10 ms·

I'd like Eric Schmidt to publicly release his search history, both his work-related and private searches.

silentobserver 17y ago
Eric Schmidt has never had anything to hide, like cheating on his wife... Oh wait... All of these guys are hypocrites; when will you guys realize this? Oh, and that gas-guzzling 767 with the private shower is being used to "create good in places like Africa" (or whatever they had said), right?
- tedunangst 17y ago
  Did Eric Schmidt really do a Google search for "Did I cheat on my wife?"?
  - gaius 17y ago
    I bet he used Google to find hotels for having liasons in... Wait, Eric, why were you looking for a room in Las Vegas last week, you told me you were in New York?
dabent 17y ago
I don't think he'd like that at all. The article links to a story about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year after they used Google search to find details about Schmidt: http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/ http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/ Really, all this "privacy" nonsense is for the little people, not important folk like Eric Schmidt, anyway.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year To be clear, this is a story about Google's press representatives not speaking to CNET reporters -- when I first read it, I thought you meant that Google blocked CNET's IP address. Still a very petty response.
kiujhygfvgbn 17y ago
At least he is telling you that all your searches are forwarded to the authorities under the patriot act. The cell phone companies haven't got round to warning you that your phone's location is given to the police 8million times.
- roc 17y ago
  Sprint did.
  - kiujhygfvgbn 17y ago
    Not in advance!
tc 17y ago
What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice? Perhaps he is saying, "The fact of the matter is that we're required to retain and release lots of information. If you don't want that information being passed around, you probably shouldn't give it to us. Sorry, we do the best we can under the circumstances." "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be [googling] it in the first place."
- pierrefar 17y ago
  Who's requiring them to retain anything? For 180 days? And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the data for other privacy-invading targeting.
  - mrduncan 17y ago
    My wild speculation would be that (related to tc's above) it's a mutual "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" with the DOJ. I'd be surprised if there weren't regulations in place which required them to keep the data for that long.
  - iterationx 17y ago
    Patriot Act compliance see the Yahoo leak from cryptomeme http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
  - rsingel 17y ago
    Actually there's no law in the U.S. about data retention (E.U. has one) but companies keep the data for their own engineering and marketing purposes AND to stay in good graces of authorities. (The Patriot Act and ECPA, among other laws, specify what data has to be turned over with a lawful request, but they don't require any entity to actually have that info.)
- tc 17y ago
  It could also, of course, be simple uncritical rationalization. If staying in business and out of the cross-hairs of the DoJ's anti-trust division means you have to play ball with some data retention "requests," then you're probably going to rationalize a million tenuously logical reasons why that's the right thing to do.
marltod 17y ago
He might not have any, The same way people who work at sausage factories don't eat sausage. His searches could be anonymous, encrypted and routed through foreign gateways.
txxxxd 17y ago
When I use my credit card online I accept the fact that it may be exposed. That doesn't mean I should have to publicly release my credit card number though does it? I think a lot of people are having a knee-jerk reaction thinking that this guy is giving moral advice. What I see here is just a statement of fact: if you don't want something to ever possibly be known about you, don't put in online. Readers of this site should know better than the general public that there is always a risk of data getting into the wrong hands. Even if you trust the host. Even if you encrypted the data. etc.

Eric Schmidt has never had anything to hide, like cheating on his wife... Oh wait... All of these guys are hypocrites; when will you guys realize this? Oh, and that gas-guzzling 767 with the private shower is being used to "create good in places like Africa" (or whatever they had said), right?

tedunangst 17y ago
Did Eric Schmidt really do a Google search for "Did I cheat on my wife?"?
- gaius 17y ago
  I bet he used Google to find hotels for having liasons in... Wait, Eric, why were you looking for a room in Las Vegas last week, you told me you were in New York?

dabent 17y ago

I don't think he'd like that at all. The article links to a story about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year after they used Google search to find details about Schmidt: http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/ http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/ Really, all this "privacy" nonsense is for the little people, not important folk like Eric Schmidt, anyway.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year To be clear, this is a story about Google's press representatives not speaking to CNET reporters -- when I first read it, I thought you meant that Google blocked CNET's IP address. Still a very petty response.

kiujhygfvgbn 17y ago

At least he is telling you that all your searches are forwarded to the authorities under the patriot act. The cell phone companies haven't got round to warning you that your phone's location is given to the police 8million times.

roc 17y ago
Sprint did.
- kiujhygfvgbn 17y ago
  Not in advance!

tc 17y ago

What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice? Perhaps he is saying, "The fact of the matter is that we're required to retain and release lots of information. If you don't want that information being passed around, you probably shouldn't give it to us. Sorry, we do the best we can under the circumstances." "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be [googling] it in the first place."

pierrefar 17y ago
Who's requiring them to retain anything? For 180 days? And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the data for other privacy-invading targeting.
- mrduncan 17y ago
  My wild speculation would be that (related to tc's above) it's a mutual "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" with the DOJ. I'd be surprised if there weren't regulations in place which required them to keep the data for that long.
- iterationx 17y ago
  Patriot Act compliance see the Yahoo leak from cryptomeme http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
- rsingel 17y ago
  Actually there's no law in the U.S. about data retention (E.U. has one) but companies keep the data for their own engineering and marketing purposes AND to stay in good graces of authorities. (The Patriot Act and ECPA, among other laws, specify what data has to be turned over with a lawful request, but they don't require any entity to actually have that info.)
tc 17y ago
It could also, of course, be simple uncritical rationalization. If staying in business and out of the cross-hairs of the DoJ's anti-trust division means you have to play ball with some data retention "requests," then you're probably going to rationalize a million tenuously logical reasons why that's the right thing to do.

marltod 17y ago

He might not have any, The same way people who work at sausage factories don't eat sausage. His searches could be anonymous, encrypted and routed through foreign gateways.

txxxxd 17y ago

When I use my credit card online I accept the fact that it may be exposed. That doesn't mean I should have to publicly release my credit card number though does it? I think a lot of people are having a knee-jerk reaction thinking that this guy is giving moral advice. What I see here is just a statement of fact: if you don't want something to ever possibly be known about you, don't put in online. Readers of this site should know better than the general public that there is always a risk of data getting into the wrong hands. Even if you trust the host. Even if you encrypted the data. etc.