Eric Schmidt a Contender For US Commerce Secretary

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eric Schmidt a Contender For US Commerce Secretary

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 11, 2011 @03:59AM from the don't-be-evil-there-either dept.

itwbennett writes "Rumor has it that the man who while CEO of Google was, at best, blithe about user privacy, is on a short list to replace Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. Schmidt has competition, though, including former Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, according to Bloomberg."

31 of 47 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Change! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-11 04:08 · Score: 1, Informative

I, for one, welcome our new boss overlord, the same as our old boss overlord.
1. Re:Change! by extraordinaire · 2011-03-11 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  My personal apologies for the ridiculous partisan groupthink on slashdot, which moderated your post down to -1. It's becoming so prevalent, it's almost unbearable to read comments any more.
So the US Commerce will now be in Beta forever? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-03-11 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, that seems to be the way that Google works. I guess if Eric Schmidt gets chosen, that will be his first move: Declare all Commerce to be Beta. So if there are any problems with the US Commerce, he can just say, "Hey, this is all still Beta . . . problems are to be expected."

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Not qualified by larry+bagina · 2011-03-11 04:23 · Score: 1

Sure, he's creepy, but he isn't a tax cheat... or is he?

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
1. Re:Not qualified by extraordinaire · 2011-03-11 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, he's creepy, but he isn't a tax cheat... or is he?
  [citation needed]
Revolving Door by Seumas · 2011-03-11 04:34 · Score: 2

There sure has been a lot of revolving door action in this administration, for a President who vowed there would be none. It's business as usual, as conflicts of interest abound with the appointment of big private industry leaders to significant posts and the vacating of significant posts leads to those persons capitalizing on their position (and, often, the actions they took while holding that position which just so happen to be in the same field of interest as the company's they're now leaving for) to private industry.
1. Re:Revolving Door by Seumas · 2011-03-11 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, if only that were true. Unfortunately, we have people like Vivek Kundra and his whole wealth of "experience" and "knowledge" that undermines that whole idea. I think everyone recognizes titles as the rewards they are and the whole "okay, I did your bidding, now employ me" model.
2. Re:Revolving Door by extraordinaire · 2011-03-11 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is a revolving door in every administration.
  Not every administration runs and is elected purely on the notion that it will "be different from all of those other administrations that you've hated for so long."
  
  Obama: We are the ones that we've been waiting for.
  Really???
I'm kind of sick of the spin here. by HeckRuler · 2011-03-11 04:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

ok, I had to double-check this:
blithe/blTH/Adjective
1. Showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.
2. Happy or joyous.

But when Eric Schmidt reminded everyone that he is bound by law to hand over your search history and that googling "how to murder my wife" was a really stupid thing to do before you go and murder your wife, I'd hardly consider his comments to be joyous or cheerfully indifferent.

I know that there is an unreasonable hatred of Google around here, but seriously, stop trying to spin this quote into some sort of distopian doomsaying.

And while I'm at it, I'm going to pre-emptivly rant about how it's not "Do no evil", it's "don't be evil". Just wait, someone will drag that minor grammar mistake out. Well you sir can consider yourself ranted against.
1. Re:I'm kind of sick of the spin here. by Qwertie · 2011-03-11 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  itwbennett/soulskill/Chris Nerney are criticizing the choice of Eric Schmidt without proposing an alternative. I'm inclined to think that a pharmaceutical industry bigwig from Pfizer is chosen instead, he probably will not in any way improve life for US citizens. What's the big deal about Schmidt? Do you think, as Commerce Secretary, that he will somehow water down privacy legislation to help Google?
Understands the 'Net by sconeu · 2011-03-11 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least if Schmidt gets appointed, there will be *SOMEONE* in DC who understands the Internet.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
1. Re:Understands the 'Net by xMrFishx · 2011-03-11 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  He'll also raise the average IQ by a phenomenal amount.
2. Re:Understands the 'Net by jefe7777 · 2011-03-11 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  a few years in DC will cure that illness.
4 in a row by digitalsushi · 2011-03-11 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
Look at the last 4 story posts by soulskill. Looks like the cover of a gossip magazine. Here I am being ironic pointing this out. Guess I need to be angry at myself first, then. I'm just getting older and cranky. I think a lot of us are around here. I stopped putting energy into this system. I'm sorry everyone. I bring this place down too.

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
1. Re:4 in a row by Chapter80 · 2011-03-11 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
  -- Eleanor Roosevelt
  I'd like to discuss the idea that you mentioned, including the quotation. I don't really care who said it, or under what circumstances she said it. But the idea itself certainly has merit. I wonder if there's a way we could prove or disprove it.
2. Re:4 in a row by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-03-11 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
  -- Eleanor Roosevelt
  "America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, bad-ass speed."
  -- Eleanor Roosevelt
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
3. Re:4 in a row by jdgeorge · 2011-03-11 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  A person would be awful boring if they only discussed ideas. What if all their ideas are crap? Are they then a great mind? Just asking...
  1. "Great minds discuss ideas" does not mean "all people who discuss ideas have great minds."
  2. Many people find discussion of ideas boring.
  3. The fact that most "great minds" do not have television shows where people can watch them discuss ideas is probably related to 2.
  4. The proliferation of television shows where crap ideas are discussed highlights the truth of 1.
4. Re:4 in a row by Yvanhoe · 2011-03-11 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well we can surely prove that if it bears some truth, the average voter has a small mind.
  
  Therefore, if you want an idea to gain some merit, you have to push forward the people more likely to advance them.
  
  I would post as anonymous for augmented irony, but karma is good for my skin problem.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
5. Re:4 in a row by Chapter80 · 2011-03-12 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  As author of the GP, I was really going for "+5 Funny".
  I used the quote, and refused to talk about the people or event, but only wanted to discuss the idea - to show I have a great mind.
  But it apparently went over everyone's head. I guess my mind is either too great, or just not very funny.
Unqualified Weasels All Around by RobinEggs · 2011-03-11 04:43 · Score: 1

Wow...so we've got three choices: a guy who openly declares his current employer to be an advertising company masquerading as a benevolent information broker; a former boss of the most corrupt, cynical corporation in an industry that's famous all around for bribes, price fixing, and bad science for profit; and a bureaucrat.
Is this Russian roulette or what?
Wise choice. by elucido · 2011-03-11 04:43 · Score: 1

Someone as naive as Eric Schmidt would be perfect, because hes naive but also commercially connected.
Wow great work by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-11 05:35 · Score: 1

Two megacorp CEOs are not only eligible for, but are candidates for the position of commerce secretary. Real smart guys. Real smart.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Wow great work by xMrFishx · 2011-03-11 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, but he at least understands what a working business model of today is that doesn't involve making half your income by sueing everyone around you.
Bad math. by BForrester · 2011-03-11 07:27 · Score: 1

Average a high, 3-digit IQ with hundreds of double and single digit IQs, and you'll find that the quotient is only raised by a disparagingly small amount.
1. Re:Bad math. by xMrFishx · 2011-03-11 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I forgot my sarcasm tags.
Jeffrey Kindler by Boghog · 2011-03-11 07:27 · Score: 1

A burned out CEO from a company that is in a death spiral (Pfizer) seems like a very unlikely choice. Let's hope that US is not following the same trajectory as Pfizer.
Just what you need by drsquare · 2011-03-11 10:19 · Score: 1

With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.
Perfect for Government by Mr+Bubble · 2011-03-11 13:54 · Score: 1

Schmidt will fit right into the new post 9/11 government view of citizen privacy:

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
http://gawker.com/#!5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people

--
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
1. Re:Perfect for Government by dataminator · 2011-03-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yet another fucking idiot using this misquote to manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what was actually said.
  What Schmidt actually said was (paraphrased): "If you do stupid shit you don't want people to know about, don't post it on the internet. Google can't save your ass, neither technically (there are other search engines) nor legally (Google is not immune to legal subpoena)."
  Instead of recognizing Schmidt for being one of the few (influential) people out there who actually recognize and warn people about the dangers of Internet privacy issues, his quote gets turned around as if he was saying the exact opposite. Sorry, I'm getting really fed up with the manipulative assholes who consciously misquote him, and the huge amount of stupid idiots who believe and repeat that shit.
2. Re:Perfect for Government by Mr+Bubble · 2011-03-12 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sorry, but I am tired of people calling people assholes and fucking idiots because they disagree with the idea or sentiment being proposed. Grow up.
  I did not misquote the man, I put his words down verbatim and took the trouble to find the video so that people could judge the content for themselves.
  The whole point of the debate is, what if you are not doing stupid shit? What if you are doing research on terrorists because you want to know what makes them tick? What if you looking up something that is not stupid or illegal but that you don't want people to know about?
  The entire Google business model is predicated on people trusting you with their information. The fact that he knows that and would make such a remark, leads me to distrust him even more. If I were a shareholder, I would have been cringing. The hope is that the information is private and if it is needed for law enforcement reasons, there better damn well be reasonable suspicion and a warrant signed by a judge. His comments don't reflect that sentiment and smack more of the government's 'if you don't have something to hide you shouldn't fear the invasion of your privacy' line. Have you not been paying attention? We are losing rights.
  BTW - it is really tempting to call you names back, but I think we all need to be a little more respectful in our public discourse.
  
  --
  "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
3. Re:Perfect for Government by dataminator · 2011-03-12 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, since you bother to reply I'll take back calling you names, and apologize for that.
  However, while your quote is not falsified by changing the words, I still see it as voluntarily misleading by only quoting the first part, which is really only hedging for what he actually has to say, which is: "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
  In other words, he's warning people that Google cannot protect them against the privacy invasion that is the Patriot Act. The oft-quoted first sentence is nothing more than a politically correct disclaimer: "but of course doing bad things is bad and Google doesn't condone it".
  Basically, the message is the exact opposite of what is so often claimed, including by you. Schmidt says: "be careful to protect your privacy" and you claim he said "only evil people need privacy". I consider this to be either voluntarily misleading or a pretty strange interpretation of what he said.