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"

#41

Post by by » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 3:53 PM UTC

winter_blue wrote: post #13

"If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" is valid not only in the context of net privacy but much more so as a general rule.

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.

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

#42

Post by byrneseyeview » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 3:57 PM UTC

dabent wrote: post #22

pierrefar wrote: post #10

I'd like Eric Schmidt to publicly release his search history, both his work-related and private searches.

I don't think he'd like that at all. The article links to a story about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year after they used Google search to find details about Schmidt: http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/ Really, all this "privacy" nonsense is for the little people, not important folk like Eric Schmidt, anyway.

about Google blocking CNET reporters for a year

To be clear, this is a story about Google's press representatives not speaking to CNET reporters -- when I first read it, I thought you meant that Google blocked CNET's IP address. Still a very petty response.

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

#43

Post by mapleoin » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:01 PM UTC

lucifer wrote: post #27

The register suggests it is possible to avoid Google products, but the web is literally infested with Google ads and that is a tracking mechanism.

you can block cookies based on domain name, or from third parties

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

#44

Post by spiralhead » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:03 PM UTC

Are you expecting Google to defy the US government? He is merely stating a fact:

"...we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act..."

How many of you are actually concerned you'll receive a subpoena from the feds to reveal you porn viewing habits?

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

#45

Post by elmindreda » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:10 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #14

My corollary: if you have something to hide, and doing it is a good or neutral thing, then you have identified a bug in society. You probably ought to fix that.

There are lots of such bugs, however, and fixing them takes decades of hard work. In the meantime, most people affected by said bugs, unwilling or unable to fight, need a place to hide.

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

#46

Post by dhume » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:12 PM UTC

jsm386 wrote: post #31

patrickgzill wrote: post #2

So much for "don't be evil".

It seems like he's actually telling you, the user, not to be evil. Sad.

Hiding some behavior is not an acknowledgment that the behavior is wrong, just that there may be someone out there who thinks it is.

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

#47

Post by mrduncan » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:13 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #21

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.

It sounds like the interview which was done by CNBC during their hour-long special about a week ago on Google. I'll check when I get home since I have it on my DVR, but they usually re-air their specials every few weeks so keep an eye out for it.

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

#48

Post by quickpost » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:15 PM UTC

lucifer wrote: post #27

The register suggests it is possible to avoid Google products, but the web is literally infested with Google ads and that is a tracking mechanism.

Adblock, FTW.

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

#49

Post by mcantelon » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:15 PM UTC

mapleoin wrote: post #43

lucifer wrote: post #27

The register suggests it is possible to avoid Google products, but the web is literally infested with Google ads and that is a tracking mechanism.

you can block cookies based on domain name, or from third parties

There is also, unless I'm mistaken, the possibility of Javascript-instantiated and Flash ads which have the possibility of relaying your IP to the mothership.

Having a filter on your DNS client that excludes Google-related IPs might be more thorough.

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

#50

Post by lsb » Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 4:16 PM UTC

dhume wrote: post #46

jsm386 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like he's actually telling you, the user, not to be evil. Sad.

Hiding some behavior is not an acknowledgment that the behavior is wrong, just that there may be someone out there who thinks it is.

What, have you never planned a surprise party? People need privacy not only for nefarious ends.