back to article Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy

If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Economic reasons forced layoffs

      "Why are commenters so pissed off with Google over this bit of news? Note the word "forced" - it's a problem with the privacy-destroying laws that our elected representatives keep making, and not with the companies that are complying (willingly or otherwise) with them."

      Not even near the truth. A company is "forced to" sell anything they can (including everything they know about you) _when the profits are not high enough_. Everything else is a production of a vivid imagination.

      You notice that there's _no reference_ to police force or court orders, just "forced". No surprise to me.

  1. bluest.one
    Grenade

    Saucy Goose

    Politicians who espouse 'family values', who campaign against 'homosexual depravity' whilst proclaiming marriage sacred are more often than not, it seems, revealed at some point to be dirty philanderers or fervent cottagers.

    If this is a valid theory, then might it not suggest that, Eric, is up to no good also?

    Maybe he can publish a 24-hour feed of all his activities to prove his innocence in these matters?

    Unless he has something to hide, of course.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Google,

    Your CEO has just made an on-the-record comment of staggering stupidity which goes directly against the core principles of what Google is said to stand for.

    I think it's going to be kind of impossible for you in this situation to blandly say 'Our CEO's comments are personal and do not reflect the views and philosophy of Google, Inc.'. He is the CEO, after all.

    Happily he is only the CEO, not the owner (unlike, say, Gerald Ratner), so at least you have the option of taking action before your company's reputation is damaged any more.

    In the meantime, I am sure you understand that we are as comfortable with the idea of using Google as we might be with buying a car from a manufacturer who doesn't consider brakes to be particularly important 'because all drivers have insurance'.

  3. codemonkey
    Grenade

    YAWN

    More evidence of why it's time, as a collective, to turn out back on the "profit motive". How much more evidence do you people need? Profit = Anti Human. The logic is plain to see. Get it sorted in your head. Then make it so #1.

    Tick tick tick boom....Don't be holding it when it goes off...

  4. Bill B
    Black Helicopters

    Google's Global Privacy Counsel

    There is a wonderful personal blog on privacy by Google's Global Privacy Counsel (Peter Fleischer) at http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-sidewalk-in-milan.html. He emphasises that his ruminations are his, not Googles, which is just as well, since his article is in almost direct contradiction with Google's CEO.

  5. Simon 26
    Thumb Down

    The true mission statement of Google:

    do, know evil

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why do we elect governments by secret ballot?

    Surely keeping how you voted secret is only important if you vote for the BNP? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from people who dislike your party smacking you over the head with a baseball bat.

    Could it, just possibly, be that privacy is a fundamental tenet of democracy?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Another Twat!

    Sorry My patience just ran off the end of cliff. :(

    Hey mate can I look into your house & see everything your family is doing & then can I rifle through all your Property & then reach into your mind?

    My thoughts & actions are "MY OWN" get it!!

    Can we have another Icon, basically to to graphically unload the whole Rack on these PR orientated opinionated buffoons.

  8. Paolo Marini
    Megaphone

    and the competent forum is?

    maybe he's too progressive, or maybe I am.

    I'm still puzzled as to how is it decided where to hold a trial when an "Internet fraud" or "Internet infringement" has happened... surely your telly or your boxing gloves are in a single physical place when something happens to them... but for an electronic document stored on Google, what says that the (eventual) infringement happens with the copy stored on Google's NAS, with the copy currently displayed on screen via the graphics card memory, or with the many copies kept at various stages through the communication link?

    they are all the same "document" yet one copy might infringe national laws, and one might not...

    have parliaments ever considered "multitude" issues in their proposals and discussions?

  9. David Simpson 1
    Big Brother

    YOU ARE FREE....

    YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WELL TELL YOU, YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!

  10. Eddy Ito
    Thumb Up

    Got a bug up your...

    He won't mind when there are recording devices everywhere he goes then. Including a few in the board room, his car and, just for good measure, one shoved so far up his arse his voice will be clear as crystal to capture all he says. Not that anyone is really interested in hearing anything he has to say.

    So Eric, can we look forward to transcripts of all internal Google workings? Especially those juicy bits from around the kool-ade cooler.

    Thumbs up for installing Eric's bug and there isn't a Goog Goon with horns icon.

  11. Shane Kent
    Thumb Down

    What's that Eric...

    You want me to tell people to stop using your service because you don't care about their privacy?

    Looks like it's time to start changing people's start pages when I go to their house to fix their PC. As well as work PCs of the 4 companies I help. They are only multi million dollar construction companies, no great loss Eric....

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    "If you have something that you don't..."

    "... want anyone to know, [craft a Non-Disclosure Agreement]. "

    - http://valleywag.gawker.com/230407/this-nda-never-existed

    - http://valleywag.gawker.com/259537/privacy-and-haircuts

    - http://cananian.livejournal.com/46914.html

    hoojunkmail

  13. Watashi

    G**gle

    If you work for a sexist, homophobic, racist, right-wing, climate-change denying, evangelical Christian boss who is looking for staff to sack to reduce costs, I can think of quite a few perfectly legal things that an employee may not want to reveal about themselves.

    The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is based on the assumption that we live in a fair and just world. I guess Schmidt doesn't get out much.

    1. Ed Gould
      FAIL

      re : G**GLE

      You are right on the spot Watashi. This thinking is typical of the right wing "group think". The republicans just do not get it. They essentially are saying that if you think (and do) exactly what I do then there is never a problem. That is what the basic problem is. The right wing just knows they are right and everybody who disagrees with them are wrong and either should be put in jail (ala GITMO). There is no room for differences in their dictates. The republicans do whatever they want to and cloak in in national security. You object? Sorry you are wrong and must be jailed (preferably without bail and no chance of parole). The republican party is coming full circle to a communist dictatorship.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shit

    So, like, if I'm like using Google's products, they can like see what I do and shit? Holy arse! And I can stop this happening by just not using their products? Wow, I wish someone had explained this to me before.

    I've just done a search on Google's searchy thing, and some people reckon they might use information to try and show me some adverts while I use their free services, or even to work out what I like. Shit. I suppose that kind of thing is evil. A bit like all of those billboards and things which are demographically targeted at me. You know, the ones I can ignore if I choose? I'll probably have to stop using my debit card to buy things, or then all those retailers will know what I like, and passively try to sell me things based on that. Like every major company in the Western World.

    The end of the world is clearly nigh when obviously intelligent people cannot make the link between not using a service they don't like the terms of, and not having to obey those terms. Heaven help us, you bunch of fucking morons.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Title

      Shut up Kent.

    2. Bumbling Fool

      It's the principle, not the detail

      AC - I largely tend to agree with you. However, what concerns me is the "if you've got nothing to hide" kind of thinking that Eric Schmidt's statement represents.

      It's the pernicious assumption that if you like certain things to remain private then these things are necessarily 'wrong' in some way that worries me.

      I'm not a google knocker. I actually appreciate the fact that I can use some of their tools and services for free - and speaking personally I'm happy for there to be some reasonable quid pro quo in terms of their use of the information they collect about my web habits. If that means I get the odd few targetted ads then that's OK with me.

      But I do think it's important to stand up for the concept of the right to privacy which seems to me to be fundamental to the running of a truly free and democratic society. Obviously there has to be some balance - after all I believe we need the good guys to actually catch the bad guys once in a while and they need the tools and techniques to be able to do that. Getting that balance right in a fair, transparent and accountable way is very difficult, but essential.

      I think we need to resist the 'something to hide' argument - yes there are people who do have something to hide, but the vast majority of us have something to protect, not hide. And that's our dignity and privacy and the opportunity to carry out our everyday lives, doing everyday normal things without excessive and unwarranted surveillance.

      We shouldn't have to be looking over our shoulder every minute when we're doing absolutely nothing wrong. Nor should we be presumed to be guilty of something when we try to preserve our dignity and privacy - it's this huge and fallacious assumption in the thinking behind Eric Schmidt's words that must be exposed and defeated.

      Don't know why, but I believe our freedoms, democracy and rights are actually quite important.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Which one to believe?

      "make the link between not using a service they don't like the terms of, and not having to obey those terms"

      It haven't occurred you that CEO and "terms of usage" are seriously contradicting?

      Which one would _you_ believe?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Shitting.

    Where can I get a photograph of Eric Schmuck doing a shit on his toilet?

    Nowhere.

    Is this because Eric is ashamed of shitting on his toilet?

    No, it's because Eric clearly believes that shitting on one's toilet is nothing to be ashamed of, but perhaps is something he wouldn't necessarily choose to share with the world.

    According to his own argument, though, maybe he shouldn't be shitting on his own toilet if he doesn't want the entire world to know about it.

    Perhaps El Reg would see its way to publishing the headline "Eric Schmidt shits on his own toilet" - maybe even fake some photographs of this most dreadful of spectacles - and then we can all find out - and know - that particular piece of information about Eric, forcing him, thereby, to stop shitting through his mouth into our ears.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Hmmm...

    Yeah, I have to admit I was slow on this one... They were in my "neutral" category, now they've worked their way up to "fail".

  18. Rick Giles
    Linux

    Looks like no Chrome OS for me

    I was going to get the beta and play with Google Chrome OS, but if they are this way with your web searching imagine what they will do with an OS. I bet Micro$oft is pissing themselves right now cause they couldn't pull it off.

  19. David Pollard

    As I've said before...

    Even without semantic obfuscation, 'do no evil' is a pretty wide brief.

  20. Stephen Bungay
    Linux

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be concerned about"; this is the logic of tyranny, used to support the subjugation of freedom under the guise of maintaining public safety and security. Sadly, the once free democratic republics and parliamentary democracies who sacrificed their young-men & women in the fight against such evils, have now begun to embrace tyrannical policies. Sadder still is the lack of concern seen in the populace, of which each denizen now faces the spectre (sic) of being subjects of a state, rather than citizens of a nation, or a world.

  21. rwrentf

    Sent to press@google.com

    I sent this to google after reading the article, hopefully many will follow suit:

    I've never sent an email like this before and I considered myself a diehard Google user previously. For many years I've used Google for business and personal use (I'm a DBA by profession). But your CEO's comments on privacy have driven me to Bing. I understand they are probably providing similar information to the government (at a profit if they are following yahoo's business model), but the hypocrisy he displayed after banning CNET from google searches after they posted his personal information is too much for me to stomach.

    I am not trying to do anything illegal, but what I search for is my business. I'll be finding a proxy tool to use, and even then I won't be pointing at your search engine for the next year. It won't have the effect Eric's ban did, but hopefully I can rally more people behind me as I post copies of this to every bulletin board I can find.

    Bobby Rentfro

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Lying bastard

    ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, "

    Hey Schmidt, how much did you get paid for that statement?

    Do you really mean what you said (when it concerns to yourself) or are you a weasel?

    1 to 100 he's a weasel, lying bastard.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Badgers

    Google doesn't protect whistleblowers.. it helps govts and companies oppress them

    Google doesn't know nor does it care whether what you are doing is "right".

    Take the whistle blowers who use Google's blog services or Orkut. They are doomed. Indian Police has a deal with Google and Google hands the users over to Indian Police without any checks. Without any checking. The users could be expressing political speech or complaining about a product from some company or poor service. Google simply hands them over and they get dragged around by corrupt Indian police, they get SLAPPed... or they simply take their rants off the web and disappear...

    Was this expected of Google ? I don't think so !

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    I might have something to hide..

    I may be writing a comment on a blog and may want to protect my identity. I may be whistleblowing. I may want to act quickly in the interest of public good without my identity revealed. And I might be in danger if revealed !

    I may not be a criminal...

  25. william henderson 1

    altavista

    it is then

  26. Iggle Piggle
    Coat

    What he said was...

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"

    What we heard was

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you are a sad wanker | child molestor | terrorist (you take your pick)"

    The problem is that he did not say that his users with something to hide are criminals, he just said it probably does not make sense to use Google if you want to keep that information private.

    For example, I'm working on a new product for my company, in doing so I Google various aspects of the new product and Google logs that fact. It would upset me to think that our competitors are being tipped off about this but in the light of this statement I should not be surprised. I should, indeed, not be using Google to look up information about the new product.

    I am not being a criminal, I am just being naive by using Google. It would be better for me to use something like scroogle or possibly spread my searches over various search engines.

    Now there are people who say that Google should not be recording the information. Well of course they should. For one the US Government appears (in their paranoia) to require it and perhaps more importantly Google are not a charity, they are in the advertising business and if there is one thing that we can say about the advertising industry it is that they have the morals of a degenerate banker. So that is they will doing anything to get ahead of the game. As so many people have observed, we are none of us obliged to use Google (or any other search engine) it is just that we have decided to live with the risks given the convenience. You are using their web site, don't be too outraged when you find that you have to play by their rules and did not bother to read the fine print first.

    So if you have got something to hide (your habbit, your taste in pornography, or your company secrets) I suggest you use scroogle. The rest of us can carry on using Google until the men in dark glasses come knocking.

  27. sunny
    Grenade

    Scary!

    Google seems to be getting arrogant day by day. I hope MS pumps in more investment under its search engine Bing, which already is very well defeating google in every aspect of search.

    Very personally speaking, now if i see a Google service on my pc only thing that comes to my mind is what if they are sniffing every key i am pressing... which i am sure they wud be... may be my fear is ridiculous but the appoach google has taken of end to end stack from Chrome to DNS and access to my private info is their holy right, makes me scared. I try boycott Google products everywhere possible and hope authorities wake up and smell where google is heading with this immature behavior.

  28. markp 1
    WTF?

    oh fer petes sake, get me a moon rocket

    Wow. Has he swallowed his own "do no evil" line so badly that he assumes no-one in the world - or at least no-one with access to the collected information and/or no-one else inside google itself - has a similar philosophy?

    Whilst skirting as gingerly as possible around Godwin, that sort of thing (not to mention a few other schemes being put in place by govts etc :-/ ) would have been gold dust to various powerful but not exactly altrusitic administrations that came to the fore in the earlier parts of the previous century. Your idea of something worth hiding may well conflict badly with theirs... right down to your heritage. And their idea of an appropriate punishment could be, well, a tad harsh.

    And this example would be all well and good as a "lesson from history" if much of the same behaviour wasn't still going on in certain places around the world even to this day. Confidentiality can be an incredibly powerful force for GOOD and mass benefit, as well as providing something for the odd genuine evil-minded criminal (lest we forget, very much a minority sector) to hide behind. This is a point best not forgotten.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like