The sad thing here really is how obviously limited his perspective is. Maybe this is true in the U.S. (but I'm pretty sure privacy is still something highly valued here) but what about foreign citizens? What about people who have things to hide from the chinese government? What about governments that have things to hide from their people? Oh, wait, Google already answered that:
Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
81–90 of 172 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#82Straight back at Eric Schmidt: "If you have to look at people's personal data to do something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
Perhaps, "if you have to retain people's data..."?
Retaining my data makes it easier for Google to give me good results in the future.
The problem is not that Google stores your data. The problem is that disclosing that data has social and legal consequences. Why shoot the messenger?
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#83"... we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities." The right to privacy from the government is a logical consequence of the fact that the government is the servant of the people, put in place to protect and promote the people's interests. The Declaration of Independence describes our reason for instituting a governm…
I would like to be able to invoke the 4th amendment like this, but I'm having trouble thinking through how one would establish - if Google handed data to the feds under the Patriot Act - that the feds would be searching or seizing anything that was on my person, nor in my house, nor my papers, nor my effects.
Rather, it seems more likely that the feds would be knocking on Google's house and seizing a portion of their "papers" that recorded the times that I've come over to visit. I don't think I own their log entries for my searches. Moreover, does a corporation get protection under that amendment, and even if they do, there's already the "warrant" mechanism.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#84Straight 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?
Of course it needs your query string, but it could run your search and then forget about it. Arguably Google was better when it didn't take your history into account when calculating the results.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#85So much for "do no evil".
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#86I'd like Eric Schmidt to publicly release his search history, both his work-related and private searches.
When I use my credit card online I accept the fact that it may be exposed. That doesn't mean I should have to publicly release my credit card number though does it?
I think a lot of people are having a knee-jerk reaction thinking that this guy is giving moral advice. What I see here is just a statement of fact: if you don't want something to ever possibly be known about you, don't put in online.
Readers of this site should know better than the general public that there is always a risk of data getting into the wrong hands. Even if you trust the host. Even if you encrypted the data. etc.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#87Earlier 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…
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 "nurse + handcuffs".
How about in a divorce trial, when character is at issue, and you are fighting for child custody rights?
More generally, the argument of as long as you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you be worried has been debunked, I think rather convincingly in places like http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
edit: someone submitted the link a little while ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984088 hopefully the discussion can continue.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#88"... we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities." The right to privacy from the government is a logical consequence of the fact that the government is the servant of the people, put in place to protect and promote the people's interests. The Declaration of Independence describes our reason for instituting a governm…
I would like to be able to invoke the 4th amendment like this, but I'm having trouble thinking through how one would establish - if Google handed data to the feds under the Patriot Act - that the feds would be searching or seizing anything that was on my person, nor in my house, nor my papers, nor my effects. Rather, it seems more likely that the feds would be knocking on Google's house and seizing a portion of their…
Anything on Google would be your papers and effects, I would think. The spirit of the law is to protect your privacy, and it's not the place of government to search your affairs just because new technology makes that possible and practical.
Also, the government is not demanding data from Google because they're interested in Google; they're interested in you.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#89I'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…
What if his statement was not intended as a moral imperative, but as practical advice?
Not that you could tell from the article's headline. Either The Register is being sensationalist, or just didn't see it in those terms.
Re: Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
#90In other words, if I use Google Checkout, I should be ashamed of myself for wanting my credit card information kept private?
cc companies accept the risk of fraud, you (theoretically) have little legal risk.