Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
55 comments
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 shouldn't be [googling] it in the first place."
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 shouldn't be [googling] it in the first place."
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.
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.
To be fair, you don't have a lot of choice in deciding whether or not to comply with a National Security Letter. I think "because I'm not going to go to jail for our users" is a perfectly logical reason.
You can also say to your users - we have a problem with this legislation we are moving our servers to Iceland/Bermuda/Switzerland.
When the government sees it hitting their tax take they will listen
When the government sees it hitting their tax take they will listen
I don't think that moving servers is at all realistic option for google. I am much more worried about traffic logging at the isp than I am of what google records. However I will concede that because of the shear volume of data that google collects and retains it is a much is a worrying if they decide that it is ok for them to go dredging.
Or disclose in a big blinking disclaimer, here is what we track and here is who we are required to give it to. With full disclaimer that is readable and not legalese, I feel that it is fully ethical to provide said information to the US or Chinese government or whoever.
On the other hand, are Google required to store the data? I suspect they aren't, they only need to hand over what they do have when asked. So they could always let you opt out of them tracking your data. Which they don't. Sure, it might slightly reduce the quality of search results those users get to see, but that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.
But it's worse than that, tc. Why do they keep the information for so long? Because they are required? No. They monetize it. Sooooo, in the future there will come great pressure to increase the value of Google stock. Not today, perhaps, but some day.
When that day comes, insurance companies are going to say, "We'll make it worth your while if you tell us who is googling for 'breast cancer;' 'diabetes;' 'melanoma.'" At some point in the future the major shareholders (think Carl Icahn or some such character) will make it awfully hard to say, "no." Just a more direct way to monetize the data.
As I said elsewhere here, google should, if they don't want to be evil, allow us to opt for a poorer search experience and not keep our data.
When that day comes, insurance companies are going to say, "We'll make it worth your while if you tell us who is googling for 'breast cancer;' 'diabetes;' 'melanoma.'" At some point in the future the major shareholders (think Carl Icahn or some such character) will make it awfully hard to say, "no." Just a more direct way to monetize the data.
As I said elsewhere here, google should, if they don't want to be evil, allow us to opt for a poorer search experience and not keep our data.
Storing search queries genuinely helps improve Google's search results. It's not inherently evil.
And I don't buy your slippery slope argument. Sure, Google could sell your search patterns. And your ISP could sell your browsing habits. And ask.com's AskEraser feature could all be a lie and it too could be selling your queries...
Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmidt's advice and not query anything embarrassing.
And I don't buy your slippery slope argument. Sure, Google could sell your search patterns. And your ISP could sell your browsing habits. And ask.com's AskEraser feature could all be a lie and it too could be selling your queries...
Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmidt's advice and not query anything embarrassing.
Storing search queries genuinely helps improve Google's search results. It's not inherently evil.
Agreed. I don't believe in inherent evil. I do believe that certain business structures lead to behavior that some observers would consider "evil" and others would simply call "upholding fiduciary responsibility." But that's a discussion for another thread.
And I don't buy your slippery slope argument.
And I can't make you. But you're a fool if you dismiss it out of hand. The Facebook beacon debacle is a shiny reminder of what can happen if we stand by and let it.
I have no problem with Google's handling of my information at this time. In particular, I'm not worried about embarrassing queries as much as an elderly person you love, for example, being denied insurance coverage (or only given coverage at exorbitant rates) because the company is able to argue "pre-existing condition" (or some other claim of exclusion) from private information.
But if this hoopla is unnerving, wait until people find out how supermarkets sell loyalty card information!
Agreed. I don't believe in inherent evil. I do believe that certain business structures lead to behavior that some observers would consider "evil" and others would simply call "upholding fiduciary responsibility." But that's a discussion for another thread.
And I don't buy your slippery slope argument.
And I can't make you. But you're a fool if you dismiss it out of hand. The Facebook beacon debacle is a shiny reminder of what can happen if we stand by and let it.
I have no problem with Google's handling of my information at this time. In particular, I'm not worried about embarrassing queries as much as an elderly person you love, for example, being denied insurance coverage (or only given coverage at exorbitant rates) because the company is able to argue "pre-existing condition" (or some other claim of exclusion) from private information.
But if this hoopla is unnerving, wait until people find out how supermarkets sell loyalty card information!
Ultimately if you don't trust Google with your search queries, then you should take Schmidt's advice and not query anything embarrassing.
Or take my advice, sidle up to an open WiFi network (or if you are really nefarious, crack a "secure" one--bet that won't get logged), load up a flash-based Linux distro with no means of storing anything permanently, and query till your heart's content. If that's more privacy than you need, how about Private Browsing mode, which is in every major browser now (except IE? dunno.)
Sheesh!--the hue and cry over Google and privacy completely overlooks the fact that the Internet is the most anonymous means of exchanging information ever created. Yes, unfortunately legal and profit motives mean your online activities are, to some extent, recorded. But breaking the link between "you" and what you do online is trivial, and the more your privacy matters to you, the more thoroughly can you achieve that separation.
Or take my advice, sidle up to an open WiFi network (or if you are really nefarious, crack a "secure" one--bet that won't get logged), load up a flash-based Linux distro with no means of storing anything permanently, and query till your heart's content. If that's more privacy than you need, how about Private Browsing mode, which is in every major browser now (except IE? dunno.)
Sheesh!--the hue and cry over Google and privacy completely overlooks the fact that the Internet is the most anonymous means of exchanging information ever created. Yes, unfortunately legal and profit motives mean your online activities are, to some extent, recorded. But breaking the link between "you" and what you do online is trivial, and the more your privacy matters to you, the more thoroughly can you achieve that separation.
IE8 has a privacy mode.
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.
And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the data for other privacy-invading targeting.
Actually there's no law in the U.S. about data retention (E.U. has one) but companies keep the data for their own engineering and marketing purposes AND to stay in good graces of authorities. (The Patriot Act and ECPA, among other laws, specify what data has to be turned over with a lawful request, but they don't require any entity to actually have that info.)
Patriot Act compliance
see the Yahoo leak from cryptomeme http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
see the Yahoo leak from cryptomeme http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
My wild speculation would be that (related to tc's above) it's a mutual "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" with the DOJ. I'd be surprised if there weren't regulations in place which required them to keep the data for that long.
It's not like this is a problem specific to Google. Credit cards, for instance, are very convenient but also easily traced if you are up to no good. Nobody thinks the credit card companies should protect your anonymity -- if you're buying something you shouldn't, don't use a credit card.
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.
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.
Exactly.
Finally, a reasoned response. I came in here just to say this; Can't believe what an uproar this is causing...
Finally, a reasoned response. I came in here just to say this; Can't believe what an uproar this is causing...
The uproar is caused because here's a man who knows more about me than my own mother and he is saying things my mother would have been ashamed of :-)
Telling me how to do what I want to do is practical. Telling me what to do or not to do is patronizing.
Even if you want to search for that - do so without logging into your google account.
You mean searching for "illegal hot nude child porn photos for download in the usa, my address is 100 Foo street", is a poor idea?
Searching for 'chronic heart disease' might be a bad idea if your employer or health insurer sign up to a future Google employee watch (tm) service
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
At least he is telling you that all your searches are forwarded to the authorities under the patriot act.
The cell phone companies haven't got round to warning you that your phone's location is given to the police 8million times.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
I think they should allow us to opt out of retaining our data.
You could just not give them your data in the first place.
I am not worried about search / email / etc., though, I am worried about Analytics. I would like to be able to globally disable it. (NoScript solves this problem, but Analytics should be opt-in, not opt-out-by-blocking-Javascript.)
I am not worried about search / email / etc., though, I am worried about Analytics. I would like to be able to globally disable it. (NoScript solves this problem, but Analytics should be opt-in, not opt-out-by-blocking-Javascript.)
I hope you're all pleased you jumped on the bandwagon. Here are his actual words from the video:
Judgement matters... If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place... If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that 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.
Schmidt's statement is clearly pragmatic. One might even argue there's an implied criticism of laws like the Patriot Act. Could he have phrased it better? Yes. He shouldn't have said the sentence in question. But next time, actually read/watch the primary source so you can get the full picture. His closing remarks completely change the tone of the conversation. Are you really going to let The Register do your thinking for you?
Judgement matters... If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place... If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that 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.
Schmidt's statement is clearly pragmatic. One might even argue there's an implied criticism of laws like the Patriot Act. Could he have phrased it better? Yes. He shouldn't have said the sentence in question. But next time, actually read/watch the primary source so you can get the full picture. His closing remarks completely change the tone of the conversation. Are you really going to let The Register do your thinking for you?
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.
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.
There is no other half. It's a quote taken completely out of context and blown out of proportion with absolutely moronic commentary. I can't believe this is the kind of thing that makes it to the front page of HN, much less to the #1 spot :(
But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.
Oh, you mean Google follows US laws? They don't participate in acts of civil disobedience in a suicidal effort to protect our privacy!? Eeeevil!
But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.
Oh, you mean Google follows US laws? They don't participate in acts of civil disobedience in a suicidal effort to protect our privacy!? Eeeevil!
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.
I think Im probably with you on this one. There has been a lot of anti-google rumbling the last few months and I guess this is mostly a continuation of that.
Pretty silly thing to have said though.
Pretty silly thing to have said though.
While you're right that vilifying Schmidt based on this statement is a little ridiculous, I'd say that one would still be wise to take it as a warning. Chances are that Google not only has your search history, but your email history, many of your documents information about your travel plans, and more. All it would take is for one unscrupulous executive to abuse his position and ruin your life. Chances are, no matter how innocent you are, you have something to hide. Google doesn't have to morally evil to justify our being wary of it.
cool, so my friends that work at Google don't need to keep the details of their projects secret anymore?
or they shouldn't be working on that project...
"... 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 government at all:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
We need no justification for privacy from the government and its proxies. The most upstanding citizen still has the right to keep his affairs private. Even people with nothing to hide have the right to hide it.
We explicitly give the government the power of search, but only when we (through a judge) agree that it's necessary. Without that agreement, they're not allowed:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We explicitly restrict all other powers of government through the 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We do that because we recognize the tendency of unchecked governments to gather more power to themselves. When a government becomes more powerful than its people, the people are slaves who have lost "the Blessings of Liberty" as listed in the Constitution's Preamble.
Government is a dangerous tool. It's the people who should be watching the government, not the other way around.
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 government at all:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
We need no justification for privacy from the government and its proxies. The most upstanding citizen still has the right to keep his affairs private. Even people with nothing to hide have the right to hide it.
We explicitly give the government the power of search, but only when we (through a judge) agree that it's necessary. Without that agreement, they're not allowed:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We explicitly restrict all other powers of government through the 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We do that because we recognize the tendency of unchecked governments to gather more power to themselves. When a government becomes more powerful than its people, the people are slaves who have lost "the Blessings of Liberty" as listed in the Constitution's Preamble.
Government is a dangerous tool. It's the people who should be watching the government, not the other way around.
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.
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.
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.
Also, the government is not demanding data from Google because they're interested in Google; they're interested in you.
No, anything on Google would be their papers and effects... it's on their servers.
So much for "don't be evil".
In my opinion, he should apologize immediately or else resign. Unfortunately the cat already seems to be out of the bag to some extent. I really hope Sergey and Larry do not have the same disdain for privacy that Mr. Schmidt has exhibited.
I was previously on the fence about trusting Google with all my data and personal information. This one idiotic sentence from the CEO makes the choice to stop using Google services a lot easier for me.
I was previously on the fence about trusting Google with all my data and personal information. This one idiotic sentence from the CEO makes the choice to stop using Google services a lot easier for me.
There's a difference between "don't be evil" and "be good".
I disagree. I think every action is polarized. Some actions are just further towards one end of the spectrum than others.
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 "nurse + handcuffs".
When I use google I know that there is some probability of the results getting hacked or leaked or subpoenaed or looked at by a google employee trying to improve search. However the expected value of that embarrassment (probability of someone I actually care about seeing it X how embarrassed I would be) is very low, and, for me, doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefit provided by the suite of google products. On the otherhand (and I think this is Erik's point) if you are using google to do something that would legitimately land you in jail the expected value of bad-stuff is much higher. (Actually both the probability of getting subpoenaed and the level of bad go up).
I feel that there is this idea that everything you do everywhere on the internet can and should be totally private and that any chance that it isn't is seen as removing a fundamental right. In my opinion the internet is more like a trail out in the middle of the wilderness: usually no one sees what you do and its probably ok to have sex with your girlfriend without anyone knowing, but if you start burying bodies out there the FBI can and will use that against you.
When I use google I know that there is some probability of the results getting hacked or leaked or subpoenaed or looked at by a google employee trying to improve search. However the expected value of that embarrassment (probability of someone I actually care about seeing it X how embarrassed I would be) is very low, and, for me, doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefit provided by the suite of google products. On the otherhand (and I think this is Erik's point) if you are using google to do something that would legitimately land you in jail the expected value of bad-stuff is much higher. (Actually both the probability of getting subpoenaed and the level of bad go up).
I feel that there is this idea that everything you do everywhere on the internet can and should be totally private and that any chance that it isn't is seen as removing a fundamental right. In my opinion the internet is more like a trail out in the middle of the wilderness: usually no one sees what you do and its probably ok to have sex with your girlfriend without anyone knowing, but if you start burying bodies out there the FBI can and will use that against you.
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.
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.
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.
Thats interesting. How do you avoid the liability of possessing child pornography? Invariablly, someone needs to see it before it can be passed on, and it has to be stored somewhere + communicated. Is there protections in your local laws?
We off-shored the manual review of submitted images! And, it was perceived by management/legal that proactive cooperation with the FBI would alleviate the risk of being charged with distribution of child pornography. As someone peripherally involved, I had to sign a release stating that I would not claim harassment because my job involved viewing sexually explicit images.
Never in my life had I imagined writing an email to a VP stating that I had just burned a CD of kiddie porn for her only to receive a terse "Thanks!" message back. We did this on a dedicated machine which could easily be wiped/re-imaged.
Never in my life had I imagined writing an email to a VP stating that I had just burned a CD of kiddie porn for her only to receive a terse "Thanks!" message back. We did this on a dedicated machine which could easily be wiped/re-imaged.
Sounds like very shakey ground. I would quite vigourously avoid pissing anyone off who has proof you (or anyone else for that matter) was directly involved with these materials. Literal interpretation of the law could see you registered as a sex offender + jail time. What a rediculous concept :/
The problem is more fundamental. The more of your life you conduct through the centralized conduit of your internet connection, the more power someone who controls that conduit has over you.
Cases like child pornography are the wedge justifications for putting into place controlling mechanisms, and cheered on by lots of well-meaning people. But once the controlling mechanisms are there they can be used and abused for political and commercial gain by police both public and secret.
The inherent non-visible, automatable and centralizable nature of such controls makes them more powerful than any real-world analogue. No large conspiracies, long chains of command or big bribes for armies of cronies are needed for historically unprecedented manipulation of the futures, careers and freedoms of people and companies. I don't think one can trust the law to catch up or to be effective in restraining those with the power. The bogeymen of terrorism and child molestation are more than effective enough to frighten the councils of old men who largely control court decisions.
IMO, decentralization and transport encryption, to the point that real-time centralization of control is infeasible, ought to be baked into the design of such a vital infrastructure. The privacy problems are going to get worse. We're still waiting for the big scandal, the hidden nuke test that went wrong, which will make this need obvious to the public at large. If we're unlucky, we might never see that scandal.
Cases like child pornography are the wedge justifications for putting into place controlling mechanisms, and cheered on by lots of well-meaning people. But once the controlling mechanisms are there they can be used and abused for political and commercial gain by police both public and secret.
The inherent non-visible, automatable and centralizable nature of such controls makes them more powerful than any real-world analogue. No large conspiracies, long chains of command or big bribes for armies of cronies are needed for historically unprecedented manipulation of the futures, careers and freedoms of people and companies. I don't think one can trust the law to catch up or to be effective in restraining those with the power. The bogeymen of terrorism and child molestation are more than effective enough to frighten the councils of old men who largely control court decisions.
IMO, decentralization and transport encryption, to the point that real-time centralization of control is infeasible, ought to be baked into the design of such a vital infrastructure. The privacy problems are going to get worse. We're still waiting for the big scandal, the hidden nuke test that went wrong, which will make this need obvious to the public at large. If we're unlucky, we might never see that scandal.
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?
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.
The problem with that motto is that "evil" is entirely subjective.
It's just been expanded. It's now, "don't be evil, dear users, or we'll get ya!"
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" :)
For example if you plan to murder someone you better not google for "how to hide a corpse" :)
On a related note, if you plan to murder someone, you should not post an HN comment suggesting what not to google for when planning a murder.
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.
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.
There are legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong would want what they have done not revealed to those in power.
Mr. Braithwaite? We're investigating a co-worker of yours for possible misuse of computers for XXXXXXX. Can you please tell us: have you ever observed him doing XXXXXX? Do you think you could have a look at his computer the next time he takes a bathroom break and tell us if you see any signs of XXXXXX on it?
"That sounds pretty bad but to be perfectly honest, I'm very comfortable with your ability to gather surveillance information using normal means, including obtaining a search warrant for his computer. I'd like to consult a lawyer before answering any questions about anybody, thank you very much. Please excuse me..."
Mr. Braithwaite? Let me see here... Oh yes, you're they guy who likes to look at pictures of XXXXXX. And I see here you purchased the following toys... Do you keep those in the house where your... let me see... two kids visit? Does your ex-wife's lawyer know what kind of movies you like to watch? Would you like her to know? Sit down please, we have much to discuss.
You don't want to get all legal with us and demand a lawyer, do you? You don't want us to have to bother with a lot of troublesome search warrants, do you?
Mr. Braithwaite? We're investigating a co-worker of yours for possible misuse of computers for XXXXXXX. Can you please tell us: have you ever observed him doing XXXXXX? Do you think you could have a look at his computer the next time he takes a bathroom break and tell us if you see any signs of XXXXXX on it?
"That sounds pretty bad but to be perfectly honest, I'm very comfortable with your ability to gather surveillance information using normal means, including obtaining a search warrant for his computer. I'd like to consult a lawyer before answering any questions about anybody, thank you very much. Please excuse me..."
Mr. Braithwaite? Let me see here... Oh yes, you're they guy who likes to look at pictures of XXXXXX. And I see here you purchased the following toys... Do you keep those in the house where your... let me see... two kids visit? Does your ex-wife's lawyer know what kind of movies you like to watch? Would you like her to know? Sit down please, we have much to discuss.
You don't want to get all legal with us and demand a lawyer, do you? You don't want us to have to bother with a lot of troublesome search warrants, do you?
"This seems backward. Almost certainly, there is something wrong with you if you don't think things you don't dare say out loud."
- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Thanks for the confession... the scary part is the magnitude of which google has access to everyones personal data. Thanks to analytics they even can track everything outside of their direct control
I agree. This is an important thing to realize. It's also not just analytics. Every site that links to advertisements controlled by google or one of the many advertising companies they've acquired can also be used to correlate data about you. I started worrying more when they bought doubleclick.net. I wonder if that same google opt-out cookie works for those sites? What if you're concerned about your privacy enough to clear your cache and cookies every time you close your browser? Google is in a stronger position to track more of what you do on the net than many people may realize.
It is funny how everyone blames Schmidt and not the government or the patriot act or the politicians that enacted the patriot act. Schmidt was just being honest.
It sounds like Schmidt supports things like the Patriot Act.
If he was against it he would have said something like "if you like your privacy don't put it on the internet". Instead, he said "you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
This single phrase has a strong connotation that you are doing something bad. Schmidt doesn't strike me as being dumb enough to say this without knowing exactly how the public would interpret it.
If he was against it he would have said something like "if you like your privacy don't put it on the internet". Instead, he said "you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
This single phrase has a strong connotation that you are doing something bad. Schmidt doesn't strike me as being dumb enough to say this without knowing exactly how the public would interpret it.
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.
I would rather hide, thank you. In a fight between me and the world, my bet is on the world.
Who else does the good/neutral thing? Make common cause with them.
If you have something to hide, do so via technical solutions (e.g. tor), not by hoping some other entity will do it for you on their own accord. They've got their own problems to deal with.
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.
Cf: wikileaks
I guess "Don't be evil" now becomes "Don't be paranoid"
From Wikipedia Article about Google Chrome: Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms
From Wikipedia Article about Google Chrome: Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms
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?
"...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.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, and the future absence of privacy will not really be about Google... Google is just a harbringer.
Universal sousveillance is the future, but since you'll be less and less able to tell whether you're in the future in this sense, acting as though you are might be prudent. :)
Universal sousveillance is the future, but since you'll be less and less able to tell whether you're in the future in this sense, acting as though you are might be prudent. :)
Wow. I think the more important point (as the article says) is made in the next paragraph, where Eric Schmidt reminds us all that data Google collects is always subject to seizure by governments. So, even if you do trust Google, by using Google you're creating a data trail easily accessible by governments. If you used your own server based (say) in the US, on the other hand, then realistically only the US could seize your data, and even then it'd be much harder than if it were stored on Google.
privacy and the argument against nothing to hide on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219
Don't miss the comment starting with "Privacy is only a way to protect you IF THE DATA ISN'T COLLECTED AT ALL." in that thread.
I've not really kept up with this story, nor can I rouse myself to feel the outrage shared by a lot of the community on this one... but if I were to throw in my two cents, I'd have to point to Google Flu Trends [1] and the fact that their modeling of influenza outbreak and spread are some of the most accurate and up-to-date on earth, often besting the World Health Organisation. This is sometimes used as justification for extending the length of time that Google retains data.
If this anti-google sentiment is to be believed and they are marching the corporate road to evil, I shudder to think of the information that could be inferred from collective search pattern trends.
I just noticed that the example had not been given yet and I think it's an important one in this debate. It is a seemingly benign, if not entirely altruistic, case study. What is the consensus, smoke and mirrors, or is there a real social value to be gleaned [2] from the harvest of the vast data swarm?
[1: http://www.google.org/flutrends/] [2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning]
If this anti-google sentiment is to be believed and they are marching the corporate road to evil, I shudder to think of the information that could be inferred from collective search pattern trends.
I just noticed that the example had not been given yet and I think it's an important one in this debate. It is a seemingly benign, if not entirely altruistic, case study. What is the consensus, smoke and mirrors, or is there a real social value to be gleaned [2] from the harvest of the vast data swarm?
[1: http://www.google.org/flutrends/] [2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning]
If you wanted to end Google, all you would have to do is offer a reward for a whistleblower to videotape a privacy violation at Mountain View.
Imagine putting that on Youtube.
(EDIT: yes, I know they own Youtube. Of course they'll take it down. But it would be reposted on Vimeo and the like, and the publicity for the takedown would cause the Streisand effect).
Imagine putting that on Youtube.
(EDIT: yes, I know they own Youtube. Of course they'll take it down. But it would be reposted on Vimeo and the like, and the publicity for the takedown would cause the Streisand effect).
Except that Google owns Youtube.
Imagine that getting taken down from Youtube in record time.
Imagine that getting taken down from Youtube in record time.
The video clip is available at http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-...
reminds me of this riff on privacy by Bruce Schneier from a few years back addressing the same notion that Schmidt is quoted here to believe
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
Privacy protects from abusive power, and privacy protects from irrational judgment: true but incomplete. Privacy allows us to tolerate these problems - rather than being forced to confront them. That may not be a good thing.
Society is full of things we compartmentalize, minimize and tolerate.
Mostly, because we don't know how to confront them. I certainly don't know how to patch human nature so that power doesn't corrupt. So, in the meantime, I'll take privacy, thanks.
Mostly, because we don't know how to confront them. I certainly don't know how to patch human nature so that power doesn't corrupt. So, in the meantime, I'll take privacy, thanks.
The thing people don't realize with google - You are not the customer. You are the product. The customers are the people who pay google to do their advertising.
this thread is now too massive to get any decent visibility for this, oh well.
there is a much deeper, more philosophical reason for instituting a right to privacy than just the fear of corrupt governments.
humans are adapted to signal certain values for the sake of group cohesion. we have a "public persona" and a private life. this isn't something sinister, it's a way of coping with the demands placed on us by our interaction with others. we know in practice that depriving people of the ability to hide things from each other is extremely detrimental to their psyches. most importantly, it is detrimental regardless of the triviality of the things kept secret.
when deprived of the ability to keep secrets people are forced to be "always on". they must maintain the "proper" signals at all times. this is extremely draining (yes, even for extroverts, eventually). the things we like to signal to others aren't necessarily the things that make us most happy.
there is a much deeper, more philosophical reason for instituting a right to privacy than just the fear of corrupt governments.
humans are adapted to signal certain values for the sake of group cohesion. we have a "public persona" and a private life. this isn't something sinister, it's a way of coping with the demands placed on us by our interaction with others. we know in practice that depriving people of the ability to hide things from each other is extremely detrimental to their psyches. most importantly, it is detrimental regardless of the triviality of the things kept secret.
when deprived of the ability to keep secrets people are forced to be "always on". they must maintain the "proper" signals at all times. this is extremely draining (yes, even for extroverts, eventually). the things we like to signal to others aren't necessarily the things that make us most happy.
I don't quite understand why this recent trend has started, but things are showing up on HN that were on Reddit a few days ago.
3 days ago in this case.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ce...
It's like a very slow echo.
3 days ago in this case.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ce...
It's like a very slow echo.
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.
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."
https://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
They claim to be "The only search engine that does not record your IP address."
Thank you for that. Very interesting meta-search engine, clean results. It appears that Google is not among the engines they use.
I like that they don't record your IP, and that they offer https access. Hard to say whether they really do what they say, but they do have the European Privacy Seal, for whatever that's worth.
I'm using it now to see how I like it, so far so good.
I like that they don't record your IP, and that they offer https access. Hard to say whether they really do what they say, but they do have the European Privacy Seal, for whatever that's worth.
I'm using it now to see how I like it, so far so good.
Thank you for the link!
Not a privacy contract but Ask.com has a feature called AskEraser that will remove all your personal information.
http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml
http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml
If only search engines weren't expensive to launch and run... it's about making the money back.
I think it's a very fair and reasonable advice. You don't have to use Google. This is the service Google offers. Your privacy is your payment. It's a great opportunity for someone to start a competing search service that focuses on privacy.
Cuil's shtick is that they don't store any search history http://www.cuil.com/
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#China
I bet that he wishes he could roll-back that comment!
I think that most non-tech people would be very surprised if they realized how much personal data our corporate overlords have collected.
I think that most non-tech people would be very surprised if they realized how much personal data our corporate overlords have collected.
Yeah I disagree with Eric on this point. There are many things I think are fine and acceptable to do, but they don't need to be a part of my public life.
I don't want employers, grandparents, and the government to have access to my private and personal life.
No reason everyone should know movies, books, music, games, sexuality, political beliefs, and everything else about me.
I don't want employers, grandparents, and the government to have access to my private and personal life.
No reason everyone should know movies, books, music, games, sexuality, political beliefs, and everything else about me.
the real problem is not google or schmidt, but things like the patriot act and the ridiculous habit of our government of using "matter of national security" as a catchall for abuse.
the more people who realize how little privacy they have left the better. it's the only way the trend will be reversed.
the more people who realize how little privacy they have left the better. it's the only way the trend will be reversed.
Thomas Jefferson would not approve of that opinion. I actually think less of Google for this stance.
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.
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.
Exactly. If you didn't see the death of privacy as early as the 80s you either weren't paying attention, or weren't born yet.
What's going on here is a redefining of personal data as "private but without privacy." While the distinction itself is somewhat subtle, the ways this redefining is being carried out are anything but.
In Eric's case, he has never exactly been known for his subtlety of thought, has he…?
What's going on here is a redefining of personal data as "private but without privacy." While the distinction itself is somewhat subtle, the ways this redefining is being carried out are anything but.
In Eric's case, he has never exactly been known for his subtlety of thought, has he…?
the users are their own worst nightmares when it comes to privacy. Just look at facebook for evidence.
Cool, so Google will be publishing the search histories of all Google employees by name?
Hypocrite.
Hypocrite.
If you need to justify your non-privacy policies with accusations, maybe you shouldn't be collecting so much identifiable data.
There are plenty of legitimate, even honorable actions which are threatened by poor privacy policies.
There are plenty of legitimate, even honorable actions which are threatened by poor privacy policies.
If you have a cancer, maybe you shouldn't have it.
It is very easy to get caught with this type of argumentation. It is wrong.
Keywords may actually reveal a lot more that one would assume, and prone for des-interpretation as well.
It is very easy to get caught with this type of argumentation. It is wrong.
Keywords may actually reveal a lot more that one would assume, and prone for des-interpretation as well.
Previously submitted here
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=982838
Though unfortunately my submission didn't get as many upvotes for whatever reason.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=982838
Though unfortunately my submission didn't get as many upvotes for whatever reason.
[deleted]
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.
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.
cc companies accept the risk of fraud, you (theoretically) have little legal risk.
"in our case we’re building the platform that will allow the content people to do more targeted content."
Telling us what 'personalized' is about. Not doing better searching, doing better selling. Find the people with a little extra money, 24/7, and offer them something they might go for, 24/7, whether they need it or don't. Helping them stay one paycheck away from broke.
Telling us what 'personalized' is about. Not doing better searching, doing better selling. Find the people with a little extra money, 24/7, and offer them something they might go for, 24/7, whether they need it or don't. Helping them stay one paycheck away from broke.
Go to Scroogle and click HTTPS...
https://ssl.scroogle.org
Problem solved!
https://ssl.scroogle.org
Problem solved!
I think that Mr. Schmidt is trying to do two things: (1) Preparing for Google to eventually be "outed" about just how much data it actually hands over to the government on the basis of the Patriot Act; (2) Distracting the general public from the broader range of privacy concerns that Google raises (specifically: private surveillance as contrasted with government surveillance).
He mentions the Patriot Act and I would paraphrase him as throwing up his arms and saying "Hey, we're subject to those laws just like you! We have no choice!" Alas, Google does have the choice and unique opportunity to challenge those laws but it appears that they simply decline. That is why I think he's preparing for Google to be outed vis a vis the extent of its cooperation with government.
Next, asked about privacy concerns, he immediately reframes the question as if it were a question about government surveillance - neatly ducking any issues about private surveillance. Bartalomo fails to follow up.
The issue about private surveillance is significant in mundane (but serious) ways and in more speculative, cultural crisis kind of ways.
A mundane concern is the question of whether or not Google "leaks like a sieve". For example, if someone at Google dislikes me, how hard is it for them to scratch around for dirt in my (nominally) private information? If someone at Google is a friend or (black market) business partner of a recruiter at some other firm to which I apply for employment, is an unauthorized background check possible? Do such things happen? It's hard to imagine that they are technically hard to prevent....
A speculative but serious cultural crisis concern regards Google's deliberate and accidental implementation of what we could dub behavioral tracking and targeted manipulation. For example, let's suppose that one day I get a crazy suspicion from something I read on a blog. I think that there could possibly be a vast conspiracy and that my best chances for survival might be to liquify all of my assets and invest everything I have in personal caches of peppermint candy. I don't fully believe it but I start researching via Google. Google's AIs quickly figure out that I linger on ad-carrying content from backers of this conspiracy theory and, pretty soon, that stuff is at the top of all my searches and predicts 40% of the ads I see. From my perspective: that stuff is "all over the Internet" and I begin to wonder if my neighbors aren't in on the conspiracy since none of them talk about it. Pretty soon, Google has built me a personal, private channel of conspiracy news and peppermint candy ads. I sell my house, leave my family, cash out my retirement plan, by a van to live down by the river, and fill up a rent-a-store spot with boxes of candy.
Now, that same personal bug - my vulnerability to a conspiracy theory - may have been there all along. The change here is that back in, say, 1975 - the biggest mistake I might make is to subscribe to a few newsletters and magazines, perhaps hedge by buying a dozen boxes of candy rather than a gross. Meanwhile, the TV, the radio, all these other things are feeding me counter-evidence to the conspiracy and I'd eventually have a much better chance of coming to my senses.
But Google is unprecedented in its comprehensiveness as a source of monitoring and manipulating my attention. Like the Vegas slot machine that convinces me (wrongly) that I have a system to beat the slots because it pays out 49% of the time, so long as I pay it with my recognizable frequent-gambler credit card -- Google's AI can potentially really mess a person up.
That is a privacy concern. That's a privacy concern directly raised by Google's stated intentions of dabbling in behavioral tracking. And it's a concern that Schmidt deflects from attention by turning the question into a question about government surveillance.
Now, things can get even worse. Suppose that Google's AI doesn't cause large numbers of people to drop out of society and load up on peppermint candy but that, shucks, little discrete tweaks here and there can use the same behavioral science effects to, say, influence the next election for the local dog catcher. And one of the candidates for dog catcher has a slush fund, and a friend at Google.... Or, forget the friend at Google... suppose the dog catcher candidate has a friend who, this year at least, has found some underhanded tricks that currently work really well for SEO....
The ethics of running search and ad placement are unprecedented and difficult and hinge very much on how we update our understanding of "privacy". They hinge very much on the question of privacy vs. behavioral tracking. Schmidt appears uninterested in talking about these issues and very much interested in deflecting attention away from them.
At most only slightly exaggerating: we're all analogous to lab rats, now, in Google's massive-scale human-subject psychological research project with unprecedented amounts of automated surveillance and stimulus production. With money and power hinging on the outcome.
He mentions the Patriot Act and I would paraphrase him as throwing up his arms and saying "Hey, we're subject to those laws just like you! We have no choice!" Alas, Google does have the choice and unique opportunity to challenge those laws but it appears that they simply decline. That is why I think he's preparing for Google to be outed vis a vis the extent of its cooperation with government.
Next, asked about privacy concerns, he immediately reframes the question as if it were a question about government surveillance - neatly ducking any issues about private surveillance. Bartalomo fails to follow up.
The issue about private surveillance is significant in mundane (but serious) ways and in more speculative, cultural crisis kind of ways.
A mundane concern is the question of whether or not Google "leaks like a sieve". For example, if someone at Google dislikes me, how hard is it for them to scratch around for dirt in my (nominally) private information? If someone at Google is a friend or (black market) business partner of a recruiter at some other firm to which I apply for employment, is an unauthorized background check possible? Do such things happen? It's hard to imagine that they are technically hard to prevent....
A speculative but serious cultural crisis concern regards Google's deliberate and accidental implementation of what we could dub behavioral tracking and targeted manipulation. For example, let's suppose that one day I get a crazy suspicion from something I read on a blog. I think that there could possibly be a vast conspiracy and that my best chances for survival might be to liquify all of my assets and invest everything I have in personal caches of peppermint candy. I don't fully believe it but I start researching via Google. Google's AIs quickly figure out that I linger on ad-carrying content from backers of this conspiracy theory and, pretty soon, that stuff is at the top of all my searches and predicts 40% of the ads I see. From my perspective: that stuff is "all over the Internet" and I begin to wonder if my neighbors aren't in on the conspiracy since none of them talk about it. Pretty soon, Google has built me a personal, private channel of conspiracy news and peppermint candy ads. I sell my house, leave my family, cash out my retirement plan, by a van to live down by the river, and fill up a rent-a-store spot with boxes of candy.
Now, that same personal bug - my vulnerability to a conspiracy theory - may have been there all along. The change here is that back in, say, 1975 - the biggest mistake I might make is to subscribe to a few newsletters and magazines, perhaps hedge by buying a dozen boxes of candy rather than a gross. Meanwhile, the TV, the radio, all these other things are feeding me counter-evidence to the conspiracy and I'd eventually have a much better chance of coming to my senses.
But Google is unprecedented in its comprehensiveness as a source of monitoring and manipulating my attention. Like the Vegas slot machine that convinces me (wrongly) that I have a system to beat the slots because it pays out 49% of the time, so long as I pay it with my recognizable frequent-gambler credit card -- Google's AI can potentially really mess a person up.
That is a privacy concern. That's a privacy concern directly raised by Google's stated intentions of dabbling in behavioral tracking. And it's a concern that Schmidt deflects from attention by turning the question into a question about government surveillance.
Now, things can get even worse. Suppose that Google's AI doesn't cause large numbers of people to drop out of society and load up on peppermint candy but that, shucks, little discrete tweaks here and there can use the same behavioral science effects to, say, influence the next election for the local dog catcher. And one of the candidates for dog catcher has a slush fund, and a friend at Google.... Or, forget the friend at Google... suppose the dog catcher candidate has a friend who, this year at least, has found some underhanded tricks that currently work really well for SEO....
The ethics of running search and ad placement are unprecedented and difficult and hinge very much on how we update our understanding of "privacy". They hinge very much on the question of privacy vs. behavioral tracking. Schmidt appears uninterested in talking about these issues and very much interested in deflecting attention away from them.
At most only slightly exaggerating: we're all analogous to lab rats, now, in Google's massive-scale human-subject psychological research project with unprecedented amounts of automated surveillance and stimulus production. With money and power hinging on the outcome.
'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.
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.
So when are people going to start poisoning their search histories by collectively performing mass searches for "bad" content? I've been expecting that to be the eventual reaction to Google disclosing search history.
So, at what point does Google having all your info (e-mail, DNS, search, Google Voice, social network activity, etc.) become worse than AT&T / NSA tapping all your calls?
Like participating in the democratic process?
(see voter privacy)
(see voter privacy)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
This is why philosopher kings aren't allowed possessions.
Google - Be Evil.
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.
Having a filter on your DNS client that excludes Google-related IPs might be more thorough.
If you have something to hide, don't do it on the Internet. Sure. But Schmidt's careless disregard for privacy? Look, 1984 was a warning, not a textbook.
Does this mean he's going to open source all of Google's infrastructure? And release all the trade secrets?
That would be awesome!
That would be awesome!
"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.
You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.
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.
But the fact is that you still seek out a "private" bathroom to relieve yourself and don clothing do you not? Or are you as likely to do the same things in plain view?
What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.
What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.
Even if I didn't subscribe to the taboos of my culture (which I do, at least in this case), there are lots of excellent reasons to use a facility meant to handle human waste.
Because of that, this is a bad example.
Instead, we should be using an example of something which doesn't require any special facility, we have no cultural taboos against displaying[1], and isn't illegal, but which people want to hide, anyway. I'm not sure I can think of anything.
[1] As someone who was raised fundamentalist Christian, I can assure you that habits learned in childhood can still have lots of force in adulthood, even if you no longer agree with the reasons for them.
Because of that, this is a bad example.
Instead, we should be using an example of something which doesn't require any special facility, we have no cultural taboos against displaying[1], and isn't illegal, but which people want to hide, anyway. I'm not sure I can think of anything.
[1] As someone who was raised fundamentalist Christian, I can assure you that habits learned in childhood can still have lots of force in adulthood, even if you no longer agree with the reasons for them.
The only think i can think of is illness or weakness in the presence of someone you don't trust.
I believe it is universal, although I'm willing to accept there may exist cultures that don't have this desire.
In any case, everyone knowing everyone else's state of health sounds ok, until i think about people i don't like. It's a little too enticing to know about how X is sick, and i don't want X to know that i am sick.
Maybe this is to abstract to be useful.
I believe it is universal, although I'm willing to accept there may exist cultures that don't have this desire.
In any case, everyone knowing everyone else's state of health sounds ok, until i think about people i don't like. It's a little too enticing to know about how X is sick, and i don't want X to know that i am sick.
Maybe this is to abstract to be useful.
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
This is explained very well in nfnaaron's post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983997
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.
While I don't like the tone of this post, the point about secret ballots is insightful and deserves consideration.
Yes, I probably should have been less blunt. I was partly thinking about this article
http://www.computorney.com/anonarticle.htm
which concludes that "anonymity in cyberspace is a fundamental underpinning of democracy"
In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the disclosure of personal identity on political literature.
http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-Liber...
http://www.computorney.com/anonarticle.htm
which concludes that "anonymity in cyberspace is a fundamental underpinning of democracy"
In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the disclosure of personal identity on political literature.
http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-Liber...