5 ms·

Eric Schmidt is an American business leader. He has the same First Amendment rights as anybody else. He is obligated to follow the law, but he is not obligated

Eric Schmidt is an American business leader. He has the same First Amendment rights as anybody else. He is obligated to follow the law, but he is not obligated to do so without complaint, let alone make excuses for his activities and those of his government. Schmidt could have said "We understand that Google collects a lot of data; we have privacy policies that protect that data and we fire anyone who abuses them. We take data privacy very seriously. But we're aware that people are unhappy that various governments can compel us to disclose data. We believe that this is wrong. We believe that a world where anonymous government employees can see anything you do is a dangerous world. We believe in the power of data, but we want to encourage society to take steps to prevent this kind of abuse." But he didn't, of course. Instead he told us that the innocent have nothing to hide. it's unreasonable to expect [Google] to martyr themselves for our sakes "Martyr", indeed. That is no mere hypothetical. Read this: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1910.html http://www.signandsight.com/features/1910.html This is Herta Mueller, formerly of Romania, describing her life in the Ceausescu regime. There you could, indeed, face harsh reprisals, ranging all the way up to martyrdom, for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect those people -- Mueller's friends, stuck in a scary totalitarian regime -- to stick up for their principles and resist the state's order to inform on their friends. (Though many did resist, and paid the price for it.) But Google? Google isn't even human. It has no fingernails to pull out. It is an American corporation, whose leaders live in America, with enough legal budget to sue God himself. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the company's leader to use some of that power to lobby for good, instead of looking sheepishly at his feet, kicking the dust, and claiming that he's only following orders.

txxxxd 17y ago
"But he didn't, of course. Instead he told us that the innocent have nothing to hide." Please keep in mind you're commenting about a snippet of a televised interview. For all you know Eric Schmidt agrees with everything you wrote above. (He may have even said something along these lines and it was edited out.) He certainly did not say or even imply "the innocent have nothing to hide."
- benatkin 17y ago
  He's quoting a snippet of the interview. I have no reason to believe he hasn't read or watched more of the interview. If he has, then he's commenting on more than just that snippet. What's more, the interview is available to you. Why not look at it (if you haven't already) and see if that part of the interview is taken out of context, and explain why it's taken out of context, if you think it is? Also, if it seems it might have been taken out of context, people should rail on what he said anyway, so he has a chance to defend himself. If he doesn't defend himself, there's a pretty good chance he meant it. It seems like Google might be coming out of the closet as a regular megacorp, just like Apple did a few years ago when it started using DRM, and again a couple of years ago when it made a deal with AT&T, and finally put away any question of them being an exception to the rule when it came out with its app store.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    I don't understand why only a megacorp would use DRM. Imagine yourselves in the shoes of a content owner: Congress has decided you have certain rights to control the distribution of your content, using DRM. Some company comes along and decides those rights are invalid and immoral. Would you want to do business with them, or with a competitor who allows you to exercise the full rights given to you by law?
    - benatkin 17y ago
      If they're going to any length to get business, even if it pisses off they're staunchest fans, they're acting like a megacorp. I'm not arguing for them sacrificing their customer base. I'm arguing for us not letting companies like Apple and Google get away with looking like the good guys when they're just the profit-driven guys like everyone else. Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto makes me sick, just like the squeaky-clean reputation Steve Jobs once had.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        But what is more evil - refusing to honor the rights from content owners that Congress has passed laws protecting, or enforcing some content consumer right you think you have?
ErrantX 17y ago
Schmidt could have said I want to live in a world where people have to make dry, quantified, lawyer-pleasing statements all the time just to make sure there is no speculation a lot less than I want to live in a world where Google may hold data about me which the US government can demand. :)

txxxxd 17y ago

"But he didn't, of course. Instead he told us that the innocent have nothing to hide." Please keep in mind you're commenting about a snippet of a televised interview. For all you know Eric Schmidt agrees with everything you wrote above. (He may have even said something along these lines and it was edited out.) He certainly did not say or even imply "the innocent have nothing to hide."

benatkin 17y ago
He's quoting a snippet of the interview. I have no reason to believe he hasn't read or watched more of the interview. If he has, then he's commenting on more than just that snippet. What's more, the interview is available to you. Why not look at it (if you haven't already) and see if that part of the interview is taken out of context, and explain why it's taken out of context, if you think it is? Also, if it seems it might have been taken out of context, people should rail on what he said anyway, so he has a chance to defend himself. If he doesn't defend himself, there's a pretty good chance he meant it. It seems like Google might be coming out of the closet as a regular megacorp, just like Apple did a few years ago when it started using DRM, and again a couple of years ago when it made a deal with AT&T, and finally put away any question of them being an exception to the rule when it came out with its app store.
- andreyf 17y ago
  I don't understand why only a megacorp would use DRM. Imagine yourselves in the shoes of a content owner: Congress has decided you have certain rights to control the distribution of your content, using DRM. Some company comes along and decides those rights are invalid and immoral. Would you want to do business with them, or with a competitor who allows you to exercise the full rights given to you by law?
  - benatkin 17y ago
    If they're going to any length to get business, even if it pisses off they're staunchest fans, they're acting like a megacorp. I'm not arguing for them sacrificing their customer base. I'm arguing for us not letting companies like Apple and Google get away with looking like the good guys when they're just the profit-driven guys like everyone else. Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto makes me sick, just like the squeaky-clean reputation Steve Jobs once had.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      But what is more evil - refusing to honor the rights from content owners that Congress has passed laws protecting, or enforcing some content consumer right you think you have?

ErrantX 17y ago

Schmidt could have said I want to live in a world where people have to make dry, quantified, lawyer-pleasing statements all the time just to make sure there is no speculation a lot less than I want to live in a world where Google may hold data about me which the US government can demand. :)