4 ms·
I remember when that happened. I will never defend that silly argument, but I do think this was taken out of context. Wasn't he specifically trying to say: if y
by cryptoz 11y ago
I remember when that happened. I will never defend that silly argument, but I do think this was taken out of context. Wasn't he specifically trying to say: if you're going to commit a crime, don't tell Google about it, because then Google will be compelled to help the authorities? So from his perspective, he's frustrated that people expect Google to ignore it when you're doing illegal things and also telling Google about it.
Eric Schmidt has a way with words in that he always says the wrong thing - sometimes you can see what he was trying to say, and there might be something good there - but whenever he talks he just fumbles and ruins everything.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoI can follow what you're describing and I think it does have some context possibility. As in, if a person is being investigated for a kidnapping, murder, and disposal of a body and their computer search history has numerous queries for "How to dispose of a body" and "How to clean blood out of the trunk of a Honda" then the self-exposure is really the incriminating factor, not the device or platform used to disclose such things.
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoThe problem is Google cannot have it both ways. They like to act like the data you generate on Google is private only to you, and that Google employees can't see it, and that you're not "telling" anyone, as far as they're concerned. But you are, because they can and do access that data. And pass it on to the relevant authorities.
- fixermark 11y agoIn the large, for most people, those assertions are true. It turns out that there's a wide gulf between "Can" and "do" that a fair risk assessment will, for many people, indicate is a useful place to be. Entire companies are built and thrive in the gap between "can" and "do" on the Internet.