4 ms·
It takes effort to parse Schmidt since everything he says has a self serving agenda. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as CEO [corrective edit: as Exe
by droithomme 14y ago
It takes effort to parse Schmidt since everything he says has a self serving agenda. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as CEO [corrective edit: as Executive Chairman] part of his job is to promote the profitable interests of the corporation he heads.)
His stated agenda is to have real id mandated on the internet and eliminate anonymity. This benefits him which enables Google to make more money selling targeted ads where the target is known and identification is reliable, as well as reliably tracking people's private and personal interests and preferences, which is very valuable information which those in marketing, insurance claims, and security will all pay good money to have access to. It is an asset which can be sold and profited from, of interest to his business.
One problem that has been brought up with having mandated identification on the internet, the "internet drivers license" proposal, is that it can ruin kids lives since they may say a lot of dumb things.
So Schmidt heads this off with a proposal to have a global delete protocol, likely mandated by law that it be respected by various sites.
For delete to work though with a single button press, real id is necessity. No problem, everyone will have to have their net drivers license, all net accesses, views and posts tied into unique personal identifier such as social insurance numbers, so it is a simple matter to allow for a one-time delete of all records associated with a given globally unique personal identifier upon receiving a request from a central authority, or required daily checking of a central delete authority.
Of course the current solution, of using anonymous aliases, makes a delete button unnecessary. The delete button is only necessary in a world where anonymity is not permitted. It is useful to understand this is an unspoken premise of his proposal.
- wmf 14y agoBTW, he hasn't been CEO for two years.
- greiskul 14y agoJust nitpicking, but Eric Schmidt is not the CEO of Google anymore. He stepped down on 2011, and was replaced by Larry Page. He is the Executive Chairman of Google though.
- rhizome 14y agoIn other words, he doesn't want bureacracy to encroach on Google, but he would LOVE for bureaucracy to depend on Google by providing fundamental privacy functions for the Internet. Content control is not to far from this logic, btw, though I'm not sure it qualifies as a slippery slope. UPDATE: On further thought, I wonder if this is just textbook Rent-seeking or Regulatory Capture (or some hybrid). If so, my apologies for puffery!
- hdevalence 14y agoI agree with the bulk of your criticism, but this made me think a little: > Of course the current solution, of using anonymous aliases, makes a delete button unnecessary. I'm not sure it does, at least in practice. People can and will leak information between their aliases, unless they are extremely careful to maintain separation, and if we're operating in a context where everything is recorded, and only the anonymity of the alias attached to that content protects it, then a single leak of information screws things up permanently, at least from the point of view of someone who has a significant interest in having surveillance over (and hence power over) that person. I don't think that it's reasonable to expect everyone, to maintain perfect opsec starting from the first time they turn on their computer -- it's not only unreasonable to demand it, or to think that it's possible, but it's also incredibly destructive psychologically. So under a system where there is some anonymity, but no deletion, there's still the problem of this sort of information being available. To me, the problem seems to be that "anonymous" is a word sort of like "security", in the sense that it doesn't really have meaning without some (perhaps implicitly) attached idea of "to whom". When we say that some information is posted anonymously, do we mean anonymous to someone who does a casual web search, to someone who spends a few hours looking at various sources of information, to an army of internet vigilantes (c.f. reddit and the Boston bombings, or 4chan's harassment), to law enforcement, or to three letter agencies? And is it even possible to post anything substantial anonymously, or will network analysis, or the content itself (eg. writing identification) reveal the author to an adversary? > The delete button is only necessary in a world where anonymity is not permitted. It is useful to understand this is an unspoken premise of his proposal. When the NSA is building a yottabyte-scale data centre in Utah, and carries out data-collection programs beyond the scale of imagination, don't we already live in such a world? Moreover, is it even possible to have a world in which anonymity exists, or does the increase in sophistication of surveillance tools make it impossible? (Note, of course, that Schmidt's proposal doesn't solve this problem at all, because it presumes that there is one authority with the power to enforce deletion orders, and that that authority is trustworthy. Neither of those conditions can be met.)
- gcb0 14y agohaving a delete button is a crackpipe dream. be realistic. having an alias is not perfect, of course. but it's time proven and the best trade off. Heck, name one writer trhu history that didn't start with a pen-name.
- w1ntermute 14y agoI think you're overestimating how serious he's being every time he kicks up a Schmidtstorm with his latest comments.
- cortesoft 14y agoThis might work for written content (such as forum posts), but it certainly won't help for photos or videos, which are most like more damaging than some forum rant. You can be very careful with your anonymity online, but you can't stop your friends from posting pictures of you doing stupid shit.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]