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

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

#151

Post by TeHCrAzY » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 3:44 AM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #143

eli wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storing search queries genuinely helps improve Google's search results. It's not inherently evil. And I don't buy your slippery slope argument. Sure, Google could sell your search patterns. And your ISP could sell your browsing habits. And ask.com's AskEraser feature could all be a lie and it too could be selling your queries... Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmi…

Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmidt's advice and not query anything embarrassing. Or take my advice, sidle up to an open WiFi network (or if you are really nefarious, crack a "secure" one--bet that won't get logged), load up a flash-based Linux distro with no means of storing anything permanently, and query till your heart's content. If that's more privacy than…

IE8 has a privacy mode.

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

#152

Post by TeHCrAzY » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 3:49 AM UTC

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #64

robobenjie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I worked for a company that routinely provided user-uploaded child porn to the FBI along with user details. The EULA gave us the right to do this although I'm not sure how explicitly this was stated. I'm ok with this, but it's a slippery slope downward.

Thats interesting. How do you avoid the liability of possessing child pornography? Invariablly, someone needs to see it before it can be passed on, and it has to be stored somewhere + communicated. Is there protections in your local laws?

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

#153

Post by codexon » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 4:05 AM UTC

hristov wrote: post #112

It is funny how everyone blames Schmidt and not the government or the patriot act or the politicians that enacted the patriot act. Schmidt was just being honest.

It sounds like Schmidt supports things like the Patriot Act.

If he was against it he would have said something like "if you like your privacy don't put it on the internet". Instead, he said "you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".

This single phrase has a strong connotation that you are doing something bad. Schmidt doesn't strike me as being dumb enough to say this without knowing exactly how the public would interpret it.

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

#154

Post by codexon » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 4:14 AM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #68

jfoutz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you close the door when you go to the bathroom?

I do close the door, but I don't search for pinhole cameras in public bathrooms, in spite of the fact that some exist. I think that highlights the difference between expecting privacy and trying to ensure it.

But the fact is that you still seek out a "private" bathroom to relieve yourself and don clothing do you not? Or are you as likely to do the same things in plain view?

What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.

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

#155

Post by yrb » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 5:04 AM UTC

kiujhygfvgbn wrote: post #150

eli wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, you don't have a lot of choice in deciding whether or not to comply with a National Security Letter. I think "because I'm not going to go to jail for our users" is a perfectly logical reason.

You can also say to your users - we have a problem with this legislation we are moving our servers to Iceland/Bermuda/Switzerland. When the government sees it hitting their tax take they will listen

I don't think that moving servers is at all realistic option for google. I am much more worried about traffic logging at the isp than I am of what google records. However I will concede that because of the shear volume of data that google collects and retains it is a much is a worrying if they decide that it is ok for them to go dredging.

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

#156

Post by teeja » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 5:06 AM UTC

"in our case we’re building the platform that will allow the content people to do more targeted content."

Telling us what 'personalized' is about. Not doing better searching, doing better selling. Find the people with a little extra money, 24/7, and offer them something they might go for, 24/7, whether they need it or don't. Helping them stay one paycheck away from broke.

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

#157

Post by randallsquared » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 5:28 AM UTC

codexon wrote: post #154

randallsquared wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do close the door, but I don't search for pinhole cameras in public bathrooms, in spite of the fact that some exist. I think that highlights the difference between expecting privacy and trying to ensure it.

But the fact is that you still seek out a "private" bathroom to relieve yourself and don clothing do you not? Or are you as likely to do the same things in plain view? What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.

Even if I didn't subscribe to the taboos of my culture (which I do, at least in this case), there are lots of excellent reasons to use a facility meant to handle human waste.

Because of that, this is a bad example.

Instead, we should be using an example of something which doesn't require any special facility, we have no cultural taboos against displaying[1], and isn't illegal, but which people want to hide, anyway. I'm not sure I can think of anything.

[1] As someone who was raised fundamentalist Christian, I can assure you that habits learned in childhood can still have lots of force in adulthood, even if you no longer agree with the reasons for them.

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

#158

Post by 10ren » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 6:34 AM UTC

benmathes wrote: post #116

andreyf wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no other half. It's a quote taken completely out of context and blown out of proportion with absolutely moronic commentary. I can't believe this is the kind of thing that makes it to the front page of HN, much less to the #1 spot :( 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?…

Try hackerhackernews.com. It's the same site, but uses some Bayesian modeling to filter out the TechCrunch-like internet drama.

Unfortunately, not regularly updated:

> Page generated at 17:55 on 15 October 2009 (PDT).

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

#159

Post by theblackbox » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 10:35 AM UTC

I've not really kept up with this story, nor can I rouse myself to feel the outrage shared by a lot of the community on this one... but if I were to throw in my two cents, I'd have to point to Google Flu Trends [1] and the fact that their modeling of influenza outbreak and spread are some of the most accurate and up-to-date on earth, often besting the World Health Organisation. This is sometimes used as justification for extending the length of time that Google retains data.

If this anti-google sentiment is to be believed and they are marching the corporate road to evil, I shudder to think of the information that could be inferred from collective search pattern trends.

I just noticed that the example had not been given yet and I think it's an important one in this debate. It is a seemingly benign, if not entirely altruistic, case study. What is the consensus, smoke and mirrors, or is there a real social value to be gleaned [2] from the harvest of the vast data swarm?

[1: http://www.google.org/flutrends/] [2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning]

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

#160

Post by nazgulnarsil » Wed, Dec 09, 2009, 11:01 AM UTC

this thread is now too massive to get any decent visibility for this, oh well.

there is a much deeper, more philosophical reason for instituting a right to privacy than just the fear of corrupt governments.

humans are adapted to signal certain values for the sake of group cohesion. we have a "public persona" and a private life. this isn't something sinister, it's a way of coping with the demands placed on us by our interaction with others. we know in practice that depriving people of the ability to hide things from each other is extremely detrimental to their psyches. most importantly, it is detrimental regardless of the triviality of the things kept secret.

when deprived of the ability to keep secrets people are forced to be "always on". they must maintain the "proper" signals at all times. this is extremely draining (yes, even for extroverts, eventually). the things we like to signal to others aren't necessarily the things that make us most happy.