11 ms·

Google's CEO: 'The Laws Are Written by Lobbyists'

144 points by riffer 16y ago

riffer 16y ago
This drove me to just now sign up at: http://www.votizen.com http://www.votizen.com Their tagline is 'making your interests special interests.' Their investors include Founders Fund, Conway, Dixon, McClure, Rabois, etc. And they are pretty clear that what they're pursuing is an 'unmatched opportunity to change representative democracy' (i.e. aiming high).
- natrius 16y ago
  Wow. I've been thinking about this concept for a while. It'll either be the best or the worst thing to happen to democracy. This sort of thing would make our representative democracy function as more of a direct democracy, which would feel nice, but it has plenty of drawbacks (cf. California).
- jessriedel 16y ago
  I'm interested, but their "about" page isn't detailed enough. What do they do? I guess they give you the contact info for your representatives and then provide verification for the representative that you are a voting constituent? What do they do to organize ("match") people?
  - sachinag 16y ago
    For now, yeah. It's an extension of how the Startup Visa movement used gov2. Elected officials and their offices really only want to hear from their constituents; if you make it easier for them to verify that feedback is coming from their constituents while you simultaneously make it easier for constituents to engage, then (theoretically) through the size of the crowds, you can drown out highly motivated special interests. (Of course, lobbyists are free to use Votizen and are the short-term potential advertisers on the platform.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- hugh3 16y ago
  Wow, it must have been intellectually tiring for him to go through fifty-five years of life without ever saying anything that was true. He should have got a job co-guarding two doors in a labyrinth or something.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
But are the voters any better? The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies is a 2007 book written by Bryan Caplan challenging the notion that voters are reasonable people that society can trust to make laws. Rather, Caplan contends that voters are irrational in the political sphere and have systematically biased ideas concerning economics. ... The book is notable in use of irrationality, a rare assumption in economics. Yet the work is also a challenge to conventional public choice, where voters are seen as rationally ignorant. Conventional public choice either emphasizes the efficiency of democracy (as in the case of Donald Wittman) or, more commonly, democratic failure due to the interaction between self-interested politicians or bureaucrats, well-organized, rent-seeking minority interests and a largely indifferent general public (as in the work of Gordon Tullock, James M. Buchanan, and many others). Caplan, however, emphasizes that democratic failure does exist and places the blame for it squarely on the general public. He makes special emphasis that politicians are often caught between a rock and a hard place: thanks to advisors, they know what policies would be generally beneficial, but they also know that those policies are not what people want. Thus they are balancing good economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to slow growth) and bad economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to unpopular policies). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies#Rational_irrationality https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > But are the voters any better? The voters have the voters' interests at heart. Businesses have their own interests at heart. But you're right: voters are often stupid, irrational, misinformed, etc. I'll leave the last word to Churchill: democracy is the worst possible system for running a country, except for all the others.
  - mmaro 16y ago
    > democracy is the worst possible system for running a country, except for all the others. This is one of those chants that everyone keeps repeating for fear of looking at the alternatives, or to excuse the horrors. Keep repeating the chant, and you don't have to take a close look at the problem.
mathogre 16y ago
...and one key body of lobbied law is called the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. It is an Executive Branch body of law, "judicially noticed" and therefore unquestionable as to its legitimacy. Regulations are drafted by bureaucrats in federal agencies, published as draft in the Federal Register, and eventually accepted into law. Once published in the CFR, it is law. A few of the Executive Branch agencies include DEA, FTC, FCC, and DOT. Check it out. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/
napierzaza 16y ago
Yes, Google doesn't want to cross the "creepy line". But at the same time... "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."
- yanw 16y ago
  "With your permission" is key here. Technology can be ‘creepy’ (I don't like that word, it can mean too many things) so by giving control to the user innovation is maintained and no lines get crossed.
  - gizmomagico 16y ago
    You don't seem to realize that "with your permission" was nothing but a distraction, just like mentioning "improving the quality of searches". In case you didn't notice, he then proceeded to tell you that they know everything about you already.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    "With your permission" means nothing. Quite often the user granting permission has no idea what the implications will be.
- 1337p337 16y ago
  Google is too insulated to know exactly where the "creepy line" is. Take Latitude, for example, or the more intrusive (because it was made opt-out rather than opt-in) Buzz. Instant is just an extention of what they have tried in Chrome or with Suggest. If Joe Average Consumer knew how these things worked (e.g., that every keystroke in Chrome's unibar ends up going to Google, often associated with his Google account, so that they know he frequents fatchicksinpartyhats.com), I think most people would be fairly creeped out.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  The whole concept of privacy being black and white - a line where you're fine on one side and creepy on the other is just a fantasy. Google needs to understand that it's a continuum. Every little creepy thing you do makes you a bit more creepy. They day they started remembering my search terms made them more creepy. They day they started analyzing my email made them even a bit more creepy. The day they started photographing me in the street made them more creepy again. There is no line. Even if there was nobody would agree on where it was. Google is going to destroy itself if they don't learn this. Fortunately for Google Eric Schmidt seems to be the only one publicly stating this delusion so there is hope it is mainly in his head, but I'm not sure.
nkassis 16y ago
"America's research universities are the envy on the world," he said. "We have 90 percent of the top researchers in the world. We also have a bizarre policy to train people and then kick them out by not giving them visas, which makes no sense at all." I think he has a very good point there. Even more so for graduate students. If they've been here for 4+ years, and are skilled it should be very easy for them to get permanent residency.
- jfb 16y ago
  US immigration policy is particularly inept. As a citizen, I had only the vaguest sense that this was so, but having started a company with two immigrants, the depths of the stupidity have become manifestly clear. Personally, I'm largely in favor of the free migration of labor, but regardless of one's beliefs w/r/t immigration -- and there are principled arguments for all sorts of positions on this issue, I feel -- nobody can defend the pig's breakfast that we currently have. And nobody's talking about fixing it, either -- all the public conversation about immigration is about Mexico, which is surely important, but hardly the only thing what needs fixing.
ebaysucks 16y ago
The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- papaf 16y ago
  A counter argument can be found in the book "The end of history and the last man". It puts forward the idea that technology improves at the greatest rate in a free market democracy because the professional classes are at their most effective. Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ I disagreed with parts of the book but it stimulated the way I think about such subjects.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. You may be right. On the other hand, there are plenty of autocracies that show no sign of outperforming the west.
  - ebaysucks 16y ago
    Indeed, the statement is contingent, not necessarily true. The leaders of the autocracies need to be benevolent and think long term. It all comes down to respect of property rights. Democracies respect property rights to a limited but non-zero extent. Chinese leaders now respect private property more than most Western democracies.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800083.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... "As long as the problem of landownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."
stretchwithme 16y ago
Switzerland is far more democratic than the US and the people are much more in control of their government. Proportional representation, no one person in charge as president and referendums on most significants actions of the legislature make for a much more decentralized system. Its very difficult for a vast industry special interests to insert itself into the process. The key is not letting people decide everything for everybody, but preserving the individual's ability to decide their own fate. The developing "democratic" disaster in the US is not what the founders wanted. They thought they had put things in place to prevent this, but they failed. And its looking like only a major crisis that our leaders cannot cover over will force us to reconsider how we operate.
- jboydyhacker 16y ago
  I am not sure referendums are the answer. If you look at the California example, lobbyists still have a huge impact and the state is even more non functioning than the federal government. I am not sure more referendums would be a good thing.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    and I'm not suggesting that California as a model. California does not have referendums required to approve legislative action. California doesn't allow you to leave a municipality to join or create another. California does not have proportional representation.
- jellicle 16y ago
  It's important to recognize that the United States is version 1.0 of democracy. The U.S. system of governance hasn't changed significantly since its inception; the 12th, 17th and 22nd amendments are the only "bugfixes", and they're quite minor. Other nations have had several advantages. Smaller populations, making experimenting and changes easier. Ability to see what the U.S. did wrong and learn from its mistakes. And so on. Democracy is at at least version 3 today, but the U.S. is stuck at version 1.0 and will be for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, the U.S. Constitution is mostly from 1789, while the Swiss Constitution is from 1999. Does anyone think there might have been some advances in the science of democracy over those 210 years?
danielnicollet 16y ago
Financial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. What I find more interesting is Schmidt's new interpretation of the Google motto "Don't be evil": "The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line." "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line. At the same time, Schmidt envisions a future where we embrace a larger role for machines and technology. "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches," he said. "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."
- gregory80 16y ago
  > We can more or less now what you're thinking about. i really hope he doesn't know what we're thinking, this must be a freudian slip for google instant.
- kiba 16y ago
  Finnancial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. I am sure that there will be loopholes to exploit.
  - akkartik 16y ago
    It's better than nothing. A heck of a lot better.
    - danielnicollet 16y ago
      Of course it's better and again, the experience of other democracies (say in Scandinavia for instance) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lzw 16y ago
One thing that is missing from this discussion is the difference between the situation we find ourselves in and our country as designed. The US was designed to be a federation of states, in fact, it was created as a confederation. The constitutional congress did create a central federal government, but it created one with a strict limit on its powers in the enumerated powers clause, and was only passed with an additional 10 amendments, all of which explicitly removes powers from the federal government that it wasn't granted in the body of the document, but that the holdouts wanted to make absolutely sure where held for the states and the individuals. In the time since the writing of the constitution, the federal government has grown in power, and now is in complete violation of the constitution. %99 of the activities, or more, are illegal under the constitution. This is the massive centralization of power that the founders attempted to avoid. Talking about lobbyists having too much power is like talking about the fleas on the dog that is menacing you. It is the dog that is the problem. IF the power were not illegally centralized in washington DC the lobbyists (and the politicians) would not have the inordinate power they have. Decentralization- that is, state level power- is more democratic because state representatives are more attentive and easier to reach by voters. AT the state level, an individual vote has much more impact.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  I agree, however would point out that Senators were originally supposed to be appointed by each state, and were to represent the interests of the state (as a check on Federal power). That they are now popularly elected is a step backwards.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Are the states actually run better, though? They seem pretty inept to me overall when it comes to things like economics, and are even worse than the federal government when it comes to things like civil liberties (we'd be totally screwed if the Bill of Rights hadn't been incorporated against the states).
  - piguy314 16y ago
    Some states are better run, and people (and companies) will move to those states, that's the point. With the federal government there are no alternatives, there is no choice.
zeynel1 16y ago
The US system is closely based on the "democracy" as practiced in the city-state Athens. The following quote is from Lords of the Sea: The epic story of the Athenian navy and the birth of democracy; p.95 ---------------- The oar and rowing pad of the common citizen of Athens might seem less poetical and glorious than the hoplite's shield and spear, but all the world now knew that the city's power rested on swift triremes and strong crews. Abroad, the Athenian commoner ruled the seas. At home, he was still a second-class citizen. The law allowed to him a vote in the Assembly, but he was barred from holding public office. The pressure of his daily work often kept him away from Assembly meetings. Athens was in fact less a democracy than a commonwealth governed by the richest citizens. All archons and generals came from the ranks of the wealthy, and the bar of property qualification was set so high that even the ten thousand hoplites were excluded. The common citizen could do no more than choose his leaders: leadership itself was denied him. ----------------- I believe the state of the average voter has not changed since then. And the system is eternal; human life finite. It is a waste of time to try to change the system.
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  I think this is a very elegant cop out, but a op out nonetheless. Financial lobbying is outlawed in many democratic countries. Why not america?
  - gizmomagico 16y ago
    Oh you can rest assured that corruption/lobbying is everywhere.
mmaro 16y ago
Schmidt compares China to a business but then shies away and says he doesn't mean it literally. This analogy/truth is far more important than he admits. Anyone interested might enjoy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/rotary-management-next-big-thing.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/rotary-... (what a corporation would be like if run like the U.S. government) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/landscape-of-bewildering-contradictions.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/landsca... (follow-up)
wooptoo 16y ago
Wow, non half-assed comments from Eric Schmidt.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  Oh, don't worry, he still managed to stab his own company in the eye like he does in every interview: "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line." I cannot fathom why Google thinks it helps them to say things like this.
albertcardona 16y ago
Eric sounds like a Hari Seldon[1] trying not to disclose too much. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)
Locke1689 16y ago
The full interview is worth watching -- pretty interesting. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183073001?bctid=622689013001 http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183073001?...
sigzero 16y ago
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." You only have to look and see what is happening to see that it is true.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
First time Iv'e heard the term 'creepy line' from Google: "The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line." "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line."
1337p337 16y ago
I think most people actually do know how influential lobbyists are, as evidenced by candidates' perpetual battle to portray themselves as more resistant to special interests than their opponents. But the mobile phone comment is even more indicative of how out of touch the guy is. We don't need to record Congress with mobile phones: we've had C-SPAN for years. In fact, you can get videos from it online from a number of sources.
metamemetics 16y ago
The U.S. can maintain its dominant economic position indefinitely if we reform immigration to hoard the brightest minds and stick to the entrepreneurial model. If we agree to never hinder startup business creation cross-party, the China large-company model of government will not be able to adapt\innovate as quickly in the future once it's done catching up to what others have already done.
cies 16y ago
I wonder who still believe they live in a democracy (i.e. people rule). Modern democracies are supposed to represent 'the people', yet in practice people only get to vote once in ~4 years and large businesses (using lobby) can use their money to pressure every day. Every political science prof will say lobbies are more powerful then votes. so why still call it a democracy? What would be a cover-up lie then isn't it? I think businesses should not run coutnries because they are not creative -- they simply and soley try to maximize profit. People can make a nation friendly, homey and caring; business cannot.
known 16y ago
In democracy only 20% people will vote as per their conscience.
- mhb 16y ago
  Only 10% of statistics in comments are accurate.
known 16y ago
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." --John Kenneth Galbraith
known 16y ago
Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. The thorough penetration of money's power throughout a society is yet another marker of the shift from Culture to Civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2C_media.2C_and_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2...
readtodevelop 16y ago
I think that children at school should be given some money and learn to manage their education and hire their teachers, that should be a unique experience. They would learn to govern themselves and the value of honesty. That would be a great revolution. The more you are able to control your surroundings the more you realize that your action is a crucial factor in your life. Errors are one way to learn, that is the lesson to remember.
readtodevelop 16y ago
Is not who wrote the law, but in which conditions laws should be applicable. United Nations and poor countries, you can write the law but poor countries will continue to be poor because they don't have the power to impose their reality. If you don't have power you are invisible. Google has power, so he question who wrote the laws and he knows that power is a way to rewrite the law.
lwhi 16y ago
By adding in a typo like 'now what you are thinking about', the author of the article can also be pretty sure what we're thinking about .. sloppy journalism.
lwhi 16y ago
I find it amazing that Schmidt is highlighting the obvious flaws that are built into the political system by lobbying - which are pretty obvious to most people .. and is complaining that it's difficult to change the political system because of it, when Google is a major player in the lobbying game, a major player which is most probably in the game to win itself. He mentions that incentives drive politics - which is true, but surely lobbying is just the visible vehicle of incentives driving politics? If he views incentives as a fact of life .. why is lobbying not accepted with a similar amount of cynical reasoning? Maybe Google is trying to work out how they can affect politics in a more effective way, as something other than a lobbyist? He talks about America's strengths in education, but that graduates (useful to Google) aren't able to be granted visas automatically. He highlights how China's success is based around its shrewd use of business strategy and technology. He talks about how China has a top-down approach to orchestrating change, but he doesn't mention how censorship and control of information also features heavily in Chinese politics. Also, if his metaphor is extended .. what role do the citizens of a country run as a business have? As a comparison, he also indicates how he feels that Google's omnipresence (power) is set to grow in the future, regardless. He also talks about the power that technology has as a disrupter, a couple of times. On one level, I think he's highlighting Google's clout. The thrust of the conversation seems to be based around the concept of a what a tech company (e.g. 'Google') could offer a government, in terms of business strategy and enabling change through technology. I'm not a Luddite, but on a couple of levels the interview worries me. He's professing that technology is good because it reduces what the human mind needs to be capable of - while at the same time, the technology that Google amasses is going to grow far more capable. All the while, he's insinuating that Google's in a unique position to shape the political landscape. When it comes down to it, I don't trust his reasoning and I don't totally understand his incentives.

144 points by riffer 16y ago

This drove me to just now sign up at: http://www.votizen.com http://www.votizen.com Their tagline is 'making your interests special interests.' Their investors include Founders Fund, Conway, Dixon, McClure, Rabois, etc. And they are pretty clear that what they're pursuing is an 'unmatched opportunity to change representative democracy' (i.e. aiming high).

natrius 16y ago
Wow. I've been thinking about this concept for a while. It'll either be the best or the worst thing to happen to democracy. This sort of thing would make our representative democracy function as more of a direct democracy, which would feel nice, but it has plenty of drawbacks (cf. California).
jessriedel 16y ago
I'm interested, but their "about" page isn't detailed enough. What do they do? I guess they give you the contact info for your representatives and then provide verification for the representative that you are a voting constituent? What do they do to organize ("match") people?
- sachinag 16y ago
  For now, yeah. It's an extension of how the Startup Visa movement used gov2. Elected officials and their offices really only want to hear from their constituents; if you make it easier for them to verify that feedback is coming from their constituents while you simultaneously make it easier for constituents to engage, then (theoretically) through the size of the crowds, you can drown out highly motivated special interests. (Of course, lobbyists are free to use Votizen and are the short-term potential advertisers on the platform.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 16y ago
Wow, it must have been intellectually tiring for him to go through fifty-five years of life without ever saying anything that was true. He should have got a job co-guarding two doors in a labyrinth or something.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

But are the voters any better? The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies is a 2007 book written by Bryan Caplan challenging the notion that voters are reasonable people that society can trust to make laws. Rather, Caplan contends that voters are irrational in the political sphere and have systematically biased ideas concerning economics. ... The book is notable in use of irrationality, a rare assumption in economics. Yet the work is also a challenge to conventional public choice, where voters are seen as rationally ignorant. Conventional public choice either emphasizes the efficiency of democracy (as in the case of Donald Wittman) or, more commonly, democratic failure due to the interaction between self-interested politicians or bureaucrats, well-organized, rent-seeking minority interests and a largely indifferent general public (as in the work of Gordon Tullock, James M. Buchanan, and many others). Caplan, however, emphasizes that democratic failure does exist and places the blame for it squarely on the general public. He makes special emphasis that politicians are often caught between a rock and a hard place: thanks to advisors, they know what policies would be generally beneficial, but they also know that those policies are not what people want. Thus they are balancing good economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to slow growth) and bad economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to unpopular policies). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies#Rational_irrationality https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...

cabalamat 16y ago
> But are the voters any better? The voters have the voters' interests at heart. Businesses have their own interests at heart. But you're right: voters are often stupid, irrational, misinformed, etc. I'll leave the last word to Churchill: democracy is the worst possible system for running a country, except for all the others.
- mmaro 16y ago
  > democracy is the worst possible system for running a country, except for all the others. This is one of those chants that everyone keeps repeating for fear of looking at the alternatives, or to excuse the horrors. Keep repeating the chant, and you don't have to take a close look at the problem.

mathogre 16y ago

...and one key body of lobbied law is called the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. It is an Executive Branch body of law, "judicially noticed" and therefore unquestionable as to its legitimacy. Regulations are drafted by bureaucrats in federal agencies, published as draft in the Federal Register, and eventually accepted into law. Once published in the CFR, it is law. A few of the Executive Branch agencies include DEA, FTC, FCC, and DOT. Check it out. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/

napierzaza 16y ago

Yes, Google doesn't want to cross the "creepy line". But at the same time... "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."

yanw 16y ago
"With your permission" is key here. Technology can be ‘creepy’ (I don't like that word, it can mean too many things) so by giving control to the user innovation is maintained and no lines get crossed.
- gizmomagico 16y ago
  You don't seem to realize that "with your permission" was nothing but a distraction, just like mentioning "improving the quality of searches". In case you didn't notice, he then proceeded to tell you that they know everything about you already.
- lwhi 16y ago
  "With your permission" means nothing. Quite often the user granting permission has no idea what the implications will be.
1337p337 16y ago
Google is too insulated to know exactly where the "creepy line" is. Take Latitude, for example, or the more intrusive (because it was made opt-out rather than opt-in) Buzz. Instant is just an extention of what they have tried in Chrome or with Suggest. If Joe Average Consumer knew how these things worked (e.g., that every keystroke in Chrome's unibar ends up going to Google, often associated with his Google account, so that they know he frequents fatchicksinpartyhats.com), I think most people would be fairly creeped out.
zmmmmm 16y ago
The whole concept of privacy being black and white - a line where you're fine on one side and creepy on the other is just a fantasy. Google needs to understand that it's a continuum. Every little creepy thing you do makes you a bit more creepy. They day they started remembering my search terms made them more creepy. They day they started analyzing my email made them even a bit more creepy. The day they started photographing me in the street made them more creepy again. There is no line. Even if there was nobody would agree on where it was. Google is going to destroy itself if they don't learn this. Fortunately for Google Eric Schmidt seems to be the only one publicly stating this delusion so there is hope it is mainly in his head, but I'm not sure.

nkassis 16y ago

"America's research universities are the envy on the world," he said. "We have 90 percent of the top researchers in the world. We also have a bizarre policy to train people and then kick them out by not giving them visas, which makes no sense at all." I think he has a very good point there. Even more so for graduate students. If they've been here for 4+ years, and are skilled it should be very easy for them to get permanent residency.

jfb 16y ago
US immigration policy is particularly inept. As a citizen, I had only the vaguest sense that this was so, but having started a company with two immigrants, the depths of the stupidity have become manifestly clear. Personally, I'm largely in favor of the free migration of labor, but regardless of one's beliefs w/r/t immigration -- and there are principled arguments for all sorts of positions on this issue, I feel -- nobody can defend the pig's breakfast that we currently have. And nobody's talking about fixing it, either -- all the public conversation about immigration is about Mexico, which is surely important, but hardly the only thing what needs fixing.

ebaysucks 16y ago

The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it. People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

papaf 16y ago
A counter argument can be found in the book "The end of history and the last man". It puts forward the idea that technology improves at the greatest rate in a free market democracy because the professional classes are at their most effective. Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ http://www.amazon.com/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0743284550/ I disagreed with parts of the book but it stimulated the way I think about such subjects.
cabalamat 16y ago
> The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy. You may be right. On the other hand, there are plenty of autocracies that show no sign of outperforming the west.
- ebaysucks 16y ago
  Indeed, the statement is contingent, not necessarily true. The leaders of the autocracies need to be benevolent and think long term. It all comes down to respect of property rights. Democracies respect property rights to a limited but non-zero extent. Chinese leaders now respect private property more than most Western democracies.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800083.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... "As long as the problem of landownership is not solved, conflicts on unfair land seizure cannot be avoided. Since land is in the hand of the government, a developer can bribe an official and make the official claim that the land is seized for public use," said Liu Xiaobo, a leading political dissident. "If the developer could get the approval from the official, he is legally entitled to seize the land."

stretchwithme 16y ago

Switzerland is far more democratic than the US and the people are much more in control of their government. Proportional representation, no one person in charge as president and referendums on most significants actions of the legislature make for a much more decentralized system. Its very difficult for a vast industry special interests to insert itself into the process. The key is not letting people decide everything for everybody, but preserving the individual's ability to decide their own fate. The developing "democratic" disaster in the US is not what the founders wanted. They thought they had put things in place to prevent this, but they failed. And its looking like only a major crisis that our leaders cannot cover over will force us to reconsider how we operate.

jboydyhacker 16y ago
I am not sure referendums are the answer. If you look at the California example, lobbyists still have a huge impact and the state is even more non functioning than the federal government. I am not sure more referendums would be a good thing.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  and I'm not suggesting that California as a model. California does not have referendums required to approve legislative action. California doesn't allow you to leave a municipality to join or create another. California does not have proportional representation.
jellicle 16y ago
It's important to recognize that the United States is version 1.0 of democracy. The U.S. system of governance hasn't changed significantly since its inception; the 12th, 17th and 22nd amendments are the only "bugfixes", and they're quite minor. Other nations have had several advantages. Smaller populations, making experimenting and changes easier. Ability to see what the U.S. did wrong and learn from its mistakes. And so on. Democracy is at at least version 3 today, but the U.S. is stuck at version 1.0 and will be for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, the U.S. Constitution is mostly from 1789, while the Swiss Constitution is from 1999. Does anyone think there might have been some advances in the science of democracy over those 210 years?

danielnicollet 16y ago

Financial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. What I find more interesting is Schmidt's new interpretation of the Google motto "Don't be evil": "The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line." "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line. At the same time, Schmidt envisions a future where we embrace a larger role for machines and technology. "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches," he said. "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."

gregory80 16y ago
> We can more or less now what you're thinking about. i really hope he doesn't know what we're thinking, this must be a freudian slip for google instant.
kiba 16y ago
Finnancial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies. I am sure that there will be loopholes to exploit.
- akkartik 16y ago
  It's better than nothing. A heck of a lot better.
  - danielnicollet 16y ago
    Of course it's better and again, the experience of other democracies (say in Scandinavia for instance) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

lzw 16y ago

One thing that is missing from this discussion is the difference between the situation we find ourselves in and our country as designed. The US was designed to be a federation of states, in fact, it was created as a confederation. The constitutional congress did create a central federal government, but it created one with a strict limit on its powers in the enumerated powers clause, and was only passed with an additional 10 amendments, all of which explicitly removes powers from the federal government that it wasn't granted in the body of the document, but that the holdouts wanted to make absolutely sure where held for the states and the individuals. In the time since the writing of the constitution, the federal government has grown in power, and now is in complete violation of the constitution. %99 of the activities, or more, are illegal under the constitution. This is the massive centralization of power that the founders attempted to avoid. Talking about lobbyists having too much power is like talking about the fleas on the dog that is menacing you. It is the dog that is the problem. IF the power were not illegally centralized in washington DC the lobbyists (and the politicians) would not have the inordinate power they have. Decentralization- that is, state level power- is more democratic because state representatives are more attentive and easier to reach by voters. AT the state level, an individual vote has much more impact.

patrickgzill 16y ago
I agree, however would point out that Senators were originally supposed to be appointed by each state, and were to represent the interests of the state (as a check on Federal power). That they are now popularly elected is a step backwards.
_delirium 16y ago
Are the states actually run better, though? They seem pretty inept to me overall when it comes to things like economics, and are even worse than the federal government when it comes to things like civil liberties (we'd be totally screwed if the Bill of Rights hadn't been incorporated against the states).
- piguy314 16y ago
  Some states are better run, and people (and companies) will move to those states, that's the point. With the federal government there are no alternatives, there is no choice.

zeynel1 16y ago

The US system is closely based on the "democracy" as practiced in the city-state Athens. The following quote is from Lords of the Sea: The epic story of the Athenian navy and the birth of democracy; p.95 ---------------- The oar and rowing pad of the common citizen of Athens might seem less poetical and glorious than the hoplite's shield and spear, but all the world now knew that the city's power rested on swift triremes and strong crews. Abroad, the Athenian commoner ruled the seas. At home, he was still a second-class citizen. The law allowed to him a vote in the Assembly, but he was barred from holding public office. The pressure of his daily work often kept him away from Assembly meetings. Athens was in fact less a democracy than a commonwealth governed by the richest citizens. All archons and generals came from the ranks of the wealthy, and the bar of property qualification was set so high that even the ten thousand hoplites were excluded. The common citizen could do no more than choose his leaders: leadership itself was denied him. ----------------- I believe the state of the average voter has not changed since then. And the system is eternal; human life finite. It is a waste of time to try to change the system.

danielnicollet 16y ago
I think this is a very elegant cop out, but a op out nonetheless. Financial lobbying is outlawed in many democratic countries. Why not america?
- gizmomagico 16y ago
  Oh you can rest assured that corruption/lobbying is everywhere.

mmaro 16y ago

Schmidt compares China to a business but then shies away and says he doesn't mean it literally. This analogy/truth is far more important than he admits. Anyone interested might enjoy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/rotary-management-next-big-thing.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/rotary-... (what a corporation would be like if run like the U.S. government) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/landscape-of-bewildering-contradictions.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/landsca... (follow-up)

wooptoo 16y ago

Wow, non half-assed comments from Eric Schmidt.

zmmmmm 16y ago
Oh, don't worry, he still managed to stab his own company in the eye like he does in every interview: "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line." I cannot fathom why Google thinks it helps them to say things like this.

albertcardona 16y ago

Eric sounds like a Hari Seldon[1] trying not to disclose too much. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)

Locke1689 16y ago

The full interview is worth watching -- pretty interesting. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183073001?bctid=622689013001 http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183073001?...

sigzero 16y ago

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." You only have to look and see what is happening to see that it is true.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

First time Iv'e heard the term 'creepy line' from Google: "The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line." "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line."

1337p337 16y ago

I think most people actually do know how influential lobbyists are, as evidenced by candidates' perpetual battle to portray themselves as more resistant to special interests than their opponents. But the mobile phone comment is even more indicative of how out of touch the guy is. We don't need to record Congress with mobile phones: we've had C-SPAN for years. In fact, you can get videos from it online from a number of sources.

metamemetics 16y ago

The U.S. can maintain its dominant economic position indefinitely if we reform immigration to hoard the brightest minds and stick to the entrepreneurial model. If we agree to never hinder startup business creation cross-party, the China large-company model of government will not be able to adapt\innovate as quickly in the future once it's done catching up to what others have already done.

cies 16y ago

I wonder who still believe they live in a democracy (i.e. people rule). Modern democracies are supposed to represent 'the people', yet in practice people only get to vote once in ~4 years and large businesses (using lobby) can use their money to pressure every day. Every political science prof will say lobbies are more powerful then votes. so why still call it a democracy? What would be a cover-up lie then isn't it? I think businesses should not run coutnries because they are not creative -- they simply and soley try to maximize profit. People can make a nation friendly, homey and caring; business cannot.

known 16y ago

In democracy only 20% people will vote as per their conscience.

mhb 16y ago
Only 10% of statistics in comments are accurate.

known 16y ago

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." --John Kenneth Galbraith

known 16y ago

Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. The thorough penetration of money's power throughout a society is yet another marker of the shift from Culture to Civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2C_media.2C_and_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2...

readtodevelop 16y ago

I think that children at school should be given some money and learn to manage their education and hire their teachers, that should be a unique experience. They would learn to govern themselves and the value of honesty. That would be a great revolution. The more you are able to control your surroundings the more you realize that your action is a crucial factor in your life. Errors are one way to learn, that is the lesson to remember.

readtodevelop 16y ago

Is not who wrote the law, but in which conditions laws should be applicable. United Nations and poor countries, you can write the law but poor countries will continue to be poor because they don't have the power to impose their reality. If you don't have power you are invisible. Google has power, so he question who wrote the laws and he knows that power is a way to rewrite the law.

lwhi 16y ago

By adding in a typo like 'now what you are thinking about', the author of the article can also be pretty sure what we're thinking about .. sloppy journalism.

lwhi 16y ago

I find it amazing that Schmidt is highlighting the obvious flaws that are built into the political system by lobbying - which are pretty obvious to most people .. and is complaining that it's difficult to change the political system because of it, when Google is a major player in the lobbying game, a major player which is most probably in the game to win itself. He mentions that incentives drive politics - which is true, but surely lobbying is just the visible vehicle of incentives driving politics? If he views incentives as a fact of life .. why is lobbying not accepted with a similar amount of cynical reasoning? Maybe Google is trying to work out how they can affect politics in a more effective way, as something other than a lobbyist? He talks about America's strengths in education, but that graduates (useful to Google) aren't able to be granted visas automatically. He highlights how China's success is based around its shrewd use of business strategy and technology. He talks about how China has a top-down approach to orchestrating change, but he doesn't mention how censorship and control of information also features heavily in Chinese politics. Also, if his metaphor is extended .. what role do the citizens of a country run as a business have? As a comparison, he also indicates how he feels that Google's omnipresence (power) is set to grow in the future, regardless. He also talks about the power that technology has as a disrupter, a couple of times. On one level, I think he's highlighting Google's clout. The thrust of the conversation seems to be based around the concept of a what a tech company (e.g. 'Google') could offer a government, in terms of business strategy and enabling change through technology. I'm not a Luddite, but on a couple of levels the interview worries me. He's professing that technology is good because it reduces what the human mind needs to be capable of - while at the same time, the technology that Google amasses is going to grow far more capable. All the while, he's insinuating that Google's in a unique position to shape the political landscape. When it comes down to it, I don't trust his reasoning and I don't totally understand his incentives.