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

71–80 of 172 posts

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

#71

Post by Vitaly »

hey, guys, chill out. He's not saying that you shouldn't do anything you don't want the public to know or anything like that. Google is actually protecting your privacy from the public. Your search history is not available to anyone except for the law-enforcement with a subpoena. He is only saying that under some circumstances Google has to release some information according to the current law. And if you don't want this happening, you should't have this information on Google in the first place.

For example if you plan to murder someone you better not google for "how to hide a corpse" :)

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

#72

Post by gaius »

tedunangst wrote: post #54
silentobserver wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Schmidt has never had anything to hide, like cheating on his wife... Oh wait... All of these guys are hypocrites; when will you guys realize this? Oh, and that gas-guzzling 767 with the private shower is being used to "create good in places like Africa" (or whatever they had said), right?

Did Eric Schmidt really do a Google search for "Did I cheat on my wife?"?

I bet he used Google to find hotels for having liasons in... Wait, Eric, why were you looking for a room in Las Vegas last week, you told me you were in New York?

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

#73

Post by gaius »

pohl wrote: post #67
lsb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SWAT showing up can really ruin a party.

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

#74

Post by by »

va_coder wrote: post #17

We 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"

#75

Post by joubert »

'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'

Bullshit argument for invading privacy. I prefer to hide my genitals from public view.

Since he has nothing to hide, let's set up a streaming webcam outside his house, zoomed in on his bedroom. Or better yet, let's implant a nano-camera up his rectum.

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

#76

Post by btilly »

I don't particularly care about the government investigating me.

My concern is about the people in power abusing their power to get information about their main rivals. Think "Watergate". Except without the physical breaking and entering.

There are legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong would want what they have done not revealed to those in power. My concern about our descent into becoming a police state is that the checks and balances that should protect those people are disappearing.

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

#77

Post by marltod »

pierrefar wrote: post #10

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

He might not have any, The same way people who work at sausage factories don't eat sausage. His searches could be anonymous, encrypted and routed through foreign gateways.

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

#78

Post by txxxxd »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #65

In other words, if I use Google Checkout, I should be ashamed of myself for wanting my credit card information kept private?

The quote doesn't have anything to do with shame. Not sure how you read into that...

The message is simply that any information on the Internet is subject to the risk of exposure. We use credit cards knowing that the risk is very low - but we all know its possible your credit card number will be intercepted, misused, etc. This is a fact, not a question of morality.

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

#79

Post by jrwoodruff »

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…

Maybe no one in the western world cares about your search for nurse+handcuffs, but what about in China? Iran? How do they comply with the laws in those countries?

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

#80

Post by vaksel »

jam wrote: post #34

In twenty years, does privacy still exist? What about in a hundred? I'm definitely not a fan of exposing data that people wish to keep private. It seems conceivable, though, that privacy is an idea that won't survive time and technology.

the users are their own worst nightmares when it comes to privacy. Just look at facebook for evidence.
Post reply on HN