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."
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.
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.
'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.
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.
> 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.
'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.'...
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.
Seems true enough these days.
Although I'd rather counter their logic with:
I don't want my girlfriend to know I'm buying her a nice set of ear rings for Christmas. I guess I shouldn't be doing it then...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I don't get Google fanboyism. I really don't. Every time something like this happens, we get some idiots who are in love with Google the way geeks loved Microsoft in the early days when they were the little guys taking down Big Nasty IBM making up some absurd reason why what they are doing is just fine and that Google couldn't *possibly* do anything wrong, because, after all, their corporate slogan proves it.
Google hasn't been a friendly garage company for years now, they are a Big Nasty Megacorp looking to squeeze every ounce of value from us they can, and their method of doing that is even more invasive than Microsoft's.
I hate printers.
Every time I hear the "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." canard, I want to scream. I have everything to hide -- my LIFE. To me, it doesn't matter if my life is perfect, "normal," and utterly free of sin, excess, and debauchery -- it's still MY life, and no one else's business. I am currently (AFAIK) committing no crimes or acts of moral turpitude, yet that still doesn't mean I want my conversations, my financial transactions, my e-mail and browsing history, the books I read or music I listen to, etc. open to scrutiny, public, private, or governmental. It's still MY life, and my personal business, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else have a right to poke into it without my expressed consent.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
"Nice" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. Google can very well donate lots of code to OSS project and rape our privacy at the same time. And, quite serious, what Schmidt said there is virtually equivalent to "only criminals need privacy".
I oppose blanket surveillance, whether by a government or by a corporation. If Google is of the opinion that I shouldn't have a right to privacy then Google is evil. Simple as that.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"Once Google stops being open and starts trying to lock me into their services, then I'll be worried"
We hear this all the time. By that logic, Microsoft doesn't force you to use Windows, therefore they are not evil.
Google's money that they pay into GSoC pales in comparison to their revenue. It wouldn't even be a rounding error. Furthermore, it's a tax break (they set up a charitable fund for this purpose) and the money put into it is considered marketing expenses. It's not altruism, it's just creative marketing.
Google's whole strategy is setting up a Google-centric infrastructure that you depend on for email, social networking, business interaction and just about everything else. They want to *be* your Internet, and they are spending enormous amounts of cash building themselves to be your One Unified Service.
Ensuring that geeks love them by giving candy to the FOSS movement and acting all David-y to Microsoft's Goliath is necessary for that strategy. It's got *nothing* to do with philanthropy, and you're naive if you don't see it. Google is a company, and company's don't give away free things. TANSTAAFL. When will you learn?
perhaps we could post footage of him making love to his wife... Either he shouldn't be making love to his wife, or he shouldn't be concerned about anyone seeing it, right?