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…
Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
161–170 of 172 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#162Earlier 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
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's worse than that, tc. Why do they keep the information for so long? Because they are required? No. They monetize it. Sooooo, in the future there will come great pressure to increase the value of Google stock. Not today, perhaps, but some day. When that day comes, insurance companies are going to say, "We'll make it worth your while if you tell us who is googling for 'breast cancer;' 'diabetes;' 'melanoma.'" A…
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…
Agreed. I don't believe in inherent evil. I do believe that certain business structures lead to behavior that some observers would consider "evil" and others would simply call "upholding fiduciary responsibility." But that's a discussion for another thread.
And I don't buy your slippery slope argument.
And I can't make you. But you're a fool if you dismiss it out of hand. The Facebook beacon debacle is a shiny reminder of what can happen if we stand by and let it.
I have no problem with Google's handling of my information at this time. In particular, I'm not worried about embarrassing queries as much as an elderly person you love, for example, being denied insurance coverage (or only given coverage at exorbitant rates) because the company is able to argue "pre-existing condition" (or some other claim of exclusion) from private information.
But if this hoopla is unnerving, wait until people find out how supermarkets sell loyalty card information!
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#164Earlier 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…
If that is what he is saying, he should just say this. Wouldn't it be simpler?
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Cases like child pornography are the wedge justifications for putting into place controlling mechanisms, and cheered on by lots of well-meaning people. But once the controlling mechanisms are there they can be used and abused for political and commercial gain by police both public and secret.
The inherent non-visible, automatable and centralizable nature of such controls makes them more powerful than any real-world analogue. No large conspiracies, long chains of command or big bribes for armies of cronies are needed for historically unprecedented manipulation of the futures, careers and freedoms of people and companies. I don't think one can trust the law to catch up or to be effective in restraining those with the power. The bogeymen of terrorism and child molestation are more than effective enough to frighten the councils of old men who largely control court decisions.
IMO, decentralization and transport encryption, to the point that real-time centralization of control is infeasible, ought to be baked into the design of such a vital infrastructure. The privacy problems are going to get worse. We're still waiting for the big scandal, the hidden nuke test that went wrong, which will make this need obvious to the public at large. If we're unlucky, we might never see that scandal.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy depends on hidden votes and freedom of speech depends on anonymity. Your statement therefore suggests you are opposed to both democracy and freedom of speech.
While I don't like the tone of this post, the point about secret ballots is insightful and deserves consideration.
http://www.computorney.com/anonarticle.htm
which concludes that "anonymity in cyberspace is a fundamental underpinning of democracy"
In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the disclosure of personal identity on political literature.
http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-Liber...
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#167We 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."
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also, of course, be simple uncritical rationalization. If staying in business and out of the cross-hairs of the DoJ's anti-trust division means you have to play ball with some data retention "requests," then you're probably going to rationalize a million tenuously logical reasons why that's the right thing to do.
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.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#169privacy and the argument against nothing to hide on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I believe it is universal, although I'm willing to accept there may exist cultures that don't have this desire.
In any case, everyone knowing everyone else's state of health sounds ok, until i think about people i don't like. It's a little too enticing to know about how X is sick, and i don't want X to know that i am sick.
Maybe this is to abstract to be useful.