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!
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
Darn straight. You shouldn't commit vile, illegal, immoral crimes, like Googling for Free Tibet from inside China, and then expect Google to give a damn about what happens to you.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The whole concept smacks of intellectual tyranny. The problem as I see it is one of oversight. I don't see electronic paper as any more public than the contents of your briefcase. For some reason government and just about everyone else seems to think that your electronic communications are free game. Why? They need a warrant to tap your phone and tampering with snail mail is a federal crime.
If a government agency wants to look at what you're doing, they should need a search warrant issued by a judge under clearly devised rules of evidence.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
'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.
You are a moron. Google Search logging the queries is not the problem. Google Analytics is. If I query Google it really isn't that surprising that they know what I am searching for. But they really shouldn't know every single time I visit Slashdot, without even using Google to get there.
And here again the problem is not that I can't protect me against that. I can. The problem is that the vast majority of web users doesn't even know about 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.
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
To be fair, doesn't that fundamentally have more to do with the Chinese government than it does Google? I'm sure there are those who feel that Google should be willing to "stand up" to the Chinese Government, but when you boil it down to the basics, there is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.
By the way, before you flame me into oblivion, I am a supporter of a free Tibet, and would love nothing more than to see His Holiness the Dalai Lama returned to his rightful place in Tibet.
> 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.
You are right, but the statement that he made is completely different that what comes out of the summary. In the summary it reads like if he said that you should just let anyone collect all your personal data, since there can be no harm if you don't do anything wrong/illegal/immoral. What he really said was that if you use google to search for illegal information, you shouldn't be surprised if it lands in the hands of the authorities. We can debate about whether that is good or not and we can debate what should be legal and what shouldn't (and I personally think it's wrong to log anything beyond what is necessary for technical reasons), but the fact remains that the summary is completely misleading.
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
Isn't google-analytics shortly after doubleclick in everyone's host file, DNS, adblock, or other filter of choice?
I just want them to not invade my privacy.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
No...no it isn't.
In my case, it's before doubleclick, but that's not the point. You and I, along with the majority of /. readers, are the ones who not only know how to do it but more importantly we know TO do it.
For the vast majority their Google searches, along with most of their browsing, might just as well be posted on the grocery store bulletin board for all to see.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
'I'm sure there are those who feel that Google should be willing to "stand up" to the Chinese Government, but when you boil it down to the basics, there is nothing obliging Google as a company to engage in this fight.'
I wonder why Google doesn't disclose the search terms they do censor in China? Perhaps they 'don't want anyone to know' because they 'shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'...
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.
This is an excellent example. If you're buying weed, don't use Google to do it. However, if you're Googling how to buy weed, that doesn't imply that you have, or will, and that's where things like this worry me. I might Google how to buy weed because I want to know how my kids might try to do it, so I can prevent it. I'm reminded of those high profile murder cases (Caylee Anthony springs to mind) where the suspect's computer is searched and they find they searched for something suggestive of the crime. We hear about that. We don't hear that 5,000,000 other people performed that same web search during that period of time, and given that 5,000,000 people didn't turn up dead soon after, we can assume they didn't go off and kill someone.
The problem with invasions of privacy like this isn't so much the release of fact. Ok, so you googled BDSM, to borrow someone else's example. Googling BDSM is relatively innocuous. Oh, but now we're going to assume you are interested in BDSM, or maybe that you participate in it, and that you're a bad person. Dangerous. Not to be trusted around kids and small animals. Shouldn't have a job that exposes you to anyone you might abuse, and in fact, since you have such a job, you should be fired. The problem is the inappropriate leaps from fact to wild, mostly baseless speculation. We can't keep people from making those leaps. We can keep them out of what should be our private affairs.
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?
There is a time to fight and a time let it be. If Google didn't agree to the terms it would not have operated in China, leaving the Chinese citizens with less exposure to the outside world. It is not evil, it is following the rules and trying to provide the most good legally possible. The legal system is evil not google.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Are they going for illegal? Immoral? Unethical? Embarrassing? This list is neither all inclusive or all exclusive.
Is this only with Google? I'd expect "Be Evil(TM)" Microsoft to act like this, even if they said they weren't. Is there a search engine that won't reveal your secrets? If there is, that's where you should go for secret searching.
Or use a proxy.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
I wonder why Google doesn't disclose the search terms they do censor in China? Perhaps they 'don't want anyone to know' because they 'shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'...
Or perhaps, they've been told by the Chinese Government that a condition of them being provided access to internet users in their country is that they censor various searches, and not disclose that information to the public. While I personally disagree with any form of government censorship, I can at least separate out Google's desire to do business from some implied moral obligation they ought to feel. I'm not saying it's savory, but it's really not any more incendiary than many, many other businesses.
A lot of us buy clothing or other items that are made in China, complete with all of the horrible working conditions that the people are exposed to, but we don't feel that Nike, Wal-Mart, Fruit-of-the-Loom, or whoever else should "stand up" to the Chinese Government, so why should Google be any different? I'm not saying it's right, but it's hardly unique.
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
Google, being a publicly held company, has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to place money before mere principles.
"His name was James Damore."
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!
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.
Then he won't mind me watching him make love to his wife. Because if he does, he shouldn't be doing it.
Or perhaps, they've been told by the Chinese Government that a condition of them being provided access to internet users in their country is that they censor various searches, and not disclose that information to the public.
Well, sorry, but that's not the game we're playing. The mantra that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear does not often come with the rider "unless you have good reasons for keeping it secret, in which case that's OK and we'll let you off".
People like Google's Schmidt (if his statements are faithfully reported here, which seems to be in dispute) and Sun Chairman Scott "Privacy is dead; deal with it" McNealy don't give a damn about anyone else's privacy when it serves their business interests to view the world in black and white. For them to argue that it's OK to do something the public would disapprove of, because someone or something or some rule made it the only practical way to run their business, would be hypocrisy.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
``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.
[citation needed]
There is no law in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar that requires corporate entities of any type to maximise the money made for shareholders no matter what acts may be necessary to do so. Indeed, there are companies who make a point of being ethical in some sense, and this is typically part of the attraction of those companies to their shareholders, employees and clients/customers alike. And of course it is by definition illegal for companies to increase the profit they make by breaking the law, which is one reason why real privacy and data protection laws are long overdue in most places.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Wow. You need some perspective. Google is attempting to follow the local laws in countries in which it does business. Google also censors in Germany in accordance with the local laws, and has been sued several times over slip-ups.
China is a totalitarian government. I'm very aware of that. While I was living in Beijing, I was dragged into a room and questioned over who I had conversations with. Educated people that I went to school with there were forced into jobs they didn't want and excluded from education they had the right to.
Don't conflate Google with the PRC. If you want to make Google evil over this, then Boeing, Apple, and virtually every other multi-national corporation is equally evil for doing business in the PRC and obeying the local laws there. While you're at it, you'll probably need to stop buying most of your computer parts and electronics gear.
The short version of this comment is: there is no embargo against the PRC, unless you are in the UNPO.
Put identity in the browser.
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.
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}.
If you don't you are obviously hiding something.
You're so cutely naive that I want to pat you on the head.
Google is evil--they're a publicly traded corporation, dedicated to the stockholders and the executives. They have been quietly taking over the internet. They don't care about your privacy, they don't care about technology, they care about MONEY, and how to get more of it. That's all. This is old news, but they were smart enough to lean heavily on their "don't be evil" image to avoid being recognised for their actual behaviour.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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.)
Then why does Google have privacy policy at all?
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...