5 ms·

I am never in full agreement with Julian Assange, but Google has in recent years, shown their disapproval of privacy. Eric Schmidt's 'if you have nothing to hi

by Svip 13y ago

I am never in full agreement with Julian Assange, but Google has in recent years, shown their disapproval of privacy. Eric Schmidt's 'if you have nothing to hide' ideal expresses quite clearly - to me - the fundamental problem in his - and by extension, Google's - view on data and users. But I must confess, that Julian Assange seem to be rather well spoken. And language wise - at least - it was a rather joy to read. Seemingly unlike the book he was reviewing.

cletus 13y ago
This particular misconception of Eric's words really annoys me because it's blatant misrepresentation. What's more, the press (who area always looking to create controversy in the interests of page views), only mentions half the quote. Full quote [1]: > I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. 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 it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities Google is subject to the laws where it operates. Just this week a judge compelled Google to comply with warrantless searches (ie National Security Letters) [2] Any sane person should. For anything you do online you should ask yourself this "what would your reaction be if this were made public?" The gist of Eric's quote is that what you may consider "private" just isn't due to changing company policies (eg Facebook's continued privacy snafus), bugs, the courts and the legislature. There is a good lesson in this. Just go to bing.com/social and search for "cheat exam" or similarly embarrassing terms to see why treating the Internet as public is a very good idea. Disclaimer: I am a Google engineer but the views expressed are my own and don't represent my employer. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy [2]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-google-to-comply-with-fbis-secret-nsl-demands/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-g...
- pseut 13y ago
  I don't see how it's a misrepresentation. Schmidt could have left out, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" without changing the substance of the rest of the message. Has he issued a clarification elsewhere that contradicts the parent's interpretation? He could, easily.
  - mayanksinghal 13y ago
    > changing the substance of the rest of the message It most definitely changes the substance. From Google being the perpetuator of the said privacy problem, it becomes a participant that is legally bound to participate by YOUR legal system. Disclaimer: Googler.
    - ianstormtaylor 13y ago
      And what about the quote two paragraphs down where in 2012, after knowing about how the previous sentence was interpreted, he again said, "if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear"?
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        My recollection of this is that he was clearly joking at the time, but you are talking about a guy who gives the same speeches and talks hundreds of times a year, and it only takes one time for someone to take stuff out of context and present it badly. I think if you met Eric you'd realize he's just another hacker who ended up becoming a CEO. If he was posting here, he would be indistinguishable from most people in terms of his views, concerns, etc.
        pseut 13y ago
        That's fine, and it may very well be the case. But I don't think that the rest of the quotation is so profoundly different that just posting the first sentence misrepresents the quote. It sounds like you're saying that the first part of the quotation doesn't accurately describe Schmidt's views on privacy. I don't know him, but, sure, most people have more than one sentence's worth of opinion on most issues. :)
- carlob 13y ago
  I tried [1], it's empty. What was your point anyway? [1] http://www.bing.com/social/search/updates?q=cheat+exam&go=&qs=ds&form=DTPSOH http://www.bing.com/social/search/updates?q=cheat+exam&g...
  - threeseed 13y ago
    I think the point was that you could directly search for people who were about to cheat on their exam. It's a pretty disingenuous example since you could do exactly the same thing on Google: "cheat exam" site:twitter.com or just directly on Twitter.
- shabble 13y ago
  Given the extent to which large multinationals can and do fiddle the accounting to end up recording profits in the most advantageous tax jurisdictions, it strikes me as somewhat significant that they don't do the same over privacy issues. Would it be technically or legally impossible to partition data between different privacy regimes? I realise there isn't a pressing consumer awareness of the need, and hence cost, but it does bother me a little that "my" cloud data is controlled by the nationality of the service, rather than my own. The matter is hugely complicated with CDNs, multinational infrastructure, etc, but there's some unease about ceding control to a legal system in which I have very no or little power to effect change. Especially one which has a taste of the power which modern data-vacuuming can provide, and seems unlikely to give it up.
  - LockeWatts 13y ago
    What you just described is why there is an increasing need for a global government. When companies span continents, they can pick and choose which laws in what countries suit them best, and the citizens of every other country the company inhabits are powerless to stop it.
    - contingencies 13y ago
      No. Global government is not a logical requirement to combat these behaviours. For example, enforced transparency and regulation with harsh punishments (perhaps based on agreements between nations) could effect the same, without the horrible risks of centralizing power.
      - LockeWatts 13y ago
        "(perhaps based on agreements between nations)" This is a massive and in my mind entirely unfeasible assumption.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  His words betray a naive understanding of how humans choose to harm one another. For example high school students have been beaten to death for being gay, or bullied into suicide for geeking out about online gaming. Martin Luther King was investigated and harassed by the FBI and CIA; now there is a statue of him on the National Mall. > If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. No. There are things that we all do that are moral, ok, and even legal, that can be used against us. Privacy violations enable that.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    The thing is, in context of the whole quote, this is all about illegal activity very specifically. The larger point was that Google isn't allowed to be a confidential friend of yours by law, even if it wanted to be. You think Schmidt isn't aware of MLK and the "it gets better" campaign? You can take any sentence out of context and make a person seem cruel and unthinking.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Look carefully at the whole quote. He treats the collection and retention of data by Google as a fixed reality that everyone needs to work around--despite the fact that he was Google's chief executive at the time and had the power to set or alter those policies. U.S. law does not require this collection or retention of data; federal access is a consequence of Google's policies, not a cause. I don't think Schmidt is cruel. I do think that like many ambitious people, he has a blind spot for conceptions of the world that conflict with his goals.
- Svip 13y ago
  Reading the full quote, it still seems to fulfil my original vision of his ideal. Sure, it is phrased less clearly, but if his intent is to describe a warning to people (which is totally commendable), then he should have phrased it as one. His 'maybe' describe a carelessness to the issue, as if he doesn't care. Although, I do have my own ideas about how much Google actually care about my privacy, hmm...

by Svip 13y ago

cletus 13y ago

This particular misconception of Eric's words really annoys me because it's blatant misrepresentation. What's more, the press (who area always looking to create controversy in the interests of page views), only mentions half the quote. Full quote [1]: > I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. 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 it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities Google is subject to the laws where it operates. Just this week a judge compelled Google to comply with warrantless searches (ie National Security Letters) [2] Any sane person should. For anything you do online you should ask yourself this "what would your reaction be if this were made public?" The gist of Eric's quote is that what you may consider "private" just isn't due to changing company policies (eg Facebook's continued privacy snafus), bugs, the courts and the legislature. There is a good lesson in this. Just go to bing.com/social and search for "cheat exam" or similarly embarrassing terms to see why treating the Internet as public is a very good idea. Disclaimer: I am a Google engineer but the views expressed are my own and don't represent my employer. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy [2]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-google-to-comply-with-fbis-secret-nsl-demands/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-g...

pseut 13y ago
I don't see how it's a misrepresentation. Schmidt could have left out, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" without changing the substance of the rest of the message. Has he issued a clarification elsewhere that contradicts the parent's interpretation? He could, easily.
- mayanksinghal 13y ago
  > changing the substance of the rest of the message It most definitely changes the substance. From Google being the perpetuator of the said privacy problem, it becomes a participant that is legally bound to participate by YOUR legal system. Disclaimer: Googler.
  - ianstormtaylor 13y ago
    And what about the quote two paragraphs down where in 2012, after knowing about how the previous sentence was interpreted, he again said, "if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear"?
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      My recollection of this is that he was clearly joking at the time, but you are talking about a guy who gives the same speeches and talks hundreds of times a year, and it only takes one time for someone to take stuff out of context and present it badly. I think if you met Eric you'd realize he's just another hacker who ended up becoming a CEO. If he was posting here, he would be indistinguishable from most people in terms of his views, concerns, etc.
      - pseut 13y ago
        That's fine, and it may very well be the case. But I don't think that the rest of the quotation is so profoundly different that just posting the first sentence misrepresents the quote. It sounds like you're saying that the first part of the quotation doesn't accurately describe Schmidt's views on privacy. I don't know him, but, sure, most people have more than one sentence's worth of opinion on most issues. :)
carlob 13y ago
I tried [1], it's empty. What was your point anyway? [1] http://www.bing.com/social/search/updates?q=cheat+exam&go=&qs=ds&form=DTPSOH http://www.bing.com/social/search/updates?q=cheat+exam&g...
- threeseed 13y ago
  I think the point was that you could directly search for people who were about to cheat on their exam. It's a pretty disingenuous example since you could do exactly the same thing on Google: "cheat exam" site:twitter.com or just directly on Twitter.
shabble 13y ago
Given the extent to which large multinationals can and do fiddle the accounting to end up recording profits in the most advantageous tax jurisdictions, it strikes me as somewhat significant that they don't do the same over privacy issues. Would it be technically or legally impossible to partition data between different privacy regimes? I realise there isn't a pressing consumer awareness of the need, and hence cost, but it does bother me a little that "my" cloud data is controlled by the nationality of the service, rather than my own. The matter is hugely complicated with CDNs, multinational infrastructure, etc, but there's some unease about ceding control to a legal system in which I have very no or little power to effect change. Especially one which has a taste of the power which modern data-vacuuming can provide, and seems unlikely to give it up.
- LockeWatts 13y ago
  What you just described is why there is an increasing need for a global government. When companies span continents, they can pick and choose which laws in what countries suit them best, and the citizens of every other country the company inhabits are powerless to stop it.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    No. Global government is not a logical requirement to combat these behaviours. For example, enforced transparency and regulation with harsh punishments (perhaps based on agreements between nations) could effect the same, without the horrible risks of centralizing power.
    - LockeWatts 13y ago
      "(perhaps based on agreements between nations)" This is a massive and in my mind entirely unfeasible assumption.
snowwrestler 13y ago
His words betray a naive understanding of how humans choose to harm one another. For example high school students have been beaten to death for being gay, or bullied into suicide for geeking out about online gaming. Martin Luther King was investigated and harassed by the FBI and CIA; now there is a statue of him on the National Mall. > If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. No. There are things that we all do that are moral, ok, and even legal, that can be used against us. Privacy violations enable that.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  The thing is, in context of the whole quote, this is all about illegal activity very specifically. The larger point was that Google isn't allowed to be a confidential friend of yours by law, even if it wanted to be. You think Schmidt isn't aware of MLK and the "it gets better" campaign? You can take any sentence out of context and make a person seem cruel and unthinking.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Look carefully at the whole quote. He treats the collection and retention of data by Google as a fixed reality that everyone needs to work around--despite the fact that he was Google's chief executive at the time and had the power to set or alter those policies. U.S. law does not require this collection or retention of data; federal access is a consequence of Google's policies, not a cause. I don't think Schmidt is cruel. I do think that like many ambitious people, he has a blind spot for conceptions of the world that conflict with his goals.
Svip 13y ago
Reading the full quote, it still seems to fulfil my original vision of his ideal. Sure, it is phrased less clearly, but if his intent is to describe a warning to people (which is totally commendable), then he should have phrased it as one. His 'maybe' describe a carelessness to the issue, as if he doesn't care. Although, I do have my own ideas about how much Google actually care about my privacy, hmm...