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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by DougWebb »

spiralhead wrote: post #44

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?

The concern is that the feds will subpoena Google for everything they've got about everybody in a witchhunt sweep, and the results of that will be used to target individuals for further investigation based on 'suspicion of wrong-doing' rather than actual crimes being committed. Taken out of context, just about anything can be made to look suspicious.

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

#62

Post by pierrefar »

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…

Who's requiring them to retain anything? For 180 days?

And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the data for other privacy-invading targeting.

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

#64

Post by ShabbyDoo »

robobenjie wrote: post #59
jsm386 wrote: post #31

Earlier 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…

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.

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

#66

Post by tc »

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…

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.

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

#67

Post by pohl »

lsb wrote: post #50
dhume wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So to put that scenario in the same context as the original quotation, one just needs to imagine the surprise party being ruined because the secret was handed over to the authorities under the U.S. Patriot Act.

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

#68

Post by randallsquared »

jfoutz wrote: post #37
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.

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.

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

#69

Post by gvb »

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.

Things that should not be doing are usually done in secret, so from that point of view, Eric Schmidt's saying is a truism. Unfortunately, it gets applied in the converse form, which is wrong: people, and especially governments, infer guilt from a desire for privacy (a politer term than "hiding").

This is explained very well in nfnaaron's post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983997

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

#70

Post by rabidgnat »

tedunangst wrote: post #55
tome wrote: post #11

Straight back at Eric Schmidt: "If you have to look at people's personal data to do something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

How would a search engine that doesn't look at your search string work?

Cuil answered that question very definitively :D
Post reply on HN