Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Only naughty people should be afraid of Google, says CEO Eric Schmidt
If there was ever a sign that tech companies are often run by mad-hatter evangelists, this is it: Eric Schmidt, Google's illustrious and incredibly successful CEO has finally spoken out about our continued concerns of privacy. And he isn't being gentle about it either. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt said in an interview with CNBC.
In a self-righteous and condescending way, he is right. As long as you're trying to avoid time in jail. The problem is, most of us aren't criminals. Most of us aren't Googling for child pornography or furry snuff films. The vast majority of the Internet is comprised of innocent and hapless bystanders, logging into MSN Messenger or Facebook to chat with family and friends, or whiling away the hours on FarmVille.
They're not doing anything wrong, but does that make it OK to collect vast quantities of data about them? It is Google's livelihood, to match ads to its users -- but most of us don't know that. Our mothers and fathers don't know that those ads on Facebook or Google are specifically tailored to them. Their entire history of surfing on the Web, processed, boiled down and condensed into a little box of text.
In my mind, it's like someone hiring a private investigator to follow you. Even if you don't do anything illegal while under their surveillance, does that make it OK? Google is always pretty evasive when it comes to the issue of privacy, and Eric Schmidt's stunning statement certainly won't help allay our growing concerns.
At the time of publishing I haven't been able to find a video of the full interview on CNBC, but there's a short 30-second clip over on Gawker.
[via The Register]
Comments
29
Subscribe to commentsaknottsDec 9th 2009 11:09AM
thats not a comment that people what to hear he should be fired immediately what a idiot
astrotoysevenDec 9th 2009 11:13AM
lolz... sound like Schmidt and Google need to do a Google Search on 'The Spanish Inquisition'
EthanDec 9th 2009 11:16AM
I don't think privacy concerns are a reason to stop indexing services. The use for them might be. And if a service can present any information about me, I would expect them to be similarly transparent (which Google usually is).
ArnieDec 9th 2009 11:25AM
Problem is not people doing 'wrong' things. It's the definition of wrong' which is highly fluid. Does he decide what is wrong? I laugh now cause Google keeps saying 'Do No Evil' & it all sounds nice but apparently spying on billions of people & helping crazy governments is 'not evil' & if questioned they say we must be wrong when they do spy on us.
TheLinxDec 9th 2009 11:26AM
I don't see what's so bad about personalized ads.
I'd rather see ads for bands that I like, rather than some music I despise.
Sebastian AnthonyDec 9th 2009 11:28AM
I agree on that front.
I think the problem is more that Google perhaps know more about you than you know about yourself. I wonder why they don't share that data either... it would be awesome to see so much about ourselves :)
MimzyDec 9th 2009 11:56AM
I'm rather surprised to see this post on a blog like this. That's something more frequently heard from terrified 60-year-olds who had already reached middle age by the time the Internet became available.
Just because information about you is out there, doesn't mean anyone gives a a crap about it. Second, it's not like Google is peeking into your medicine cabinet--it only pertains to your ONLINE activity, which is something you should assume is public anyway.
Furthermore, Google would face devastating legal and social consequences if it were to do something inappropriate with your data. It's the same as when a store accidentally releases the credit card numbers of its customers, as was the case with the DSW shoe store. There are investigations, compensation, and, possibly, enough of a blow to the company's reputation that customers leave.
To Arnie up in the comments--Google is not "spying" on people or "helping crazy governments." Google is a business, and it businesses have a profit motive. Google stands to gain profit by showing you ads that you might actually be interested in, because then not ONLY are you much more likely to click on them and buy those products, but you'll also be more satisfied with the search engine in general. Ads are a part of online life nowadays, and I'd much rather they pertain to my life in some way than not.
To me, Eric Schmidt's comment sounds like the common-sense reply of a man fed up with being asked the same dumb questions. It sounds more like an attempt at a humorous retort than a sign that Schmidt is actually extremely concerned with your private behavior. Come on, people.
Google really doesn't care what you do. It doesn't spy, judge, or do anything other than collect data and serve it back to you. If I wanted to read about conspiracy theories, I would go somewhere other than a tech blog, but apparently now I can find them here too.
Sebastian AnthonyDec 9th 2009 11:58AM
Thanks for input!
It's not really conspiracy-theory stuff. It's just information that I thought people might appreciate. Whether we like it or not, almost all of us interact with Google -- and that interaction is growing every day, every month, every year.
It's not identifiable data -- but again, even if the private eye doesn't have your name, does that make it OK for him to follow you?
The usual argument here, from privacy advocates, is 'laws can change'. CCTV cameras are a great preventative measure NOW, but it only takes one law/switch to be flipped... it is the same with Google, which is what concerns most people I think.
gwenneth7Dec 9th 2009 1:27PM
I'm happy that someone such as yourself is privy to exactly what Google is thinking about, how it operates, and exactly what it does with the data it collects.
I'm guessing I would be correct in assuming you are a corporate officer in Google to have such information at your disposal?
Furthermore, I'm very impressed by your thinly veiled insult directed at people who I would guess are much older than you. It's high time that 'hip' young people such as yourself put them all in their place.
It used to be if I wanted to read neoconservative, self-centered, and banally cliched scorn for other people's opinions, I'd need to bop over to Mr. O'Reilly's website in order to get my fill. Comforting to find some of that crowd has now made it over to this website thereby saving me keystrokes.
Thanks once again!
techpopsDec 9th 2009 9:38PM
You're so very wrong that Google doesn't care what you do. They make their money indirectly from knowing what you do. The more they know, the more opportunities they have to make more money.
Targetted advertising is only one aspect of how Google make money.
And to think that everyone should just accept being online as a public place where they have no right to any privacy at all is just mind blowing to me. If that were true I could have access to your credit card info if you shopped online once. Why not, you did it online right? no right to privacy there. You see how foolish a statement that was you made now?
This was a nasty comment Schmidt made, as he very well knows, the vast majority of what people do online is 100% legal and most of what that they would like to remain private is 100% legal.
KhurtDec 9th 2009 4:19PM
Aaarrghh! Another ignorant writer who does not understand the difference between privacy and anonymity. What you do inside your house is private. What you do out on the street where ANYONE can see you, is NOT. If I don't know your name then you are anonymous.
So you are fooling yourself if you think you can go on the public Internet and remain private. That is what I think Schmidt was referring too. If you want private email then encrypt it.
If you want to use Google's service then you agree to the terms they set forth. Or go elsewhere.
techpopsDec 9th 2009 9:37PM
What you do inside your house is private. What you do out on the street where ANYONE can see you, is NOT
That is utter nonsense. If that were true then anyone could come up to me on the street and take my wallet and have a look what was in it. I mean, I have no right to privacy on the street do i?
I'll ignore the rest of your waffling as you fell at the first paragraph.
Eric HDec 9th 2009 12:07PM
Why is it always policy to punish the innocent to catch the guilty?
Sebastian AnthonyDec 9th 2009 12:08PM
It's called 'preventative' I think.
Until you have some kind of Minority Report'esque system, it's the best we've got... I think :P
FYIanDec 9th 2009 12:21PM
Well considering the Minority Report system was demonstrated to be fallible, I certainly don't want to have to live under an even crappier version.
MimzyDec 9th 2009 12:40PM
@Eric H--is it considered "punishing the innocent" when a police officer patrols a neighborhood to prevent crime, or when a forum is moderated?
Not necessarily equating Google with that, but just something to think about.
TicoDec 9th 2009 3:43PM
Google is not "driving by" my neighborhood to check up on things. They are tailing me and keeping notes, and trying to get into my house. I would say, that if the police were acting like Google we would be hearing about this disregard of the BoR.
I agree that "what is right" to an extent can be grey, but it is not their job to decide. It is the People's. We as a society decide where the limits are, not corporations. Spanish Inquisition is right.
ThrushDec 9th 2009 12:41PM
It's only a matter of time before they drop the "No" from their slogan. Power corrupts and Google gains more power each day as they centralize info about everyone who uses their stuff (which I would imagine is the majority of web users). If you use all their services they have your schedule, a list of friends and family, pictures and video of those friends and family, all your digital correspondence, notes, documents, web browsing habits/interests, data about your location via your shiny new Droid, your home address, pictures of your home via Google street view etc. They will surpass Walmart as the most Evil conglomerate in the world and All Our Base Will Belong to Them.
NeoprimalDec 9th 2009 1:35PM
Here's the thing. You can avoid google completely. Just don't use an Android phone, Gmail, Gtalk, and the many Google services out there (Picasa, Voice, Dictionary, Docs, etc.).
Eventually, you'll be handing your information over to someone, anyway.
Your ISP, first of all has pretty much enough information on you or whoever signed up for the account. Their dns servers and your ip address are also constantly logged.
My point is that if you're a 'user' of the internet or a social human being, chances are that your information is out there somewhere. So if you're concerned or paranoid about that, the best thing to do is to move into the hills somewhere and live out the rest of your life - as long as noone steals your identity or, I'll rephrase - as long as some terrorist doesn't steal your identity and do something horrific, you can sit up there fish, grow potatos and enjoy life as a recluse.
Otherwise, you're going to have to live with the fact that as we move more and more in/on to the digital domain, information that's normally privy and only seen by say Government eyes is going to get out there. All your chats and emails are snapshotted and saved someplace and as of facebook, pretty much everything is out there.
As Mr. S says though, as long as you're not doing something you shouldn't or have something you're not supposed to - there's no need to be paranoid.
That...is...of course assuming that noone at all will ever be able to go in there and change details of your chats/emails/life. But that's another story.
Andrew WDec 9th 2009 1:43PM
Only people doing wrong should be concerned about privacy? Then I guess Mr Shmidt has never been a protestor or human rights activist in an oppressive regime, a gay teen in the Bible Belt, HIV positive, an abused woman seeking shelter, a journalist, a whistle blower, into naughty role playing, clinically depressed and looking for support in a place where you can be fired for mental illness, hoping to change jobs ... the list goes on.
Or are those people doing wrong, Mr Schmidt?
The more information you collect, the more information you have to give away under court orders.