Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#51

Post by tc »

pierrefar wrote: post #10

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

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."

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#52

Post by sqs »

Wow. I think the more important point (as the article says) is made in the next paragraph, where Eric Schmidt reminds us all that data Google collects is always subject to seizure by governments. So, even if you do trust Google, by using Google you're creating a data trail easily accessible by governments. If you used your own server based (say) in the US, on the other hand, then realistically only the US could seize your data, and even then it'd be much harder than if it were stored on Google.

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#53

Post by polynomial »

jam wrote: post #34

In twenty years, does privacy still exist? What about in a hundred? I'm definitely not a fan of exposing data that people wish to keep private. It seems conceivable, though, that privacy is an idea that won't survive time and technology.

Exactly. If you didn't see the death of privacy as early as the 80s you either weren't paying attention, or weren't born yet.

What's going on here is a redefining of personal data as "private but without privacy." While the distinction itself is somewhat subtle, the ways this redefining is being carried out are anything but.

In Eric's case, he has never exactly been known for his subtlety of thought, has he…?

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#54

Post by tedunangst »

silentobserver wrote: post #19
pierrefar wrote: post #10

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

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?

Did Eric Schmidt really do a Google search for "Did I cheat on my wife?"?

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#57

Post by ErrantX »

DrJokepu wrote: post #21

I'd like to hear Erich Schmidt's half of the story. This is typical Internet drama. We have seen it a million times. I give the guy the benefit of doubt since this wouldn't be the first occasion some journalist taken a sentence out of context.

I think Im probably with you on this one. There has been a lot of anti-google rumbling the last few months and I guess this is mostly a continuation of that.

Pretty silly thing to have said though.

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#59

Post by robobenjie »

jsm386 wrote: post #31
patrickgzill wrote: post #2

So much for "don't be evil".

It seems like he's actually telling you, the user, not to be evil. Sad.

It seems to me that what he thought he was referring to was cases like a subpoena for child pornography. The cases when google is obliged to divulge personal information are reserved for cases in which someone is seriously believed to be evil. When people read his quote I think tend to think of embarrassing things they themselves have searched for, but no one is going to subpoena (or even care) about your search for "nurse + handcuffs".

When I use google I know that there is some probability of the results getting hacked or leaked or subpoenaed or looked at by a google employee trying to improve search. However the expected value of that embarrassment (probability of someone I actually care about seeing it X how embarrassed I would be) is very low, and, for me, doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefit provided by the suite of google products. On the otherhand (and I think this is Erik's point) if you are using google to do something that would legitimately land you in jail the expected value of bad-stuff is much higher. (Actually both the probability of getting subpoenaed and the level of bad go up).

I feel that there is this idea that everything you do everywhere on the internet can and should be totally private and that any chance that it isn't is seen as removing a fundamental right. In my opinion the internet is more like a trail out in the middle of the wilderness: usually no one sees what you do and its probably ok to have sex with your girlfriend without anyone knowing, but if you start burying bodies out there the FBI can and will use that against you.

Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

#60

Post by nfnaaron »

"... 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."

The right to privacy from the government is a logical consequence of the fact that the government is the servant of the people, put in place to protect and promote the people's interests. The Declaration of Independence describes our reason for instituting a government at all:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."

We need no justification for privacy from the government and its proxies. The most upstanding citizen still has the right to keep his affairs private. Even people with nothing to hide have the right to hide it.

We explicitly give the government the power of search, but only when we (through a judge) agree that it's necessary. Without that agreement, they're not allowed:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We explicitly restrict all other powers of government through the 10th Amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We do that because we recognize the tendency of unchecked governments to gather more power to themselves. When a government becomes more powerful than its people, the people are slaves who have lost "the Blessings of Liberty" as listed in the Constitution's Preamble.

Government is a dangerous tool. It's the people who should be watching the government, not the other way around.

Post reply on HN