Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy is usually not about things you don't want anyone to know. It's about things you don't want everyone to know.
Privacy is also about solidarity with those who do have something to hide. We want to create a society with herd immunity for dissidents, free thinkers, and even the less controversial yet somehow still controversial; fetishists, (closet) non-traditional-sexuals, or simply those who engage in behaviour that we have only learned to condone, not yet accept. Even if you are not any of those, it is our duty to provide a…
Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
341–350 of 366 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where on the 10-Q is revenue from intelligence agencies? I seemed to have missed that line.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
So, where's the actual profit? Or is this all mind control, friend-of-a-friend illuminati stuff that's assumed to make Google want to do this stuff?
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely Zuck correctly saw that Google as the incumbent had much more to gain from such a scheme. Facebook wouldn't be where it is today without aggressively poaching employees from Google, in their early acquiring tech chops phase they were basically the inofficial open source arm of Google because they hired so many googlers who wrote near 1-to-1 clones of internal Google tech and later also released them as op…
Apparently FB hyper-targeted Google employees with ads based on the profile these employees had happily volunteered when creating their FB profile. (Wish I had a reference link). Also, from what I understand (again, only hearsay, I don't have any proof for this), there were many employees at Google who thought "Don't be evil" was a joke. And so they decided they will go to Facebook, which was more closely aligned wit…
Well, and the wage theft conspiracy amongst other things proved them right. A smart and experienced CEO like Eric Schmidt would certainly have known that what he was doing was illegal and also that it would be profitable, zero risk to himself and low risk to the company, even if caught. His only possible mistake was to underestimate Facebook as a competitor and the cost of giving them probably more of a leg up than was wise in retrospect by handing them a huge bidding advantage for top tech talent by "defecting" from the collusion. In retrospect it might turn out to have been one of the most expensive rounds of prisoner's dilemma ever played ;)
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No one is coercing anyone else. Specifically because Schmidt made a career as a lobbyist for privacy erosion, I think he's open to criticism on this basis, even if he is not guilty of coercion. If it were some random person who was just developing a product I would agree with you to leave well enough alone, but I think the lobbying angle is enough to clear the bar of "theses actions should be publicly scrutinized".
What anti-privacy lobbying are you referencing?
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a counterpoint on Campbell as a terrific business coach read "Hatching Twitter" [1]. He was hired as Ev Williams' coach and the picture the book paints is bad. Working more for the board of directors instead the person he was hired to help. Telling Williams he was doing great then reporting to the board he was doing terrible. The book is also a great way to understand why Twitter is such a shit show of an organiz…
It's really hard to tell what in this book is based in fact. It's almost entirely based off of hearsay and gossip. There are interviews with people recalling minute details of conversations they had ~5 years in the past. You can call bullshit on a lot of it.
My high-level take away though is that it is directionally correct regarding Twitter and its (mis)management.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much this. I don't really want my work, my online life, and my family to collide very much, but within each sphere of general influence, I want to be able to reach out and interact with people fairly openly. The best way, of course, is to carefully curate different identities online, but that feels dishonest at times and can be problematic on occasion.
> The best way, of course, is to carefully curate different identities online Doesn’t this only work if all your interactions are online? Otherwise your family might meet your colleagues at your birthday party (or whatever you might celebrate).
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
gen220 does an excellent job explaining (above). Essentially, somebody who was brilliant at what they did, operating at the outer edge of their skills envelope, and no replacement at a similar skill level. It's in many ways a good story for tech.
I understood that, I just don't understand why Bismarck is considered a diplomatic genius instead of reviled as the architect of a dangerously fragile diplomatic situation.
He made it clear he was just trying to unite his people, not take over the world, and under Wilhelm I, this system was stable.
All of the major western nations were undergoing industrial militarization at this point, particularly with naval technology.
When Wilhelm II came into power, he removed Bismark whose sole goal at this point was managing peace in Europe.
At this point all of the tension was in the Balkans, Wilhelm was eyeing new conquests, the Serbians murdered the Austrian heir to the throne, and every major power thought they were God's chosen people. They also thought any new conflict would be short and sweet just as the recent Prussian wars had been. No one understood how new technology and tactics would change the dynamic of war.
Bismarck was chancellor until 1890 and died about 10 years later. WWI didn't start until about 25 years after he was no longer running the show. People had moved on from his notions of European peace and wanted to play with their new toys.
Additionally, the chancellor was elected by the nobility. It was not as if he could have handed the role down to a successor. He would have had to find someone that appeased the new king, a younger nobility, and the public at large who were quibbling over democracy vs a semi constitutional monarchy.
Bismarck's talent was uniting people and keeping them happy, even when not everyone got what they want. He was respected by his enemies because he illustrated that he was just trying to unify the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, a gelatinous blob of bickering principalities that had been central to European conflicts for hundreds of years. Unification finally stopped the bleeding, and Bismarck made it clear that he was after global stability, not conquest.
If you want to blame someone for WWI, there's not really one person you can point to. However Wilhelm II would fit that mold much better than Bismarck. If he had been alive and in power, he would not have wanted to start a massive war of attrition.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will always remember him as the guy who would willingly collude with other mentees of Bill Campbell to not hire engineers from each others companies. Willingly trying to keep the salaries of engineers low is pure evil. They even tried to rope-in Zuckerberg into this gentleman's agreement. Zuck asked them to buzz off. When Eric is involved in shady practices like these, how do all other leaders on twitterverse who a…
Those poor underpaid Googlers
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know how far you are over the ethical line when Zuck tells you to take your shady scheme elsewhere.
More likely Zuck correctly saw that Google as the incumbent had much more to gain from such a scheme. Facebook wouldn't be where it is today without aggressively poaching employees from Google, in their early acquiring tech chops phase they were basically the inofficial open source arm of Google because they hired so many googlers who wrote near 1-to-1 clones of internal Google tech and later also released them as op…
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conveniently you (and everyone else who quotes that line) left out the following part. "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we’re all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." His whole point is to NOT use their services…
I don't understand how this part is "conveniently" left out. What about this quote weakens the OP's implication of hypocrisy among business leaders?
I just went and found the video clip, though, and I think that reading is incorrect. Schmidt isn't saying "don't do those things because we can't hide you from the feds". He's very clearly making two distinct different claims about privacy; the second half is about people with 'legitimate' reasons to need extreme privacy, while the first half looks like exactly the moral judgement everyone portrays it as.