Google's Eric Schmidt has a stupid moment on privacy

[zridling]

First it was Mozilla exec Asa Dotzler taking a golf club to Google's head by recommending Firefox users switch to Bing as their search engine in response to privacy concerns with Google. Now the big dog, Bruce Schneier steps up to the tee.

Google's Eric Schmidt said:
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. 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 and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

Schneier's response, from 2006:
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

.......................................................
Total Recall all over again. Why do I feel like whatever can be used against me will be used against me online? (Usually by a corporation.)

[app103]

It's not just big corporations and the government we have to worry about. A rubber duck can steal your identity on facebook.

[40hz]

we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.[/i]

-zridling (December 11, 2009, 12:09 AM)

So too can the names of people in China who disagree with Chinese government policies.

Or who simply want to read unsanctioned world news coverage.

Google can be proud of it's record when it comes to acting both legally and morally.

[rxantos]

There is also a chance that something be morally right but not legal. And legal but not moral. And even legal and moral but subject to repercusion.

 For example what if you want to start a union in your workplace. You want other employees to know but you don't want management to know until you got the vote. Or what if a person is escaping Persecution from an unjust government. Like the jews on WW2 or the slaves of the past? Would you follow the law or your concience?  

Privacy is often the only tool against tyrants. And that is why they don't want you to have it.  

[Stoic Joker]

Privacy is often the only tool against tyrants. And that is why they don't want you to have it.

-rxantos (December 23, 2009, 07:25 AM)

Damn Straight! Privacy and personal freedoms are slowly being stripped away in favor of convenient (feel-good) legislation that will allegedly protect "us" (by locking us it smaller & smaller Gilded Cages...).

[OldElmerFudd]

It's not just big corporations and the government we have to worry about. A rubber duck can steal your identity on facebook.

-app103 (December 11, 2009, 03:11 AM)

I'm not a Facebooker or any of the social network users, but the ducky experiment is just plain surprising. How can presumably rational individuals give so much of themselves away? It makes me think the concept of personal privacy has been eroded beyond repair, even though I truly hope not.

[mwb1100]

[deleted - my whole post was basically in the original message that started the thread...]
 

[Paul Keith]

I didn't get the Total Recall reference. Can anyone explain?

[icekin]

My only 3 issues with Bing and Yahoo search (or any other search):

1) Its slow compared to Google 
2) The quality of the results is not as good.
3) There are no extensions for it. (e.g. Optimize Google for Firefox, or the numerous Greasemonkey scripts)


Otherwise, all the search engines pretty much offer the same experience.

[Tuxman]

1) Its slow compared to Google

-icekin (December 23, 2009, 07:46 PM)

Depends on how you measure it. 

2) The quality of the results is not as good.

-icekin (December 23, 2009, 07:46 PM)

I wouldn't actually call Google's search results "good". Clusty.com is "good" in terms of quality, Google, at least, in terms of quantity.

3) There are no extensions for it. (e.g. Optimize Google for Firefox, or the numerous Greasemonkey scripts)

-icekin (December 23, 2009, 07:46 PM)

now that is a criterion I had never thought about.

I strongly advise against using Google for anything. Privacy should be our most important property. I don't want a commercial company to know anything about my personality. (And I don't want it to drive around in cars, taking pictures of me without asking me for permission first.)

[zridling]

@Tuxman: "I don't want a commercial company to know anything about my personality. (And I don't want it to drive around in cars, taking pictures of me without asking me for permission first.)"
. . . . . . . . . .
Sadly, that world has not existed for many years now. You are visible and trackable almost every time you step outside your door. At the least, there is no more locational privacy. So:
- don't use a bank card
- don't use a phone
- don't drive a car (esp. to an intersection, on an interstate, or one that has On-Star)
- don't use email
- don't buy anything online
- don't watch TV from a cable or satellite company (they know what's on your DVR and what you watched last weekend)
- don't shop at a grocery store (even in the 1980s, the store I worked for tracked your personal purchases!), thus:
- don't use a discount or coupon card

and so on. One place where you will disappear -- as a "person" -- is if you're in prison. Again, sad. But we must appease our rich overlords who demand our demographic habits.

[Tuxman]

Up to now I can easily withstand the several temptations to register anywhere.

[zridling]

Watched the Eric Schmidt interview again within the CNBC show "Inside the Mind of Google" last night and to be fair, it was clear that the context his statement had to do with terrorism, building bombs, acquiring explosive materials, etc. Even the preceding segment was about what evil could come from typing in searches. Schmidt went on to claim that if they did use search data against customers, they would quickly lose business to rivals.

Gee Eric, ya think!

[zridling]

On the flip side of privacy, if you're falsely accused of murder, it helps to have cameras and GPS showing that you were at Walmart wearing a 'Tony the Tiger' costume and buying Q-Tips.



Throwing a fit at the cash register wouldn't hurt either.