Slashdot Mirror


Google CEO Schmidt Predicts End of Online Anonymity

Andorin writes "A tweet from the EFF pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt, true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior. 'Governments will demand it,' he says, referring to full accountability and a 'name service for people,' possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: 'If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'"

7 of 591 comments (clear)

  1. And the internet... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... will just fight back. The idea they can end internet anonymity is bullshit, programmers and smart people can always way's to game the system.

  2. This will not end well by jgagnon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect that entire subnets of the Internet will be encrypted and continue to allow anonymity. Not to mention, there is always your public library or Internet cafe. It's not like spies will stop using the Internet, so "solutions" to this problem will inevitably surface.

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  3. Erm... by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are"

    I highly doubt that. I assume we're talking about a globally unique identification of a single individual. I call crap, given that we can't even do that with anything at all - fingerprints, DNA, or anything else. No biometric is that good. And, besides, if you have 14 photos of me, you know who I am anyway - I'm the guy who's in the photo. It doesn't exactly prove much at all, or help you out unless the photo shows me doing something illegal and I need to be traced. I *guarantee* you that other humans will catch me from my photo in a newspaper before any computer-based system does, and probably with much smaller margins of error.

    And 14 photos is a HELL of a lot. And it depends on their quality, and your clothing, and the lighting, and the angles, and the focus, and anything obscuring the picture, and the resolution. Otherwise you're magical "14 photos" system could be used on 14 frames of any CCTV footage and instantly pinpoint the criminal. See what a ridiculous assertion that is?

  4. A bit of overkill by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If there is a problem with online banking, why not put all the banks in a different net, accessible only to identified persons? Putting all the websites in an ID-net, for the problem of just one small segment of the whole net, seems a bit of an overkill.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  5. Re:No, I don't by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID?

    Maybe he lives in New Hampshire and exercised his right to have them delete the photo out of DMVs database after printing his license?

    Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  6. Re:No, I don't by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All positive rights infringe on individual liberty.

    Real rights are universal, meaning there is on logical contradiction if all people exercise the right.

    Speech is like that. My having the right to say what I want does not prevent someone else from saying what they want.

    A "right" to be guaranteed food, for example, is not. Under this model if don't have food then my right is being violated and the only way to correct this is to have food taken away from someone else. This is not a universal right because clearly not everybody in the world can have the right to have someone else's food.

    Positive rights define two classes of people: people who are entitled to receive something from someone else, and another class of people who are required to produce a surplus in order to satisfy the first group. There's a name for this kind of arrangement but I'll let you figure that out on your own.

  7. Re:but... by Fred+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Time to start uploading pictures of other people with a dummy account and tagging them as yourself. If you can't get lost in the system, might as well try to get lost in the noise.