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

101–110 of 172 posts

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

#101

Post by dreish »

zephjc wrote: post #89
tc wrote: post #51

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…

What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice? Not that you could tell from the article's headline. Either The Register is being sensationalist, or just didn't see it in those terms.

That's pretty much all The Register does.

As more practical advice, if you're doing something you don't want others associating with your IP address, use an anonymizer you feel you can trust.

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

#102

Post by lt »

zephjc wrote: post #89
tc wrote: post #51

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…

What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice? Not that you could tell from the article's headline. Either The Register is being sensationalist, or just didn't see it in those terms.

The Register being sensationalist? Impossible!

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

#103

Post by mbreese »

nfnaaron wrote: post #88
pohl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to be able to invoke the 4th amendment like this, but I'm having trouble thinking through how one would establish - if Google handed data to the feds under the Patriot Act - that the feds would be searching or seizing anything that was on my person, nor in my house, nor my papers, nor my effects. Rather, it seems more likely that the feds would be knocking on Google's house and seizing a portion of their…

Anything on Google would be your papers and effects, I would think. The spirit of the law is to protect your privacy, and it's not the place of government to search your affairs just because new technology makes that possible and practical. Also, the government is not demanding data from Google because they're interested in Google; they're interested in you .

No, anything on Google would be their papers and effects... it's on their servers.

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

#104

Post by nfnaaron »

by wrote: post #74
va_coder wrote: post #17

We need a privacy contract similar to Richard Stallman's GNU General Public License. Something standard that both parties can quickly understand and agree to. Idea: A new competing search engine could release a General Privacy Agreement along with their search service.

Maybe this would be a good starting point: https://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html They claim to be "The only search engine that does not record your IP address."

Thank you for that. Very interesting meta-search engine, clean results. It appears that Google is not among the engines they use.

I like that they don't record your IP, and that they offer https access. Hard to say whether they really do what they say, but they do have the European Privacy Seal, for whatever that's worth.

I'm using it now to see how I like it, so far so good.

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

#105

Post by willwagner »

va_coder wrote: post #17

We need a privacy contract similar to Richard Stallman's GNU General Public License. Something standard that both parties can quickly understand and agree to. Idea: A new competing search engine could release a General Privacy Agreement along with their search service.

Not a privacy contract but Ask.com has a feature called AskEraser that will remove all your personal information.

http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml

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

#107

Post by tibbon »

tc wrote: post #51
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 sho…

You mean searching for "illegal hot nude child porn photos for download in the usa, my address is 100 Foo street", is a poor idea?
Post reply on HN