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."

Comments

Don't be evil?

[awyeah]

With that attitude, I guess Google will have to start worrying about privacy!

Re:Don't be evil?

[hitmark]

sadly, the guy that introduced the "don't be evil" slogan, is long gone from the company...

and with how things are going with android and similar, that's noticeable...

Re:Don't be evil?

[Shin-LaC]

Maybe Google's real goal is building a worldwide panopticon.

Re:Don't be evil?

[ByOhTek]

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...

Re:Don't be evil?

[MrNaz]

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.

Re:Don't be evil?

[MrNaz]

Well, in this case, Google is kinda right because believe you me, if you buy the wrong ones, it'll be a crime for which you will never be forgiven.

Re:Don't be evil?

[hitmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Re:Don't be evil?

[Jesus_666]

"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.

Re:Don't be evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Don't be evil?

[Lemmy Caution]

I will accept that I have occasionally verged onto Google fandom, and that it can somewhat blind me to the dangers that Google can present. But I can explain why it has such appeal for many of us:

1. A deeply intellectual corporate cultural, with 70% of its workforce having PhDs (I don't know if this is still true.) This includes the "20%" concept, whereby all Google staff is given free-reign to research what interests them 1 day out of 5. Google, to me, recalls the days of business-as-research-endeavor, the era of Xerox Parc and Bell Labs and the intellectual energy they represented.

2. A friendliness to open source unmatched by any other major company.

3. A very open ecosystem, with freely available APIs. And, an absence of pretense that the ecosystem is closed or finished. I rather like that Google is in "perpetual beta" (though it can get frustrating, especially when they abandon a project.)

4. Lots of free stuff to play with. Unlike Apple, you don't need to be a well-heeled consumer to play pretty much in all parts of the Google "playground."

5. The sense that they are moving the functions of the library into the 21st century.

Nonetheless, you are right. They are gatekeepers for much of the world's information at this point. We need to be more skeptical and hold Google accountable for the considerable power they now possess.

Re:Don't be evil?

[spyrochaete]

People keep screaming "evil," but I'm just not seeing it. They're being "nicer" than any other multi-billion corp I can name.

You don't even see it after this direct quote from the CEO? He's effectively saying that privacy is immoral, and private people are shameful.

Sure Google occasionally releases open code, but code is a means to an end, and on the web that end is for the common man to publish anything he wishes. What's the point of open code if you have to use it the way Google mandates?

It reminds me of an old Peanuts comic I once read. Lucy is running a root beer stand with a sign that says "all you can drink for $1". Charlie Brown walks up to her stand and gives her a dollar, and Lucy gives him a tiny cup of root beer. When Charlie Brown inquires about the sign Lucy tells him "It's not false advertising - that's all you can drink for $1".

Re:Don't be evil?

[Firehed]

Indeed. But it was early employee Paul Buchheit that came up with the term, not Brin.

Re:Don't be evil?

[hoggoth]

What I do in the privacy of my home is private.

If I am planning on running for an elected office, or just on getting along with my neighbors I might not want the world to know I frequent atheist and rational humanism websites. This is not a joke. People get harassed for not believing the "right" thing.

Re:Don't be evil?

[Maxo-Texas]

I've always expected privacy on the internet. The same way I expect privacy in my car while driving to work.

Sure, random people can see me dancing to a song, shaving, eating and talking on the cell while driving with one knee, but particular people can't and there is no record of it. Google (well EVERYONE-- the government and every company) wants to put a camera in my car now, actually- a camera on me-- any time I'm out in public, everything I do recorded since i have no right to privacy in public, right?

Hell no- we expect privacy of a certain kind in public as well. We expect privacy from surveillance without cause. We expect our actions will not be permanently recorded.

Re:Don't be evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Don't be evil?

[Seumas]

By google's reasoning, abortion doctor's shouldn't have any privacy and those people trying to post all their private information online (and we know exactly why they do that) should be allowed to do so. After all, if you're not a criminal, why do you care about privacy? It's not like anyone is going to murder you or anything. Oh... right.

And hey, while we're at it, let's post all the information about children who are adopted, molested, beaten, and abused. And let's post all the information about every rape victim. After all, if a rape victim isn't a criminal, why is she so concerned with privacy?

This extends to limitless examples and what it really comes down to is "because it's MY fucking information". So fuck them.

Then again, Google is the company that not only allows that "rip off report" guy's website to be indexed, but actually PROMOTES his extortion scam to the top of most search results (while most other search engines squelch or even remove the results entirely). The level to which google truly doesn't give a fuck about its customers is astounding.

Re:Don't be evil?

[martin-boundary]

Actually, something like this already happened before. In 2005, Google blacklisted CNet journalists because they dared publish some data about Eric Schmidt.

Eric Schmidt is a two faced hypocrit about privacy.

Context?

[eldavojohn]

First he starts with

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.

Re:Context?

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Context?

[aurispector]

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.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Context?

[BLKMGK]

Agreed, IF they are going to edit it to sell hits on their site then it's not news it's crap. Let's hope that someone releases an unedited transcript - Google perhaps? If this guy truly said something so stupid then providing the context to prove it shouldn't be a big deal right? And if in the end he was really that stupid then I think it should be everyone's sworn duty to crawl through any and all information he may have left laying around with a microscope and plaster it in bold headlines all over the place - just to prove a point about privacy :-)

Cue clarifying statement from Google in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

Re:Context?

[Critical Facilities]

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.

Re:Context?

[sakdoctor]

Isn't google-analytics shortly after doubleclick in everyone's host file, DNS, adblock, or other filter of choice?

Re:Context?

[RDW]

'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.'...

Re:Context?

[SecurityGuy]

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.

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.

Re:Context?

[mcgrew]

Are they going for illegal? Immoral? Unethical? Embarrassing? This list is neither all inclusive or all exclusive.

• Marijuana is illegal in many places but not immoral, possibly unethical depending on your profession, and may or may not be embarrassing.
• Adultery is immoral, usually unethical and embarrassing, but is perfectly legal.
• Prostitution may or may not be legal, may or may not be immoral, may or may not be unethical, may or may not be embarrassing

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.

Re:Context?

[Critical Facilities]

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.

Re:Context?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Herpes?

[gatkinso]

Herpes is not a crime, but I bet if you had it you would want to keep that fact private.

Privacy for Wrongdoers

[mdarksbane]

The problem is that everyone is a wrongdoer by someone's definition.

Re:Privacy for Wrongdoers

[sukotto]

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu

Right

[ilovegeorgebush]

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?

Or perhaps....

[Pedrito]

'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.

It's this kind of attitude...

[east coast]

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.

Re:It's this kind of attitude...

[2obvious4u]

Drugs and alcohol are easy to find treatment for. Try finding a sympathetic ear if your struggling with child pornography, or worse, contemplating molesting a child; but would like to seek help because you know its wrong. There is plenty of help for the victims of abuse, but no help for would be abusers looking for someone to help them stop. All that you will find for those people is a crowd waiting to stone them or put them in jail for life.

Same old fallacy

[SecurityGuy]

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.

This is a flawed argument

[Max Romantschuk]

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.

Re:This is a flawed argument

[gutnor]

Don't need to go that far.
I'm sure in lot of places, being gay, having the wrong faith, vote for the wrong party, read the wrong book, ... would label you a "sick pervert".

Anyway under the same assumptions, why should voting be kept private ? After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal ...

Not this again

[sakdoctor]

"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/

Mr. Schmidt's financial details are online where?

[John Hasler]

> 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?

Google=no privacy

[aaaaaaargh!]

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.

Nothing to hide?

[jhhdk]

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

What about legal but not popular?

[CanadianRealist]

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?

Re:Nothing to hide...

[Stanislav_J]

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.

Google's customer list - public information?

[Animats]

What would Google think if someone released their customer list?

We have it. A sample of Google AdWords advertisers:

• saarc.autodesk.com
• safeguarddd.com
• safestepproducts.com
• safetyawarenessposters.com
• safetyproductsllc.com
• safetyrailsource.com
• sagemas.com
• sagepayservices.com
• sagonet.com
• saideigama.com

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.