5 ms·

I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data becaus

by Udo 14y ago

I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders. The complication here is non-obvious but real: Google has been pushing a hard link between online and offline personas to the point of absurdity sometimes. They are in a unique position to profit from a law that requires this kind of link. Compare that to, say, HN or even very small websites where no such policy exists and no such policy would even be realistically enforceable. How could HN verify the authenticity of a deletion order? I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here. They are in a great position to leverage their ToS in a way that would effectively outlaw smaller competitors. He is obviously not pushing a technological idea here, so it follows he must be lobbying for a legislative one.

eurleif 14y ago
Eric Schmidt also wants to ban consumer drones[1]. When he said that, I couldn't help but wonder if it had something to do with protecting Street View from competition. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-google-eric-schmidt http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-goog...
- gcb0 14y ago
  yep. it's the same reason amazon now is in favor of internet sales tax.
swalsh 14y ago
"I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders." If you're careful about the scope of whats protected, its maybe not such a bad thing. I'm open to a limited amount of oversight if it means I'll have a more protected experience on the web. As much as I love the freedom the web provides, It's also a bit of a dangerous place where it can be hard to tell who you can trust. As techies its pretty easy for us to know who to trust and who we cant. But your mother probably can't. Additionally, it opens up the possibility for opportunities too. Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. If we can use laws to build up walls, we can also invent laws that break down other artificial walls.
- eurleif 14y ago
  >Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. Regulation leads to more regulation, and you're calling that a good thing? No thanks. Walled gardens suck, but I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable.
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable. And I'll take the government anytime. Because the government represents the will of the people (and if not, it's a malfunctioning government) whereas some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. If the government doesn't represent the will of the people (e.g because large corporations buy their own laws), then I'd rather fight to change THAT, than try to find solace in a walled garden (ie one of those very corporations).
    - eurleif 14y ago
      >some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. It's also something people voluntarily choose to use. How about you delete your Facebook account if you don't like their business practices?
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      Because the government represents the will of the people Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. "The people" is just a label applied to many individuals, all of whom most certainly do not have the same desires or wishes as far as what government should or shouldn't do. And even if this unicorn of "the will of the people" did exist, we're not likely to achieve a government that reflects it, at least not as long as we vote and elect representatives anything like the way we currently know. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
OGinparadise 14y ago
>>I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here. Maybe they are (I don't buy it either) but Google has lost the right to get the benefit of the doubt, at last from me. Now on topic, I understand the first amendment and public's right to know but people also make mistakes and at some point deserve a fresh start (criminal record expunge, bad news hidden after x years, right to file bankruptcy etc.) Not only is it the right thing to do morally, IMO, it's also great for the economy, eventually we all will do something embarrassing or bad. For how long do we have to suffer? If I can't get a decent job based on my qualifications because of a marijuana /underage alcohol conviction 12 years ago, how is that good for my children and eventually the state /country?

by Udo 14y ago

eurleif 14y ago

Eric Schmidt also wants to ban consumer drones[1]. When he said that, I couldn't help but wonder if it had something to do with protecting Street View from competition. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-google-eric-schmidt http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-goog...

gcb0 14y ago
yep. it's the same reason amazon now is in favor of internet sales tax.

swalsh 14y ago

"I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders." If you're careful about the scope of whats protected, its maybe not such a bad thing. I'm open to a limited amount of oversight if it means I'll have a more protected experience on the web. As much as I love the freedom the web provides, It's also a bit of a dangerous place where it can be hard to tell who you can trust. As techies its pretty easy for us to know who to trust and who we cant. But your mother probably can't. Additionally, it opens up the possibility for opportunities too. Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. If we can use laws to build up walls, we can also invent laws that break down other artificial walls.

eurleif 14y ago
>Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. Regulation leads to more regulation, and you're calling that a good thing? No thanks. Walled gardens suck, but I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable. And I'll take the government anytime. Because the government represents the will of the people (and if not, it's a malfunctioning government) whereas some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. If the government doesn't represent the will of the people (e.g because large corporations buy their own laws), then I'd rather fight to change THAT, than try to find solace in a walled garden (ie one of those very corporations).
  - eurleif 14y ago
    >some company's walled garden is an arbitrary private interest by definition. It's also something people voluntarily choose to use. How about you delete your Facebook account if you don't like their business practices?
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Because the government represents the will of the people Not it doesn't, and it can't, because there is no such thing as "the will of the people". And that's because you can't meaningfully talk about "the people" as one cohesive, homogenous collective with one common will. "The people" is just a label applied to many individuals, all of whom most certainly do not have the same desires or wishes as far as what government should or shouldn't do. And even if this unicorn of "the will of the people" did exist, we're not likely to achieve a government that reflects it, at least not as long as we vote and elect representatives anything like the way we currently know. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

OGinparadise 14y ago

>>I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here. Maybe they are (I don't buy it either) but Google has lost the right to get the benefit of the doubt, at last from me. Now on topic, I understand the first amendment and public's right to know but people also make mistakes and at some point deserve a fresh start (criminal record expunge, bad news hidden after x years, right to file bankruptcy etc.) Not only is it the right thing to do morally, IMO, it's also great for the economy, eventually we all will do something embarrassing or bad. For how long do we have to suffer? If I can't get a decent job based on my qualifications because of a marijuana /underage alcohol conviction 12 years ago, how is that good for my children and eventually the state /country?