
Google’s Schmidt: NSA Spying on Data Centers ‘Outrageous’ - Libertatea
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/04/googles-schmidt-on-nsa-china-and-north-korea/
======
DanBC
I have trouble sympathising with Schmidt when he's earlier said that Internet
privacy is an illusion, even though he's suffered from intrusive reporting.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html)

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

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-
schmid...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-
dismisses-privacy)

> Unfortunately, Schmidt's statement makes it seem as if Google, a company
> that claims to care about privacy, is not even concerned enough to
> understand basic lessons about privacy and why it's important on so many
> levels -- from protection against shallow embarrassments to the preservation
> of freedom and human rights.

> Gawker was quick to point out the personal hypocrisy of Schmidt's dismissive
> stance, noting that for about a year, Schmidt blacklisted CNET reporters
> from Google after the tech news company published an article with
> information about his salary, neighborhood, hobbies, and political donations
> -- all obtained from Google searches. Techdirt noted additionally that
> Schmidt's statement is painfully similar to the tired adage of pro-
> surveillance advocates that incorrectly presume that privacy's only function
> is to obscure lawbreaking: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing
> to worry about."

~~~
magicalist
Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand (what on
earth does sympathy have to do with it, especially for Eric Schmidt? _it 's
user data_ the NSA is copying)

Meanwhile, I'll point out once again the rest of what he said, in which he
warned everyone of the dangers of cloud computing due to the powers enabled by
the Patriot Act. But no, no one wanted to talk about that. Too easy to go for
the sound bite.

> _Q: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they
> be?"_

> Schmidt: _" I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t
> want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But
> 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. It is possible that information could be made available to the
> authorities."_

~~~
DanBC
He made a business out of making user data easy to grep, in order to serve
ads.

I guess when he started he (along with everyone else) didn't think the NSA
would be quite so blatantly illegally slurping data. There's a big difference
between having to hand over data because a judge has approved a valid legal
request, vs having a weird secret court forcing a black box onto your network.

But still, Google is chock full of smart people and if any company is able to
sort out easier encryption it's Google, and they haven't done that. (Although
I accept what tptacek says here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483)
)

~~~
moron4hire
the problem is, as far as anyone with the power to do anything about it is
concerned, what the NSA did was completely legal. They also claim the power to
not explain to us why it's legal. Or to explain the rules by which they decide
what is legal. But the end result is the same: they have effectively proven
that voting is a waste of time.

------
frank_boyd
I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts
hardware provided by the NSA.

So his outrage is even more hypocritical than the EU's leaders'.

Also, if he was really "outraged", he'd band together with the other tech
giants and actively and visibly fight the NSA:

If somebody has the power and reach to get the public behind a cause, it's the
tech giants. As long as they don't fight the NSA and do it in a manner that's
transparent for the public and honest, I call:

Pure PR bullshit as usual.

~~~
Oletros
> I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts
> hardware provided by the NSA

Any link for that?

~~~
frank_boyd
I read it in another Guardian article at the time, but:
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/pri...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/prism-
slides-nsa-document) slide #3:

"Collection directly from the servers of these US Service Providers:
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, Youtube, Apple."

"directly from the servers of these US Service Providers" means " _with help
from_ these US Service Providers"

~~~
skj
Or, it means they tapped the lines between servers.

This assertion of meaning without evidence is a waste of time. Please make
sure to replace "means" with "causes me to think" in the future.

------
Maarten88
What strikes me is that this time, Microsoft seems to not be mentioned in
relation to this type of spying. Just Yahoo and Google. I can't imagine NSA
finding Microsoft datacenter traffic less interesting. Does Microsoft have
better encryption between data centers?

~~~
bowmessage
I bet Microsoft is just much more cooperative with the government so they
don't need to do that kind of spying.

------
Geee
Too bad he isn't in charge any more. Been downhill for Google since he left
the position ...

------
hengheng
Did Google lose business over the fiber spying? Their reaction is similar in
its hypocrisy to German chancellor Merkel.

------
fulafel
I got the impression that Schmidt was the most privacy-concerned guy in the
Google management triumvirate, reading Steven Levy's Google book. So his
thoughts might not be an accurate reflection on how the company will react.

