Google boss: privacy zealots are up to no good

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt has claimed that those seeking to protect their privacy must have something to hide"

Er, yes, that would be my data - you notice the little word 'my' in there, meaning 'not yours'.

By jgwilliams on 8 Dec 2009

"it is possible that information will be made available to the authorities"

After all, why should only the Chinese have access to the web browsing of their citizens?

By greemble on 8 Dec 2009

READ your references

If you're going to post a reference, at least READ the article to which you're referring.

Google Data Liberation Front has NOTHING to do with privacy. They're trying to give people the tools to migrate their data so they are not locked into using only Google's applications, e.g. if people want to stop using Google Docs and start using OpenOffice.

Journalism FAIL.

By AHinMaine on 8 Dec 2009

No right to privacy assumes that people will do nothing malicious with your data.

A Chinese dissident is trying to "hide" his political views to prevent persecution.

Our big brother govt may not be as bad as the Chinese but even they can use data for malicious reasons.

I certainly wouldn't trust my important private data with Google.

By cyberindie on 8 Dec 2009

Not a matter of opting in

Cyberindie; the point here is not whether you trust your private data with them. the point is, they are coming looking for that data. The moment at which they make it public, may be completely invisible to you.

By Steve_Cassidy on 8 Dec 2009

I thought this guy was supposed to be intelligent. He obviously hasn't spent too much time thinking about the problem of safeguarding data.

By c6ten on 8 Dec 2009

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
In that case I look forward to Eric Schmidt publishing the entire forward business plan for Google on the internet - how much they will be spending, on what and why. And if not, why not if he's following that principle?

By AdrianB on 8 Dec 2009

This just confirms everything I distrust Google for.

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

That cannot be used as an argument.

It's the kind of argument that can be used to justify putting cameras in everyones home (as in the book 1984).

It sounds perfectly reasonable, but is massively dangerous and sinister.

By Grunthos on 8 Dec 2009

Muppet

Does this guy realise what he is saying? Can he hear himself and what he sounds like?

There are so many reasons why this is a non-argument (is that a word?) that I'm not even going to start.

Moron.

By mviracca on 8 Dec 2009

I wonder if...

...this is in part why Schmidt got booted off the Apple, Inc board, and not the conflict in the mobile phone arena as publicly cited.

More concretely, Schmidt totally ignore with the enthusiasm of a Catholic Bishop the thousands of rape and sexual abuse survivors seeking resources online, often using google searches. Yeah, I guess they have something to hide.

Or the whistleblower, who might be subject to retaliation. Yeah, they have something to hide too.

How about an Iranian student protester on the run from the authorities, who would kill her for nothing more than speaking against the government? Yeah, she must have something to hide.

Maybe all three of them should just STFU and stop doing what they're doing, Herr Schmidt?

If "Do no evil" was ever anything other than meaningless marketing fluff, Schmidt has flushed whatever goodwill there might have been down the toilet.

I now question if Eric Schmidt is fit to be elected dog-catcher, let alone sit on the board of a large corporation that millions of users have entrusted with personal data.

By DanMcD on 8 Dec 2009

I don't particularly want people to know if I sleep with my head at the end of the bed with the headboard or not. It's entirely legitimate for me to sleep either way but I consider it very creepy for absolute strangers to check.

Google, go back to scanning my email so you can sell advertising.

By steviesteveo on 8 Dec 2009

Anyone who has net curtains, or has a door on their bathroom, or who waits until noone is looking before they pick their nose, or who doesn't read their housemates' mail, or.......
understands the basics of privacy.

The default is privacy. Only a generation corrupted by reality TV and Twitter to think that the most important thing in life is that everyone can see everything about you, could think otherwise.

Most people are fairly 'boring'. They have every right to be boring without big brother's 'company'.

By davidsoap on 9 Dec 2009

Part of the problem is that everyone thinks of distant, implausible, or romantic reasons why privacy matters. I may have mentioned before that I know a divorce lawyer, who specialises in squaddies - quite a dangerous specilaity, when you think about it! She uses Yahoo chat a lot to get to guys on active service; when Yahoo changed the privacy settings in chat, so that your chatters could see the names & profiles of other people you had been chatting with lately, a number of her cases went from "routine" to "could involve the discharge of live rounds". Most of the problem arose because Yahoo (like Google) felt that these changes were of no consequence. This kind of behaviour is the biggest problem for users of big name services like these.

By Steve_Cassidy on 9 Dec 2009

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt has claimed that those seeking to protect their privacy must have something to hide"

Hmmm...that is an appealing advertisement for the new Google OS.

Maybe it should read "who needs privacy, keep your data with us...we will sell it on to anyone"

Nice one Eric

By stuartrattray on 10 Dec 2009

Everybody has "something to hide", it's called a private life!

By mikeos4 on 10 Dec 2009

Hey Eric!
1) Take foot out of mouth
2) Take gun
3) Aim carefully
4) Fire!

... hurts, doesn't it?

...in the UK, it's called 'Doing a Ratner'. Resign at once mate, the jig's up.

By Snibbo on 10 Dec 2009

I wonder if Schmidt would be willing to disclose all of his financial transactions to the revenue services.

Or whether he would be happy to be shadowed (literally) by law agencies 24/7.

Would he be willing to make all of his private conversations public.

I'm sure that he has nothing to hide!!!

All of the above aside- our private lives include confidential information about 3rd parties- would we have the right to disclose that information with out permission?

Should companies disclose everything- including possible take over talks?

Should inventors announce their intentions before patenting them?

By imaginarynumber on 10 Dec 2009

Hey Eric!
1) Take foot out of mouth
2) Take gun
3) Aim carefully
4) Fire!

... hurts, doesn't it?

...in the UK, it's called 'Doing a Ratner'. Resign at once mate, the jig's up.

By Snibbo on 10 Dec 2009

Surprised?

I'm only surprised that anyone is surprised.

Google has for a long time been a data collection agency for the US government in all but name.

By chrisfixit on 10 Dec 2009

Ah. Errm. He made a blunder. It was a thoughtless comment said by accident thinking only of his business which is selling information about people to target adverts.

If you don't want your data to be seen, block it using proxies or similar. If you don't like adverts blinking and flashing in your face block these as well.

Frankly, surfing the web without an ad blocker in place is horrible.

By bubbles16 on 10 Dec 2009

Hysteria is the reason...

You only have to look at events like the Orkney 'Satanic Abuse' scandal to realise that human psychology hasn't advanced all that much since 1600's Salem.

That being the case, privacy of personal information could be the difference between being singled out by 'witch-hunters' and escaping their attentions.

The information doesn't have to be incriminating in the conventional sense either. Having a photo of a railway station stored online could be enough to trigger an investigation by the "There's a terrorist under every bed!" nutters.

When you live in a world of rampant hysteria and over-reaction, the prudent person keeps his or her personal information private.

By Anteaus on 10 Dec 2009

Truth

Regardless of personal preferences, I have noted that it is true to say that while the majority of people may be largely decent, the majority of those who oppose the private retention or publication of user data are themselves responsible for acts ranging from ethically/morally dubious to down right illegal activities.

Were there to be a National or Global System for the retention of personal data including personal identity, biometric/genetic identity, personal histories, known criminal associates, and other relevant and useful data then there is no doubt that there would be a profound improvement in the ability of authorities to identify victims, witnesses and participants of crimes. Having such data would not remove the burdon to prove the guilt of a participants, however that murder, rapist or thief, however it would be possible to quickly identify and detain those involved.
Anyone who is foolish to to think this increases the chance of miss carriages of justice or to allow people to be framed, consider this - Any item you touch has your fingerprints and genetic material on it. It is entirely likely that this might be picked up and dumped at a crime site, even today and while it might take longer to identify you, forensic techniques mean you will eventually be identified and interviewed. If you are innocent would you not prefer to be ruled out of an investigation while it is easy to prove you were not involved?

I think the benefits far outway the issues, and i realise the concerns about abuse. So long as a system is properly set up to limit access to specific data to relevant authorities and those with permission of the subject and data to be added is subject to scrutany and verification then there is little chance that issues might arise.

Legislation preventing the retention of personal data relating to other individuals not related by people and businesses without permission, and only data which is not centrally located on national/global databases should be implemented. Such Legislation the purpose of national/global databases, how the system shall be operated and accessed by all people and allow subjects access to their own data and to dispute and change invalid data.

This would prevent abuse by any holders of personal data including selling personal information, or using personal information for fraudulent activities.

Anyone who is foolish to publish personal data on the internet should not be suprised if it is picked up and used by those of a dubious nature.

Those who are reticent to allow personal data on the internet probably have something to hide and more than likely have a criminal background

By j_woolliscroft on 10 Dec 2009

"Truth"?

Er, j_woolliscroft, you wouldn't by any chance happen to be working for the Chinese government, would you?

By Karunyan on 10 Dec 2009

What have non criminals to fear?

Mr Woolly-head seems to think that those who allow their personal data online are fools while those who don't are criminals.

"It's the kind of argument that can be used to justify putting cameras in everyones home (as in the book 1984)." - Grunthos.
Couldn't put it better myself. But I would add that if we really want to stop people committing crime then we should all be fitted with implantable citizen trackers to. And to make it easier for the police to stop miscreants these citizen trackers should all be fitted with immobilizers as well. After all what have 'non criminals' to fear?

By lucien86 on 10 Dec 2009

Google in German!

Don't try to use very much of anything Google in Switzerland - it defaults to German! And there's no way YOU can choose your language. This is a classic example of the lunatics running the asylum - the programmers decide and NOT the client.

By Briantho on 10 Dec 2009

Truth!!!!

Hey j_woolliscroft - i totally agree with you. This kind of openness could be really handy in catching criminals very easily. For example, that evil teacher who was due the death penalty for the crime of naming a teddy bear "Mohammed" - http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=1024

Thank goodness for sane people like your self.

j_woolliscroft take a peek over the parapet of Western Suburbia and you might start to find that the definition of crime is slightly more subjective than it appears.

By monkeybreath on 10 Dec 2009

on topic

...i am not so worried about google having my data....i actually do trust them with it more than most and feel that Schmidt's statement might have been taken out of context. I get what he means. Google i still love you.

By monkeybreath on 10 Dec 2009

on topic

...i am not so worried about google having my data....i actually do trust them with it more than most and feel that Schmidt's statement might have been taken out of context. I get what he means. Google i still love you.

By monkeybreath on 10 Dec 2009

Big Brother google

This is all sounding very big brother like to me, they take away our privacy in the name of sex crime and security, I am considering not to use any Google services in future. Not because I have anything to hide but because they are taking away my rights.

There actions are anti democratic, I do not live in a glass house and I do not expect my computer to be made of glass either.

People are funny they want one thing and want the opposite at the same time, its up to you to sit on the fence sometimes. You can’t fix it, it is not broken.
Sell your products that’s your job, but do not interfere..
Get your act together.

By eyet2003 on 10 Dec 2009

For those of you who may have missed the fall of communism and the lack of privacy inherent in a totalitarian system and for those of you who seem to believe that they have nothing to hide whatsoever because they regard themselves as pure as the driven snow, please have a look at this article on the BBC today - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8401915.st
m

Also, Mr Schmidt's Google email address is hidden. He has kept it private! I wonder why?

By tallsimon1 on 10 Dec 2009

I know what to do

BINGo!

By downview on 10 Dec 2009

Don't trust Google?

This just demonstrates that Google doesn't get privacy. But we already knew this. As long as you remember that Google doesn't really care about your privacy and security, you have nothing to worry about. Also, be aware that this is not just about Google.com, because they have deep access to data from many other websites too including private data in Twitter and Facebook. So just be careful about what you put online.

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

This is rich coming from Google, after a long series of privacy blunders including, including most recently making public people's protected information on Twitter through Google.com.

The reality is, people want privacy because it is in their own interests.

People don't want their identity stolen by criminals using information about them online. They want to choose who knows what about them. There are things they wish to say and do with some people but not others. Etc.

In contrast, Google wants as much as possible to be public because it's in their interests. Their business is information. And of course if everything is public it's les embarrassing for them when they accidentally make people's private data public.

By timacheson on 11 Dec 2009

Obama got there first

In all these comments, nobody has mentioned Barack Obama's advice to the schoolchildren he spoke with earlier this year, to be careful what they put up on Facebook and the like. Seems as though the American Prsident knows what privacy is and why we should have some, and the head of Google (who, if I remember from his Wired interview, was shipped in to keep "the kids under control") does not.

By Steve_Cassidy on 11 Dec 2009

Imformation Please, Mr Schmidt!

So Mr. Schmidt, since you have nothing to hide, perhaps you can put some video footage of you having sex with your wife or girlfriend (or possibly both!) on YouTube. Also, can you give us your bank account(s) details including passwords and PIN codes?

Not keen? You see Mr Shit (Oops!), the fact is, we ALL have something to hide. It's called "OUR OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS".

I'm actually getting quite fed up with characters like you, thinking you can ride roughshod over our freedom and rights. The revolution is coming my friend and your kind are going to end up hanging from lamposts in the street.

Secret Squirrel (name changed because it's MY BUSINESS!)

By SecretSquirrel on 11 Dec 2009

It's typical that someone advocating such a notion as Eric Schmidt's, would have a German name. You wouldn't by any chance have been a Stasi officer in the former East Germany would you?

By Mahombi on 11 Dec 2009

A bit of restraint please lads

Bad words and Godwin's law (mentioning the Nazis/communists) are just good reasons for people to ignore what you say.

By Steve_Cassidy on 11 Dec 2009

Trust your documents with Google's new OS?

Given the new Google OS stores nothing locally and everything on the Google servers it's a big worry when their personnel make comments like this.

As Steve Cassidy says who knows if or when they might decide to make your documents searchable?

It also worries me whether all the very useful info Google has on people could be sold to 3rd parties? A marketing list with millions of names and details and their lifestyle interests would be worth a fortune - must be very tempting to use/sell this...

By cyberindie on 11 Dec 2009

Why we need privacy in life

If you lived in an oppressive regime you may not want people to know which websites you visited. If they had the internet it nazi germany anyone opposed to gassing jews, gypsies and gays would be a criminal.
Many other websites may be politically legitimate but emotive for some people. Would you want your New York Firefighter friend to know you were visiting a one of the many 9/11 conspiracy theory websites?
You may have opinions that go against the status quo ( ie britains foreign policy in certain countries is wrong, princess diana wasn't a decent person, that wearing real fur is acceptable, 9/11 was a conspiracy, man made global warming is innacurate). I'm not saying I believe any of these things however amongst freinds and certainly amongst strangers you keep your views to your self so as to not arrouse anger and loathing for people who feel strongly on these issues. Being private on some issues and opinions reduces conflict within a society. Why does google reserve the right to be less guarded with your opinions that you would naturally be? I think it is because the environment within which schmit lives in is so liberal and tolerant that there is no need for privacy and keeping your opinions to yourself ( that is of course unless you object to some of the liberal sacred cows in which case you keep your mouth shut). We are private on some issues to not offend others. Just because we want privacy does not mean we are copyright infringing, criminally and otherways deviant terrorists.

Privacy can also be a way of escaping the tyrany of the majority without doing harm to anyone.

As many individuals in show business becomes brands themselves they also might want to hide perfectly legitimate pastimes. If jeremy clarkson was into flower arranging would it be good for his career?

every one at some stage has to put on a public persona that is contrary to your private beliefs. Like pretending you like your co-workers. Or avioding being stigmatised and being called a geek by pretending you don't spend your weekends bulding and modifiying computers.

Everyone keeps some stuff private whether their a criminal or not. Privacy and access to information should be a right ( within the bounds of the law). Just because some people abuse privacy to do sometimes despicable acts doesn't mean decent peoples lives should be penalised.

By blagger123 on 11 Dec 2009