4 ms·

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

by 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. :)
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Did he say that? The only reference I can find to that comes from a PC World story[1], which appears to not only be a paraphrase (presumably of the original quote), but it links to an article about keeping your facebook profile cleaned up for people searching for dirt on you and doesn't quote Schmidt or even mention him. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/252514/hey_employers_my_facebook_password_is_none_of_your_business.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/252514/hey_employers_my_faceb...
- zipfle 13y ago
  Are you required to keep search logs? Are you required to correlate searches with users? It seems like it's the choice to retain and analyze those that puts you in the position of having to turn them over. DDG doesn't do that. It's a participant in the same legal system.
- pseut 13y ago
  You misread me. I said the first sentence doesn't add to or change the meaning of the second. You're saying the second does change the first. If he wanted to make your point unambiguously, he could/should have left off the first sentence.
DannyBee 13y ago
Yes, he could have, without changing the substance, but it's a misrepresentation because the context makes pretty clear to a lot of folks in a way the original does, and they removed that context. The oft attempted interpretation of the original quote is that Eric doesn't believe anything should be private online, and that anyone who wants privacy must be doing bad things. As the context makes clear, his point was more that for better or worse, things generally aren't private online, and even if they wanted it to be, plenty of retention is legally required.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  I've read the quote several times and while it does say that things generally aren't private online it also clearly suggests that you shouldn't be doing things that you don't want other people to find out about which itself suggests that anyone wanting privacy is doing "bad" things.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    No, it doesn't suggest they are good or bad at all, just that people will find out about them anyway.
    - pseut 13y ago
      The first part implies that they're bad, even with the additional context. If there are other quotes that make your point cleanly, I think they'd be more convincing evidence.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        Again, I personally can't see how you can read this implication into it, particularly without any tone or other information. But you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
  - jholman 13y ago
    It may suggest TO YOU that "anyone wanting privacy is doing bad things", but that is not what was said, and it is not what was implied. Maybe you're projecting? Let's try a hypothetical parallel. "If you really don't want to go to jail, maybe you shouldn't be smoking pot in front of American cops." See how in my statement, there's no value judgement about smoking pot, and there's no value judgement about wanting to stay out of jail, there's just an observation about the realities of the world. This is NOT the same as "only bad people want to stay out of jail", nor "only bad people smoke pot", NOR EVEN "only bad people want to smoke pot and also stay out of jail". It's just "people who want to smoke pot and stay out of jail may be at the mercy of forces beyond their control." I have no idea what Eric actually thinks. Maybe he does actually think that privacy should be outlawed or some other hilariously socially-unacceptable belief. But in the much-quoted quote, he said nothing of the kind. Protestations to the contrary are simply "I want to believe he's evil" paranoia. Disclaimer: Googler

by pseut 13y ago

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. :)
- magicalist 13y ago
  Did he say that? The only reference I can find to that comes from a PC World story[1], which appears to not only be a paraphrase (presumably of the original quote), but it links to an article about keeping your facebook profile cleaned up for people searching for dirt on you and doesn't quote Schmidt or even mention him. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/252514/hey_employers_my_facebook_password_is_none_of_your_business.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/252514/hey_employers_my_faceb...
zipfle 13y ago
Are you required to keep search logs? Are you required to correlate searches with users? It seems like it's the choice to retain and analyze those that puts you in the position of having to turn them over. DDG doesn't do that. It's a participant in the same legal system.
pseut 13y ago
You misread me. I said the first sentence doesn't add to or change the meaning of the second. You're saying the second does change the first. If he wanted to make your point unambiguously, he could/should have left off the first sentence.

DannyBee 13y ago

Yes, he could have, without changing the substance, but it's a misrepresentation because the context makes pretty clear to a lot of folks in a way the original does, and they removed that context. The oft attempted interpretation of the original quote is that Eric doesn't believe anything should be private online, and that anyone who wants privacy must be doing bad things. As the context makes clear, his point was more that for better or worse, things generally aren't private online, and even if they wanted it to be, plenty of retention is legally required.

foobarqux 13y ago
I've read the quote several times and while it does say that things generally aren't private online it also clearly suggests that you shouldn't be doing things that you don't want other people to find out about which itself suggests that anyone wanting privacy is doing "bad" things.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  No, it doesn't suggest they are good or bad at all, just that people will find out about them anyway.
  - pseut 13y ago
    The first part implies that they're bad, even with the additional context. If there are other quotes that make your point cleanly, I think they'd be more convincing evidence.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      Again, I personally can't see how you can read this implication into it, particularly without any tone or other information. But you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
- jholman 13y ago
  It may suggest TO YOU that "anyone wanting privacy is doing bad things", but that is not what was said, and it is not what was implied. Maybe you're projecting? Let's try a hypothetical parallel. "If you really don't want to go to jail, maybe you shouldn't be smoking pot in front of American cops." See how in my statement, there's no value judgement about smoking pot, and there's no value judgement about wanting to stay out of jail, there's just an observation about the realities of the world. This is NOT the same as "only bad people want to stay out of jail", nor "only bad people smoke pot", NOR EVEN "only bad people want to smoke pot and also stay out of jail". It's just "people who want to smoke pot and stay out of jail may be at the mercy of forces beyond their control." I have no idea what Eric actually thinks. Maybe he does actually think that privacy should be outlawed or some other hilariously socially-unacceptable belief. But in the much-quoted quote, he said nothing of the kind. Protestations to the contrary are simply "I want to believe he's evil" paranoia. Disclaimer: Googler