91–100 of 172 posts
I don't want employers, grandparents, and the government to have access to my private and personal life.
No reason everyone should know movies, books, music, games, sexuality, political beliefs, and everything else about me.
(see voter privacy)
It is very easy to get caught with this type of argumentation. It is wrong.
Keywords may actually reveal a lot more that one would assume, and prone for des-interpretation as well.
I don't particularly care about the government investigating me. My concern is about the people in power abusing their power to get information about their main rivals. Think "Watergate". Except without the physical breaking and entering. There are legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong would want what they have done not revealed to those in power. My concern about our descent into becoming a polic…
Mr. Braithwaite? We're investigating a co-worker of yours for possible misuse of computers for XXXXXXX. Can you please tell us: have you ever observed him doing XXXXXX? Do you think you could have a look at his computer the next time he takes a bathroom break and tell us if you see any signs of XXXXXX on it?
"That sounds pretty bad but to be perfectly honest, I'm very comfortable with your ability to gather surveillance information using normal means, including obtaining a search warrant for his computer. I'd like to consult a lawyer before answering any questions about anybody, thank you very much. Please excuse me..."
Mr. Braithwaite? Let me see here... Oh yes, you're they guy who likes to look at pictures of XXXXXX. And I see here you purchased the following toys... Do you keep those in the house where your... let me see... two kids visit? Does your ex-wife's lawyer know what kind of movies you like to watch? Would you like her to know? Sit down please, we have much to discuss.
You don't want to get all legal with us and demand a lawyer, do you? You don't want us to have to bother with a lot of troublesome search warrants, do you?
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.
But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.
Oh, you mean Google follows US laws? They don't participate in acts of civil disobedience in a suicidal effort to protect our privacy!? Eeeevil!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sho…
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.
Thanks for the confession... the scary part is the magnitude of which google has access to everyones personal data. Thanks to analytics they even can track everything outside of their direct control
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 sho…
Finally, a reasoned response. I came in here just to say this; Can't believe what an uproar this is causing...