9 ms·

Eric Schmidt was the anti-privacy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doin

• lostlogin 7y ago
  > Eric Schmidt was the anti-piracy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. You mean anti-privacy I think? It took me way too long to get there.
  • basetop 7y ago
    I fixed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Not sure how I managed to spell it incorrectly once and correctly once in the same sentence.
  • telaport 7y ago
    ARRRRRRRRRRG ya gots it right again me fren!
• jeffdavis 7y ago
  Privacy is usually not about things you don't want anyone to know. It's about things you don't want everyone to know.
  • derefr 7y ago
    More specifically, privacy is about things that you want to isolate to one sub-self and its corresponding social circle. Everyone leads a “double life” (or N lives) to some degree, and privacy is the societal etiquette allowing for the continued separation of those lives (without having to go to the effort of using real OPSEC to isolate them.)
    • pishpash 7y ago
      Admittedly, Google+ tried with circles but sounds like a bandaid to a problem that didn't exist in the first place until Facebook along with myopic social do-gooders forced everyone to use real names online.
      • iainmerrick 7y ago
        Google+ wanted real names too.
    • ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      So much this. I don't really want my work, my online life, and my family to collide very much, but within each sphere of general influence, I want to be able to reach out and interact with people fairly openly. The best way, of course, is to carefully curate different identities online, but that feels dishonest at times and can be problematic on occasion.
      • frutiger 7y ago
        > The best way, of course, is to carefully curate different identities online Doesn’t this only work if all your interactions are online? Otherwise your family might meet your colleagues at your birthday party (or whatever you might celebrate).
        • tremon 7y ago
          No this works offline too. For example, I would think that my friends have the decency not to talk to my grandmother about my sexual preferences, even if the two happen to meet at my birthday.
          • frutiger 7y ago
            But if you hold your boyfriend’s hand during your birthday your grandmother would probably wise up to your sexual preferences.
  • telchar 7y ago
    That's the most succinct explanation of privacy I've seen. I'm going to have to crib that line.
  • chacham15 7y ago
    I disagree, I wouldnt send a nude photo to a single stranger (even if they wouldnt send/show it to anyone else).
    • klyrs 7y ago
      Strangers, sure. Would you send one to a sexual partner? Medical records are another good example. Most people are squeamish about reproductive and sexual health... but share such info with a doctor.
      • interfixus 7y ago
        > Strangers, sure. Would you send one to a sexual partner? Only if I had made up my mind that I would have no - or only a small - problem with the photo going public. I may conceivably trust the partner. I do not trust partner's ability to keep things under sufficient lock.
    • jeffdavis 7y ago
      It doesn't sound like you disagree. You might want to be nude in front of some people (doctors, lovers, airport security), but not everyone (your barber, your boss, perfect strangers).
  • fdchn2019 7y ago
    In Maths anyone and everyone are the same. When you start a proof you say - Let x a member of set Z be arbitrary
    • da_chicken 7y ago
      Which is exactly why equivocation is a logical fallacy.
    • teawrecks 7y ago
      ∀≠∃
  • rjf72 7y ago
    In my view it's mostly about justification. What's your age, sex, and race? These are questions that, in and of themselves, are not private. Any stranger on the street who sees you could immediately answer them. And if you've ever posted a picture on the net, you can add far more people. And you probably wouldn't be bothered if every single person in the world knew the answer to this question. And in fact you've probably told everybody the answer to these questions, even if indirectly, in your own posts. Yet in spite of all of this, you probably would not want to tell me. And that's largely because I have absolutely no justification in asking or knowing this. If I said I was surveying developers, and you believed me, then you'd probably be more than willing to submit this information to me however. Google wants to harvest massive amounts of information on me to, at best, try to get me to purchase things I otherwise would have no desire to purchase. And that is, again, at best. This is the same company that literally black-listed the term "human rights" for their proposed engine in China. [1] To imagine they won't, if they are not already, use that information for even more nefarious ends is being naive. So on this front I couldn't care less if every disinterested person in the world knows what I had for breakfast (it was muesli), yet I would not want Google to have this information, because I don't think they are justified in knowing it. More sensitive information just ends up reaching a higher and higher standard of required minimal justification. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/google-china-censorship-human-rights/ https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/google-china-censorship-...
  • nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Privacy is also about solidarity with those who do have something to hide. We want to create a society with herd immunity for dissidents, free thinkers, and even the less controversial yet somehow still controversial; fetishists, (closet) non-traditional-sexuals, or simply those who engage in behaviour that we have only learned to condone, not yet accept. Even if you are not any of those, it is our duty to provide a thicket where the free canaries can hide from the harsh environment. When they die, we best pay close attention. Saying “I don’t care about privacy because I have nothing to hide” is uniquely selfish, on the level of “I don’t care about gay marriage because I’m not gay.”
    • xpil 7y ago
      I can't upvote this enough.
    • new2626 7y ago
      I think your second quoted sentence is a perfectly fine attitude. You have to pick your fights and caring about every possible issue that may affect every possible person is a road down to insanity. (I say this while I agree with your post otherwise.)
      • Spearchucker 7y ago
        His quote doesn't suggest you care about gay marriage. It suggests caring about PRIVACY because for example (amongst many other examples he didn't mention) gay marriage.
    • futterz 7y ago
      > We want to create a society with herd immunity for dissidents, free thinkers, and even the less controversial yet somehow still controversial And yet y'all can't even do that on HN. Downvote, dead, flag, toe the line. I've got this feeling that before we all codified "free speech" as a "right", people in very "backward" places were doing it and getting along. Different opinions, different ideas, and people are friendly, for eons in Morocco, in Egypt. Maybe white Western culture had to put it into "law" because for whatever reason we weren't so good at doing it naturally.
• skookumchuck 7y ago
  > The guy represents every wrong with tech. Privacy for him, but none for thee. That's hardly restricted to tech. It's pervasive with government officials.
• dyoo1979 7y ago
  He's also a co-author of Lex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_(software) It's human nature to demonize folks.
  • jnbiche 7y ago
    > He's also a co-author of Lex. Your point is? > It's human nature to demonize folks. Is that criticism of Schmidt or the parent comment? If Schmidt, he was not so much demonizing people as just not giving a shit about them. And we hold our leaders to higher standards than the common man. In prior generations, our "elites" held themselves to higher standards as well. Not any longer, it seems. Regardless of how high you rise in society, as long as you can claim decent from the middle class, you hold yourself responsible for nothing outside of yourself and your in-group.
    • Cyclone_ 7y ago
      > Your point is? Probably that the "everything wrong with tech" statement was a bit strong if I could speak for the person you responded to. I'm not sure I'd go as far to say he's "everything wrong with tech", would you? He's certainly done lots of good too, along with bad.
      • Carpetsmoker 7y ago
        The comment was "he represents everything wrong with tech", not "everything he's ever done is wrong". There statements are not identical.
• icelancer 7y ago
  Conveniently you (and everyone else who quotes that line) left out the following part. "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we’re all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." His whole point is to NOT use their services because they are bound by law to turn over that kind of data. Not to shame you.
  • PakG1 7y ago
    I'm not making fun of you, I'm just guessing that the value you get from my service is worth more than the concerns you have about your privacy. Come join me. I promise I won't hurt you so much. You'll enjoy it.
    • icelancer 7y ago
      You're free to make your own choices. Schmidt (and Google) make no such promise. Use ProtonMail and DDG if you care so much, others will use Google, life moves on. No one is coercing anyone else.
      • erikpukinskis 7y ago
        > No one is coercing anyone else. Specifically because Schmidt made a career as a lobbyist for privacy erosion, I think he's open to criticism on this basis, even if he is not guilty of coercion. If it were some random person who was just developing a product I would agree with you to leave well enough alone, but I think the lobbying angle is enough to clear the bar of "theses actions should be publicly scrutinized".
        • JoeSmithson 7y ago
          What anti-privacy lobbying are you referencing?
          • 7y ago
• MichaelMoser123 7y ago
  > Eric Schmidt was the anti-privacy leader who dismissed privacy concerns. Well, he did understand how to turn the customers data into a product. He is one of the key persons who formed the whole data economy thing; that's quite a big deal - he formulated the way of making money for the 21st century. Once upon a time money was in producing stuff, now stuff and people are so much varied so that the main problem is that of pushing adds. This is the way that this age got the tool to keep it going... Of course the system has its bugs that can be called 'features'
  • Barrin92 7y ago
    >Once upon a time money was in producing stuff, now stuff and people are so much varied so that the main problem is that of pushing adds No, this is a very misleading comparison. Schmidt (and others) have found a way to commodify your personal information and how to transfer ownership of your data, and as such wealth, from you to Google. They're not the 21st equivalent of Henry Ford, they haven't unleashed new modes of production that suddenly unleash growth and drive down prices of material goods and services, they've figured out a way to turn attention into a mechanism to redistribute money upwards.
    • MichaelMoser123 7y ago
      pushing adds is a service that means it is a 'product' that advertisers are buying. Of course google is also buying our data: its the price for using free products such as search, android and gmail; google is then reselling this data; this takes place either by reselling it directly or by using it as part of their service .
      • drb91 7y ago
        Terms of service should not imply consent to a transaction: that is inherently a dishonest and exploitative method of running a business. Also, the idea of paying to use a free service is an oxymoron. Google is not and has never been free, it is ad supported, and it has ruined the internet by normalizing this behavior.
      • 7y ago
• bitL 7y ago
  Long before Eric, the SUN's CEO (Eric's previous employer) made a remark that privacy is an illusion and we need to get over it: https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/ This stuff was going on for a long time, FAANG just perfected it.
  • neotek 7y ago
    FANG maybe; Apple seems pretty keen on maintaining privacy as one of their primary differentiators.
  • sjg007 7y ago
    There's privacy between people but not between people and corporation or people and the government.
• mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  Didn’t he also scheme with Jobs and others not to poach employees from each other and faced class action lawsuit?
• etaioinshrdlu 7y ago
  People can have nuanced views and don't always mean everything they say 100%.
• throwaway6497 7y ago
  I will always remember him as the guy who would willingly collude with other mentees of Bill Campbell to not hire engineers from each others companies. Willingly trying to keep the salaries of engineers low is pure evil. They even tried to rope-in Zuckerberg into this gentleman's agreement. Zuck asked them to buzz off. When Eric is involved in shady practices like these, how do all other leaders on twitterverse who are singing his praises justify their pandering. I wonder if Eric would have survived now as a Google CEO. Half the company would walk out today, if they came to know Sundar is in bed with his other CEO buddies and has agreements not to poach employees from each other's companies.
  • Lucadg 7y ago
    Sounds like the "let's do evil" guy
    • crististm 7y ago
      He actually mocked an early engineer who voiced the "this is evil" mantra in a meeting after he joined Google. If not right then, definitely in a TV interview a few years later.
  • rapsey 7y ago
    Sorry but this is just hopelessly naive and one sided. Sillicon valley is more then google and apple, and if the competition is only between them with regards to salary then those engineers have nothing to complain about.
    • Haga 7y ago
      Yes, those quary workers should stop all that ranting. What have the Roman's not ever done for us.
    • lsc 7y ago
      >Sillicon valley is more then google and apple It is... but the top tier companies pay dramatically more than the next tier down. Like, we're talking 30-50% difference once you count total comp. (it's interesting, base salary is somewhat comparable... but stock and bonus are a big part of comp if you work at a FAANG company, and those... largely don't exist at third-tier companies.) The top-tier employers also do a lot to bring up salary pressure on the lower tiers; if the FAANG companies didn't pay so much, the most desirable people wouldn't leave the lower paying companies, wouldn't make room for someone less desirable, etc... That's how I got my start; I didn't go to college, but I did work my way up through those smaller companies, into larger companies that paid better and better.
• StreamBright 7y ago
  But the internet forgets. I don't understand how could anybody cheer to him or the FB CEO. These guys are the menace of our age.
• ErotemeObelus 7y ago
  Because every CEO is saying "it's okay that privacy is gone! It's no big deal!" I know that one day I'm suddenly going to feel the consequences of their policies and learn by experience that privacy was a big deal after all.