. Well I guess social darwinism is still in. Also, they may say it, but they still index it. That said there are ways for google to really increase privacy but then the wouldnt get their precious data and they would fall behind so its a damned if you do and damned if you dont. Also, after reading the old somethingawful leaked AOL searches I think we can agree that sometimes it would be better if you could just call the police when you saw search logs.
2. While I don't do anything wrong, YOU DO. By you I mean the people collecting the information. Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny, and even if they don't, they can be bought out/conquered. Ann Frank did not want the nice, sweet, wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her, even though she did nothing wrong. Look how that turned out. That is EXACTLY why we don't want you to know anything.
3. Selective prosecution. People sin. No one is truly innocent (how many priets were caught...) We need to learn to get along with people with faults, not expect everyone to be perfect. But if you know everything about everyone, then you can blackmail those you dislike, while leaving your 'friends' alone. If you truly wish to ask "what do you have to hide" you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family. I want to see the tax returns, psychiatric notes, report cards, arrest reports, of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say "if you don't have anything to hide..."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Wow ... as a long term, self confessed Google fanboy, today was the day I officially hung up my Google gloves.
Today they overstepped the mark.
It's over.
And it happened far quicker than I expected.
Well look at me! I'm not a wrongdoer!
A little smug, are we?
All kidding aside, while this may be true, it leaves out an entire class of people!
What if you are a wrongdoer?
And don't roll your eyes. You are a wrongdoer, for some percentage of your lives.
We've all looooooong past the point, in our respective countries, where governments and our fellow citizens recognize their role in society. People are vindictive and jealous. Governments are power-hungry. Corporations are greedy. Around the world, there are laws that specify how low you can wear your pants, what types of sex you can have, what you may say about the leader, where you can protest, what you can read, what you can write, how low your car can be, what software you're allowed to run, what foods you can make for others, what you're allowed to smoke and drink...
We're all wrongdoers. That is why privacy is important.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
What about the person who wants to bring evil to light?
Don't we want to protect that person?
Google is Big Brother.
They have a nice, child like logo, all colorful and inviteing.
They give away all their services "for free."
They want you to use their online office software, their spreadsheets, their social networking, their email, their search, their DNS, their voicemail which will "automatically convert voice to text and email it to you" and recently their announced "take a photo with your cell phone and GPS co-ordinates," not to mention already having satellite photos of your house, your car, your dog in your backyard.
This is all fine and well, except, you cannot trust Google. They are a corporation, who have an obligation to shareholders to make money. That is their primary obligation. Customers are just a tool used to meet that obligation.
They are also subject to any government whos country they want to continue operating in, which is pretty much all of them.
If this isnt Big Brother, then nothing is Big Brother.
As for Mr. Eric "The Worm" Schmidts comments on how "people shouldnt be doing anything if it needs to be private" ... Google regulary conducts its business, its research, in private.
I have known an employee of Google, who routinely wanted my source code, yet, would never discuss what Google was working on. He would say "oh this new big project" or "the other new big project" and hold the fact that Google had projects out like carrots, but fail to provide any information. So Google itself conducts its business, in private.
The reported numbers of servers Google operates, has routinely tickled the fancy of geeks everywhere when discussed in the media. But why would google need 500,000 ... or 1,000,000 servers, given
the processing power of a modern quad core cpu and mobo ? It's definately not to serve web pages. You could serve Googles daily traffic on a mere 20 or 30 or 40 or so powerful servers ( storage aside ).
Google isnt just archiving traffic. They are analysing it. All of it. Every bit they can get their hands on. And they will sell that information to anyone with money that wants it. Including, anyone that wants to conduct an investigation on the number of pimples on your butt.
"One of the great secrets of Google is that we are not quite as unconventional as we say we are," -- Eric Schmidt
"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." -- Eric Schmidt
I've spoken to fellow geeks about why using Google Docs is a bad idea, because even tho there is a "privacy policy" concerning it, it essentially states that:
Any information you submit to Google can be used however Google wants to "improve its services" and becomes Googles property. {paraphrased}
The bottom line of you and Google is ... Don't tell Google anything about you that you dont want Google to own, sell, re-publish, or otherwise use against you for profit.
Meet the new boss .... Same as the old boss ....
Anonymous Private Coward.
ps. Ecosia says they keep info for 48 hours, and 80% of their profit is put towards saving the rain forest, not selling you down the river. I for one have started using it as a search engine.
pps. As to how to solve the issue of companies like Google who are drunk with power and flush with cash and behaving like every other pathological giant corporate entity ?
Fully distributed, peered, user operated services, with random re-routeing ( alot like Tor, but acceptably responsive ) would do it. No central servers. No audit trail. Noone for the {insert political party here} to send a court order to demanding records, no records for a demand to be made against, etc. The amount of information a protocol like that would leak to ISPs in the path would be minimal. Server operators could even get paid using the standard advertiseing model, and advertisers could log into any of the distributed servers. Just throwing it out there. Dont ask for complete implementation details. I dont have them ... yet. ;)
Don't be absurd. He means people without money or power. Schmidt's a CEO; his rules don't apply to himself.
Every single person on slashdot who claims that Google should boycott China, uses hardware made in China. So, Google should boycott, but not themselves nor any of the other companies they use.
Free Tibet, signed on a MS machine made in China, powered by a generator that gets most of its parts from China, dressed in Chinese clothes. Nasty google however for not doing what I am not doing.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
He's human. He'll do something embarassing, wrong or illegal within a year.
Perhaps a web page dedicated to pictures of him digging in his nose with his finger would be a good start. I mean.. everyone does it, what's wrong with publishing pictures of him doing that. Perhaps scratching his ass and looking down ladies blouse's too.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Only bad, evil deer hide from the hunters. The ones that aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to worry about!
The damm yanks need to remember that other countries (yes there are other countries in the world) are not bound to the Patriot Act (or the DMCA for that matter) or any other American laws of any kind.
all i can really contribute is... fuck that guy.
Your point is valid, but so wrong at the same time. [Invoke Godwin] You claim that the census of religion in Germany is wrong, because of the final solution. Eh, no, the final solution is wrong. The census is "harmless". It is the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument and that is wrong too. Go ahead, go on a killing rampage with a butter knife. It can be done, but you better pick your first victim right, say a sick a kitten, or your killing spree starts and ends with you.
If privacy is important it is because we have allowed society to make it important. Either you can speak freely about the government, or you can't. Privacy is NOT going to allow you to speak freely, because privacy can always be broken. Do you really think that a lot of Anonymous Cowards criticizing the government is the same as a single man standing up and saying his opinion in the full public eyes is the same?
Hell NO. Think of the great leaders,the examples to all of us. Gandhi did not post anonymous, Martin Luther King used his name with pride. Anne Franks diary would have been lot less iconic if it had been sexygirl1929 with no identity.
For one thing, a common way to deal with criticism is to question the identity, the character of the criticizing person. Holocaust deniers have done this with the diary of Anna Frank and the current Iran government is claiming that the international protests are orchestrated by foreign agents, NOT real people.
So, you are right, in a society that no longer allows free speech, privacy (or rather remaining hidden) is your first line of defense, but it is a very shallow defense. Ask Anna Frank, who hid who and where she was... oh wait. You can't. That is how well privacy works.
And yes, you would be perfectly right to point out that Martin Luther King can't tell about his opposite approach either. The price for freedom is huge and one thing it demands is that you don't hide in the shadows but fight NOW, for your freedoms. Or remain hidden in the shadows and hope and prey nobody cares enough about you, or what you do or what you are to dig you out with all the resources a government nobody dares to speak out against anymore in public can bring to bear.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What would Google think if someone released their customer list?
We have it. A sample of Google AdWords advertisers:
There are about 22,000 Google AdWords customers known to us. Every time Google puts up an AdWords ad, it exposes the identity of the advertiser. Our AdRater browser plug-in rates on-line advertisers as their ads are presented to users. Unlike most plug-ins, we don't monitor user behavior. Instead, we monitor advertiser behavior, which is in some ways more interesting. This doesn't violate Google's terms of service. Every request made of Google was made by a user, not us, during ordinary browsing. We're just watching the ads go by. It's like clipping ads from newspapers to see what your competitors are doing.
As we point out occasionally, about 35% of Google's advertisers are "bottom feeders". Google needs to raise the bar on who can run ads with them. Search Google for "Craigslist auto posting tool" and look at the paid ads. You can buy "Easy Ad Poster Deluxe", a program for spamming Craigslist, through Google Checkout, so Google isn't just advertising it, they're taking a cut of the revenue as well. That's embarrassing for Google, or should be.
Why don't we install camera's in Schmidt's house. After all, if he has nothing to hide, he doesn't have any privacy concerns. Perhaps we can stream his phone calls over the internet for all to listen to?
Bite me Schmidt, die in a fire, and go to hell.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I wonder if he has anything to hide.... Err I mean, what are the chances he's doing something he shouldn't? I'm sure since he's the one promoting the concept he would be happy to waive his privacy at this very moment... What are his politics and associations? Does he have any unusual religious beleifs? The potential for irony is great here. Does he masturbate? There are things about all of us that are for the most part normal and common, but that we all choose to keep private, and that our enemies could use against us. Implicit in the statement "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is that the party doing to judging is trustworthy. I for my part do not wish to extend this sort of trust to a Govt or a Corporation EVER.
Heh, I read it as "Google CEO Says Piracy Worries Are For Wrongdoers" ... Now stop spying on me and my torrents!
Ok, so Google is turning evil(maybe). What are the alternatives if it turns out to be so evil that we need to boycott it(god forbid)? Bing sucks balls, it doesn't have anything like scholar or patent search, and its probably a lot more evil. Any suggestions?
If you don't you are obviously hiding something.
to stop using your services.
A while back I thought about moving all of my personal correspondence to my personal mail server. However, as Gmail and Google had yet to demonstrate a complete disregard for privacy, I decided to stick with them as the services are very convenient.
I guess it's time to go through with my initial plans.
I use Google for quite a few things but, I will be avoiding all Google products going forward. You've lost a patron today, Google, and I trust I'm not the only one.
That goes against all privacy, security and ideas. People should have a right to "Communication, Converse, Interact and Socialize in a false that excludes or eliminates those not valid to the method."
If you want take my privacy, then every capitalist business must remove their corporate privacy, as well as the government at a federal and state level. Privacy is a catch 22, you can not take and not expect to give.
People have generally described this as a big misstep on Schmidt's part. Maybe it is, but only in that he revealed a bit more of Google's attitude than they normally do.
Google has been prancing around for years saying, "oh, don't worry about our data collection. We're the GOOD guys! We even have a motto that says don't be evil, and in fact we're so good that it's not even official." In the meantime, they've been behaving just like any other smart corporation in a sensitive monopoly position. It amazes me that nobody in the media and damned few people in the industry seem to care about what they're doing, just that they've said "don't be evil" and so everything is OK.
So either Schmidt has revealed more than he meant to (which would be a misstep), or he realises that they are so powerful that they don't have to pretend anymore. You can be sure, however, that he did NOT misrepresent Google or its values.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
How about letting Microsoft Bing people sit in on your next corporate strategy meeting, Eric?
Have gnu, will travel.
$50 to the first person to snap a pic of Eric Schmidt on the crapper and pop it onto the internet.
http://www.searchengineguide.com/senews/007796.html
9% of 10,000 english words censored. That's pretty stiff.
Including such gems as ...
renewable, reopen, repay, replica, reportedly, repression, reproduce, resemblance, resemble, resign, resignation, resigned, resilience, resonant, respectable, respective, respects, retain, retard, return, reveal, revocation, revolutionary, rewritten, rhythmic, rick, rightly, rights, ring, rivalry, robbery, role, rosemary, roughly, routine, rubbing, ruins, runs, rupture, ruthless, satan, satisfying, sausage, save, say, scare, scared, scarf, schedule, scraps, screenplay, secluded, segment, segregation, sent, sentence, sentimental, separate, serious, sessions, setback, seventeen, seventeenth, seventy, sexy
Why do we allow these guys to continue living in the US when they support this kind of behavior? They should go live in china where they can disappear in the middle of the night, put in prison for practicing religion, or arbitrarily have all their property taken. Right now we let these weasels (and it's not just google) take the benefits of america while shipping jobs and money out of the country and supporting america's enemies.
And america is really just a placeholder for "western democracies". (i.e. french companies selling nuclear weapon technology to japan, british companies selling secret electronics to china, etc. etc.)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete: dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.
If there is no problem, then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day, if he doesnt have anything to hide...
Its called privacy, because is private, not because its bad
Higuita
I'm sorry, but using "gay" as a tag for a story is not appropriate in any terms for Slashdot's policy. Such usage of a derogatory slang bring the stories down: from decisive posting of relevant news to adolescent whining best reserved for Youtube comments...
People have made these statements before.
The exact wording was different, because it's usually in a different language, but it's the same meaning.
Usually it's just before a totalitarian regime takes over.
That kind of thinking is always evil.
We've fought Wars of various kinds to block it.
Privacy isn't just a nicety, it's guaranteed in various forms by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Even that isn't it's origin as it's been accepted and expected by most of the worlds populace since time immemorial.
Don't let that evil blowhard get away with this, tell him your opinions.
Small bit of advice, be civil about it or they'll just round-file your messages.
(A thousand profanity filled attacks are worth less than one polite and reasoned statement.)
...until the information gets out. Then, remaining calm without committing suicide is "for everyone."
Google isn't leaking information to others who are curious about you. It's leaking things you searched for to companies that pay them, and hence they keep everything free to a degree.
"Who is this guy John in Arizona, and why is he into horse grooming? Let's tell everyone who he is and what he's into. Screw our personal privacy agreement."
Yeah, RIGHT. If you want things to be kept TRULY private, don't use dem internetz, much less a company's site on it that offers things for free.
Go somewhere and find something that's different than Google's stance. Go ahead. When you do, make a bet on how long it will be before they're shut down for violating the Patriot Act.
Google isn't selling the contents of your email to anyone, unless they're a government entity demanding it. If that's the case, you have already been caught and they're looking for evidence.
I see his point. He made a STUPID statement and clearly worded it in a way that is asking for trouble. He sounds an awful lot like the owner of a company I used to work for. Just said he was right all of the time, and the world is nothing but a perfect model of his own vision. Then he thought about it afterwards and had to find a way to cover his mistakes.
Watch.
Sorry, just my worthless $.00002. Logic and reason are mysterious and make me a weirdo. My bad. Oops, now I can be found!
*lol*
Everyone knows the real me. People lose interest in me quickly. They gravitate toward others who are mysterious and "cool." It's really nice that they can hide things in their life and use them to their advantage. It's always a bummer when that information gets out and they suddenly aren't the cool mysterious person anymore.
Everyone wants a life that isn't real. I'm not one of them. I'm just a weirdo because of that. Oh, I'm going to cry.
*lol again*
A second perusing the welter of laws and regulations much less the increasing power taken by the state to do whatever it will to its citizens would immediately preclude making such an idiotic statement.
Also I am sure that Eric would not like all his business affairs and plans leaked to everyone that cared to look by the lack of sufficient privacy safeguards.
Having read Yahoo's correspondence with US Marshall's Service regarding price of information and the need to keep it secret, and subsequent correspondence between Yahoo's lawyers and Cryptome, I thought Schmidt was taking a potshot at Yahoo.
The Yahoo lawyer clearly states that the public release of their sale of information to law enforcement would undermine their user's trust regarding privacy. This can only be taken as we don't want them to know that they in fact have none.
When I read that snippet from Schmidt, I immediately thought he was talking about Yahoo. I don't see him as the "if you have nothing to hide" kind of guy.
Audere est Facere
If Google has nothing to hide then why not publish the details to their DC's, their search algorithms, payroll, etc, etc, etc? Everyone has something to hide, and it's usually not for nefarious reasons. --Serp
..so what I like to eat or drink, what I like to watch or read for entertainment, how I wipe my ass when I take a crap, these things are all supposed to be public knowledge? Should we all live in transparent houses as well, so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time? Fuck you, Google, and fuck everyone with this attitude, because it's BULLSHIT. All of you who speak this way have your own "hidden" agenda: you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone's lives, and you can't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times. This is how dictatorships start! Well, I got a memo for you assholes: The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Unfortunately, the CEO's comment reflects an attitude that appears to becoming more common: You don't need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong. How about my right to decide that some private, legal action or attitude of mine is just none of your damn business?
Google: 'Our motto is, "Don't be evil"'.
'What? You thought that meant US? Silly boy. It means YOU!'
And, Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a frequent guest of Obama at the White House.
They have very close ties. He is also an advisor to the President on Science and Technology. I guess privacy matters are a low priority.
Then why does Google have privacy policy at all?
Wonder how Eric Schmidt would feel if the day before Christmas or any holiday or birthday someone told Eric's family and friends what he purchased as their gifts? I mean, he would only want to keep it a secret if he is an evil doer, right?
Here's a few things I don't want anyone to know (or at least, anyone to be able to google at will):
My credit card numbers
My SSN
Passwords to my computer systems
My medical records
Shouldn't be doing them, indeed. If that's what this guy's understanding of privacy is, it does not speak well for his powers of comprehension.
That quote sounds worryingly similar to what the BushCo regime used to say. Something like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Hopefully this was just a slip of tongue and mind, and not an insight into the way Schmidt thinks.
"In a surprising statement to CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporter Maria Bartiromo, 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'"
Privacy has nothing to do with right- or wrongdoing. It's control over access to personal information.
This should sum up my thoughts nicely:
Fuck you, Eric Schmidt.
Perhaps contacting some Google stockholders is in order.
They would be interested to know Eric Schmidt hasn't grasped the concept that wrongdoing is in the eye of the beholder and he isn't very well equipped to make the call. Now if we all were bound to the moral compass of Eric Schmidt, perhaps that would be different.
I believe that quoting Voltaire is appropriate , "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."
I can see Eric Schmidts moral policy turning Chinese over to secret police or any Americans information to "authorities" on a want basis.
I can see Eric Schmidt in a job that is safer and more helpful to society merely by his asking " do you want fries with that?"
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
And, Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a frequent guest of Obama at the White House. They have very close ties. He is also an advisor to the President on Science and Technology. I guess privacy matters are a low priority.
Obliged to webcast all of his visits, then, by his own standards:
According to Eric Schmidt, if they had something to say that they didn't want everyone to know, maybe they shouldn't be talking in the first place.
So he'll have to start streaming all of it now, right after disabling all authentication on Google's and everyone else's skunkworks servers.
Oh, and while you're at it, rename that place in DC to The Wide Open House then, having removed all curtains of course!
"Some tips to help keep your Google account safe: - Keep secrets! Never tell anyone your password, or your secret question and answer."
~ http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29407
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
~ Google CEO Eric Schmidt
Well, you heard it from the CEO himself: if google says you don't want anyone to know your account login info, maybe you shouldn't have any in the first place.
At least in Mexico, the biggest concern with Facebook is that kidnappers will use it to track your movements, friends and use all the information there to blackmail you or outright kidnap you or your family. It goes from simple phone calls to abduction or killing of family members.
The blackmails used to be based from information stolen from banks or discarded receipts, but the info is now so easily available...
Alright, Google. I can't do much about your beliefs on privacy. After all, you are free to run your company as you see fit within the bounds of the law. However, I do like my privacy on certain personal topics.
So how will I serve both? Simple: I'll stop using the internet entirely.
I'm sure you'll agree that this is the preffered solution for both parties: you get to keep using the information that you've already obtained freely (so long as it's legal), and I get to retain all of my personal information that I collect from this point forward.
I like this idea. In fact, I like it so much, I'm going to tell my friends to do it; most of them have issues that they want kept private, and the internet is only a source of idle time-wasting anyway. And they will tell theirs. Assuming the trend keeps up, after a while there won't be anyone left who uses the internet at all.
But that's not a big deal to you, right, Google? After all, it's not like the internet is part of your business in any way...
As far as the privacy thing is concerned, I suppose I understand the apprehension. Google is saying, in effect, "if you are a criminal, you have something to hide and thus value your privacy. Therefore, if you value your privacy you are a criminal and have something to hide." Blatantly fallacious logic is more deeply offensive to me than their invading my privacy.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Yeah, ok. For example, for someone hiding out from a bad person, just continuing to exist is something you don't want them to know.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I've used Gmail for years; hearing this, I think it's about time to switch. Does anyone have any good suggestions for a web email service comparable with Gmail, but maybe not quite so evil?
Seems like I remember Apple being this great white knight circa 2004/2005 and then after a couple years they are "evil" and "propitiatory", yet Apple is one of the more OSS friendly companies out there by buying and supporting CUPS (Those who like the fact their printer works with Linux has Apple to thank for that), and then Webkit, and a number of other things.
Basically they got the same treatment that Google has the past couple years, but now it looks like the tide is starting to turn as I predict that 2010 will the year that Google becomes widely regarded as "evil" around /.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Strictly speaking, he's correct. If you take "anyone" to mean "nobody should ever know" in this context. As soon as you replace "anyone" with something a little closer to real-life, say "something that you don't want too many people to know", things change dramatically.
My love letters are in the "someone can know them" category - but that "someone" is well-defined, and it isn't Google.
What I do in my bedroom is something I share with at least one person anyways, and may tell to a few select others - the keyword being "select".
My medical issues are between me and my doctor.
And so on.
In every case, the strictly "if you don't want anyone to know" is true. But that "anyone" is usually one specific person.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If you think about it that way - what if everyone knew everything about everyone else? What if everybody had unrestricted access to know the deepest secrets of anyone. How would the society work? I think this is an interesting question. Would we end up in some denial game, when everyone would try to twist the facts to support their "evildoing"? Would it be easier to control the people or more difficult? Would the bad example kill the enthusiasm of people or on the other hand motivate people to improve themselves, "not to be like they are"? What do you think?
Just put all his private stuff up the Internet. Indexed by Google itself. ^^
Then lock the FOX speculation-hate-machine onto it.
Let’s see him not worry about his privacy then. ^^
For fun and giggles, we can add some fake stuff in there too that will get him into pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
Is that some kind of Streisand effect, or do we need a new name?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
That's crap.
As I've demonstrated in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470340&cid=30372884, it's unnatural for the common person to have any significant privacy due to both pragmatic as well as philosophical constraints.
What he said is True, in the logical domain. What rubs is its implication towards our station.
The U.S. Constitution does not convey privacy ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy ). it's more about not being bullied. IMO.
Any Privacy Right, I would agree, is most closely addressed in the 9th Ammendment, but that reserves any right to Knowledge Of What Your Neighbors Are Up To for the people. That makes sense. Village and all that.
Do I have a right to interfere with you if you bring biological work home with you? ....uh... yeah!
So there is an Right To Knowledge about one's neighbors that is ill-addressed in SCOTUS rulings about the ephemeral 'Privacy' meme. And you've bought it line totally sinker.
It's still a class war. Those early rulings to be AFCertain that the rich had Privacy to do their deeds.
Which works against the rest of us...
and one of the worst things about it, and something they never seem to consider is that it is a COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN argument, and the reason I say this is because it assumes that the authorities (government) are completely infalliable and should be trusted
The quote I read was Schmidt saying, "hello, remember the USA PATRIOT Act? We have to give the government your searches. If you don't want them to have it, be aware that we're doing it because we have to."
The un-American part here is the USA PATRIOT act.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
May I raise another issue about keeping "privacy"? As a researcher, I really want to keep my idea in private, especially from a huge business in technical innovation like google, in order to prevent them to have a guess about what is happening inside my brain. For it is all about ideas and who is the first person who comes up with a new idea and publish it in scientific/technique research. And I don't think there is anything evil with such ideas.
http://www.ixquick.com/
Seach logs are blown away after 48 hours. I've tried this seach engine and it produces results as good if not better than the Big Evil.
Ah, privacy restored!
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
What bullshit. Privacy means the right (yes, the RIGHT) to disclose information only to those you wish to share it with. The idea that the only people wanting privacy are "wrongdoers" is idiotic. My information, and what I choose to disclose to whom is totally my business, and no one else's business. I am doing nothing wrong by anyone's standards, but the idea that I should have to dislose my private information to prove it defeats the very idea of privacy.
Can I check how much money you've in your Bank Account?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
This sounds just like 1984, and that mere point is kind of scary.
"Dyson listened while the Terminator laid it all down. Skynet, Judgment Day, the history of things to come. It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for three billion deaths. He took it pretty well. "
Who is Eric Schmidt to judge somebody on privacy and wrongdoers?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
All the information it collects is anonymous
Anonymous to you. Google still knows everything about each user. Just having such a great amount of detailed information on a person (whose anonymity can be slowly eroded with each piece of information) available to any one entity is a massive privacy risk. Any authoritarian government or law enforcement agency would cream their pants over the breadth and depth of information Google has on any user. And it's only common sense to assume that employees might browse through user data for fun.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No need to go this far. Let him just publish publish the browsing history of himself, his spouse, his children and his grandchildren.
Surely he can find no fault in such a request.
Google can access all the emails, if it wants to. When Eric Schmidt is making such a comment he has to follow it by keeping his EMAIL INBOX, his SENT MAIL, his bank transactions and everything he owns open to public on the internet. can he do that?? because he can access your email, so you should have the access to his email too. "before making a comment, think if you are following it !!"
Privacy is not the issue, it's the inaccuracy that could occur that would dishonor a user. Do you always remember to log out of google when a friend borrows a computer?
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.