Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eric Schmidt: Anxiety Over US Spying Will "Break the Internet"

Posted by samzenpus on from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept.

jfruh writes Oregon Senator Ron Wyden gathered a group of tech luminaries to discuss the implications of U.S. surveillance programs, and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt didn't mince words. He said that worries over U.S. surveillance would result in servers with different sets of data for users from different countries multiplying across the world. "The simplest outcome is that we're going to end up breaking the Internet."

9 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Very easy to solve by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Restore the prohibitions against spying and require real warrants to engage. No more dragnets.

    Things are just going to keep getting worse until it happens.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Very easy to solve by Cenan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, because we trust them to abide by the law. This is a problem that words on paper won't be able to solve. You cannot ever prove that the NSA (or whichever agency) does not snoop, even if the law says they can't do it. They have been proven to snoop, the cat is out of the bag, end of story.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:Very easy to solve by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cut their funding. No money, no spying.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    3. Re: Very easy to solve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. You guys are complaining about how bad your internet infrastructure is. Use the 10 billion per year that you are paying to be spied on to upgrade the nations backbone instead. I think that would improve many things.

  2. Nice wording by JeffOwl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like how the title of the article is "Jitters over US surveillance..." implying that the surveillance itself isn't the problem, we just need to get comfortable with it.

  3. Meaning by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did he mean "breaking" as in: services becoming more federated instead of being governed by 1 or 2 mega-corporations?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  4. Eric Schmidt is part of the problem by RR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My problem is that I want to control my data by placing it on systems under my control. Storing everything on Google is fine for Eric Schmidt because Eric Schmidt owns (many shares and a significant amount of control) of Google. Storing everything on Google is not so good for me because I don't.

    And that's the real issue. Google and Facebook's entire business model is to violate my privacy. I don't know if Dropbox does anything with your data, but they've definitely chosen convenience over security. I'd rather store my stuff on SpiderOak than Dropbox. As long as my data are available to somebody other than me, then my data are vulnerable to hackers and immoral government officials.

    --
    Have a nice time.
  5. Re: Or crypto by sneakyimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah Eric is just worried everyone will encrypt their gmail so google can't read it any more and target their ads. If everyone starts guarding their privacy, google's business model starts to look much less attractive. "If you scare everyone about the snooping, we can't keep snooping on everyone."

  6. Background article by return+42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you have time to read 12,000 words, the New Yorker ran an excellent article last year detailing US surveillance programs and Senator Wyden's efforts to rein them in.

    "State of Deception"