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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :/
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?
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?
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.
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.
Funny, Schmidt is using the same reasoning people commonly use to defend the patriot act (and, for that matter, other government-instilled impediments on privacy and freedom of speech).
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?
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
My corollary: if you have something to hide, and doing it is a good or neutral thing, then you have identified a bug in society. You probably ought to fix that.
There are lots of such bugs, however, and fixing them takes decades of hard work. In the meantime, most people affected by said bugs, unwilling or unable to fight, need a place to hide.
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.
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).
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.
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'd like to hear Erich Schmidt's half of the story.
This is typical Internet drama. We have seen it a million times. I give the guy the benefit of doubt since this wouldn't be the first occasion some journalist taken a sentence out of context.
It sounds like the interview which was done by CNBC during their hour-long special about a week ago on Google. I'll check when I get home since I have it on my DVR, but they usually re-air their specials every few weeks so keep an eye out for it.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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. :)
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.
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…?
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.
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.
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.
171 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the data for other privacy-invading targeting.
see the Yahoo leak from cryptomeme http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/yahoo-spy.pdf
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.
When the government sees it hitting their tax take they will listen
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.
As more practical advice, if you're doing something you don't want others associating with your IP address, use an anonymizer you feel you can trust.
Finally, a reasoned response. I came in here just to say this; Can't believe what an uproar this is causing...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.)
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
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.
What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.
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.
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.
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...
This is explained very well in nfnaaron's post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983997
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 that getting taken down from Youtube in record time.
Idea: A new competing search engine could release a General Privacy Agreement along with their search service.
https://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html
They claim to be "The only search engine that does not record your IP address."
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.
http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/askeraser.shtml
Hypocrite.
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.
Pretty silly thing to have said though.
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!
> Page generated at 17:55 on 15 October 2009 (PDT).
I think that most non-tech people would be very surprised if they realized how much personal data our corporate overlords have collected.
From Wikipedia Article about Google Chrome: Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms
Having a filter on your DNS client that excludes Google-related IPs might be more thorough.
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. :)
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.
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…?
- http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
3 days ago in this case.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ce...
It's like a very slow echo.
"...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?