4 ms·

Nobody is denying anyone's legal right to privacy. Eric Schmidt was setting expectations about it, when he made that statement. You would have known if gawker d

Nobody is denying anyone's legal right to privacy. Eric Schmidt was setting expectations about it, when he made that statement. You would have known if gawker didn't (1) Made their own value judgement. (private => filth) and equate privacy to security (2) Quoted the entire statement, instead of the part that fits the story that they want to tell. In case you have't read it a hundred times before, he continues to say "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 information could be made available to the authorities."

cyphax 13y ago
Thanks for pointing out possible nuances. Unfortunately: (1) I searched for this exact phrase (using Google :P) hoping to find the nuance to prove me wrong. I found it on Wikipedia [1] as well as on The Huffington Post [2], the latter actually containing the video in which he says these things. The problem is this: adding "but if you really need that kind of privacy, [you're screwed]" doesn't change the meaning of "if you have something to hide, you must've done something you shouldn't be doing" and that is still utterly, UTTERLY narrow minded. (2) The terrible, terrible naive argument is made a lot today by all kinds of people (even by my own father, who is generally a huge role model for me), making my criticism of it, unfortunately, quite relevant towards today's spying of the US government. Even if Schmidt HAD added nuance to take away my criticism of what he said -- which he either didn't, or I haven't found it --, it would've stood as a more general criticism. I'm not convinced that Schmidt doesn't still stand by what he said back then, but it can't be too hard for him to make a statement if he feels his views have been improperly represented by the media. If he has, I would love to know about it. As it stands right now, I just cannot have private communication through any service which Google provides, and that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-priva...
- acqq 13y ago
  that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion. You have to be anyway, you are responsible for your actions and every action of everybody can result in something. The problem is what we as society want to be acceptable results, that is, where we as society want to draw the line.

cyphax 13y ago

Thanks for pointing out possible nuances. Unfortunately: (1) I searched for this exact phrase (using Google :P) hoping to find the nuance to prove me wrong. I found it on Wikipedia [1] as well as on The Huffington Post [2], the latter actually containing the video in which he says these things. The problem is this: adding "but if you really need that kind of privacy, [you're screwed]" doesn't change the meaning of "if you have something to hide, you must've done something you shouldn't be doing" and that is still utterly, UTTERLY narrow minded. (2) The terrible, terrible naive argument is made a lot today by all kinds of people (even by my own father, who is generally a huge role model for me), making my criticism of it, unfortunately, quite relevant towards today's spying of the US government. Even if Schmidt HAD added nuance to take away my criticism of what he said -- which he either didn't, or I haven't found it --, it would've stood as a more general criticism. I'm not convinced that Schmidt doesn't still stand by what he said back then, but it can't be too hard for him to make a statement if he feels his views have been improperly represented by the media. If he has, I would love to know about it. As it stands right now, I just cannot have private communication through any service which Google provides, and that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-priva...

acqq 13y ago
that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion. You have to be anyway, you are responsible for your actions and every action of everybody can result in something. The problem is what we as society want to be acceptable results, that is, where we as society want to draw the line.