
Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it" - nkohari
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
======
pierrefar
I'd like Eric Schmidt to publicly release his search history, both his work-
related and private searches.

~~~
tc
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."

~~~
pierrefar
Who's requiring them to retain anything? For 180 days?

And retaining for policing/security reasons doesn't mean you should use the
data for other privacy-invading targeting.

~~~
rsingel
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.)

------
tome
Straight back at Eric Schmidt: "If you have to look at people's personal data
to do something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

~~~
tedunangst
How would a search engine that doesn't look at your search string work?

~~~
diego
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.

~~~
tyler
You certainly _could_ argue that, however, if it were true in most cases
Google, a highly data-driven company, would be still be working that way.

------
tsally
I hope you're all pleased you jumped on the bandwagon. Here are his actual
words from the video:

 _Judgement matters... If you have something that you don't want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place... 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 and it is possible
that all that information could be made available to the authorities._

Schmidt's statement is clearly pragmatic. One might even argue there's an
implied criticism of laws like the Patriot Act. Could he have phrased it
better? Yes. _He shouldn't have said the sentence in question._ But next time,
actually read/watch the primary source so you can get the full picture. His
closing remarks completely change the tone of the conversation. Are you really
going to let The Register do your thinking for you?

------
DrJokepu
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.

~~~
andreyf
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!

~~~
benmathes
Try hackerhackernews.com. It's the same site, but uses some Bayesian modeling
to filter out the TechCrunch-like internet drama.

~~~
10ren
Unfortunately, not regularly updated:

> Page generated at 17:55 on 15 October 2009 (PDT).

------
sheriff
cool, so my friends that work at Google don't need to keep the details of
their projects secret anymore?

~~~
NonEUCitizen
or they shouldn't be working on that project...

------
nfnaaron
"... we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is
possible that all that information could be made available to the
authorities."

The right to privacy from the government is a logical consequence of the fact
that the government is the servant of the people, put in place to protect and
promote the people's interests. The Declaration of Independence describes our
reason for instituting a government at all:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, ..."

We need no justification for privacy from the government and its proxies. The
most upstanding citizen still has the right to keep his affairs private. _Even
people with nothing to hide have the right to hide it_.

We explicitly give the government the power of search, but only when we
(through a judge) agree that it's necessary. Without that agreement, they're
not allowed:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

We explicitly restrict all other powers of government through the 10th
Amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

We do that because we recognize the tendency of unchecked governments to
gather more power to themselves. When a government becomes more powerful than
its people, the people are slaves who have lost "the Blessings of Liberty" as
listed in the Constitution's Preamble.

Government is a dangerous tool. It's the people who should be watching the
government, not the other way around.

~~~
pohl
I would like to be able to invoke the 4th amendment like this, but I'm having
trouble thinking through how one would establish - if Google handed data to
the feds under the Patriot Act - that the feds would be searching or seizing
anything that was on my person, nor in my house, nor my papers, nor my
effects.

Rather, it seems more likely that the feds would be knocking on Google's house
and seizing a portion of _their_ "papers" that recorded the times that I've
come over to visit. I don't think I own their log entries for my searches.
Moreover, does a corporation get protection under that amendment, and even if
they do, there's already the "warrant" mechanism.

~~~
nfnaaron
Anything on Google would be your papers and effects, I would think. The spirit
of the law is to protect your privacy, and it's not the place of government to
search your affairs just because new technology makes that possible and
practical.

Also, the government is not demanding data from Google because they're
interested in Google; they're interested in _you_.

~~~
mbreese
No, anything on Google would be their papers and effects... it's on their
servers.

------
patrickgzill
So much for "don't be evil".

~~~
jsm386
It seems like he's actually telling you, the user, not to be evil. Sad.

~~~
robobenjie
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.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
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.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
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?

~~~
ShabbyDoo
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.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
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 :/

------
Vitaly
hey, guys, chill out. He's not saying that you shouldn't do anything you don't
want the public to know or anything like that. Google is actually protecting
your privacy from the public. Your search history is not available to anyone
except for the law-enforcement with a subpoena. He is only saying that under
_some_ circumstances Google _has_ to release _some_ information according to
the current law. And if you don't want this happening, you should't have this
information on Google in the first place.

For example if you plan to murder someone you better not google for "how to
hide a corpse" :)

~~~
ekiru
On a related note, if you plan to murder someone, you should not post an HN
comment suggesting what not to google for when planning a murder.

------
btilly
I don't particularly care about the government investigating me.

My concern is about the people in power abusing their power to get information
about their main rivals. Think "Watergate". Except without the physical
breaking and entering.

There are legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong would want
what they have done not revealed to those in power. My concern about our
descent into becoming a police state is that the checks and balances that
should protect those people are disappearing.

~~~
raganwald
_There are legitimate reasons why people who have done nothing wrong would
want what they have done not revealed to those in power._

Mr. Braithwaite? We're investigating a co-worker of yours for possible misuse
of computers for XXXXXXX. Can you please tell us: have you ever observed him
doing XXXXXX? Do you think you could have a look at his computer the next time
he takes a bathroom break and tell us if you see any signs of XXXXXX on it?

"That sounds pretty bad but to be perfectly honest, I'm very comfortable with
your ability to gather surveillance information using normal means, including
obtaining a search warrant for his computer. I'd like to consult a lawyer
before answering any questions about anybody, thank you very much. Please
excuse me..."

Mr. Braithwaite? Let me see here... Oh yes, you're they guy who likes to look
at pictures of XXXXXX. And I see here you purchased the following toys... Do
you keep those in the house where your... let me see... two kids visit? Does
your ex-wife's lawyer know what kind of movies you like to watch? Would you
like her to know? Sit down please, we have much to discuss.

You don't want to get all legal with us and demand a lawyer, do you? You don't
want us to have to bother with a lot of troublesome search warrants, do you?

------
dirkstoop
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).

~~~
netcan
What is the reasoning?

------
jodrellblank
"This seems backward. Almost certainly, there is something wrong with you if
you don't think things you don't dare say out loud."

\- <http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

------
ulf
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

~~~
daten
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.

------
hristov
It is funny how everyone blames Schmidt and not the government or the patriot
act or the politicians that enacted the patriot act. Schmidt was just being
honest.

~~~
codexon
It sounds like Schmidt supports things like the Patriot Act.

If he was against it he would have said something like "if you like your
privacy don't put it on the internet". Instead, he said "you shouldn't be
doing it in the first place".

This single phrase has a strong connotation that you are doing something bad.
Schmidt doesn't strike me as being dumb enough to say this without knowing
exactly how the public would interpret it.

------
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
gloob
I would rather hide, thank you. In a fight between me and the world, my bet is
on the world.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Who else does the good/neutral thing? Make common cause with them.

------
EastSmith
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

------
spiralhead
Are you expecting Google to defy the US government? He is merely stating a
fact:

"...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?

~~~
DougWebb
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.

------
randallsquared
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. :)

------
sqs
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.

------
dustingetz
privacy and the argument against nothing to hide on slashdot:
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219>

~~~
Hexstream
Don't miss the comment starting with "Privacy is only a way to protect you IF
THE DATA ISN'T COLLECTED AT ALL." in that thread.

------
theblackbox
I've not really kept up with this story, nor can I rouse myself to feel the
outrage shared by a lot of the community on this one... but if I were to throw
in my two cents, I'd have to point to Google Flu Trends [1] and the fact that
their modeling of influenza outbreak and spread are some of the most accurate
and up-to-date on earth, often besting the World Health Organisation. This is
sometimes used as justification for extending the length of time that Google
retains data.

If this anti-google sentiment is to be believed and they are marching the
corporate road to evil, I shudder to think of the information that could be
inferred from collective search pattern trends.

I just noticed that the example had not been given yet and I think it's an
important one in this debate. It is a seemingly benign, if not entirely
altruistic, case study. What is the consensus, smoke and mirrors, or is there
a real social value to be gleaned [2] from the harvest of the vast data swarm?

[1: <http://www.google.org/flutrends/>] [2:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning>]

------
ramanujan
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).

~~~
astine
Except that Google owns Youtube.

Imagine that getting _taken down_ from Youtube in record time.

------
ewjordan
The video clip is available at [http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-
are-for-filthy-...](http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-
filthy-people)

------
hydeph
reminds me of this riff on privacy by Bruce Schneier from a few years back
addressing the same notion that Schmidt is quoted here to believe

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html)

~~~
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
roc
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.

------
ori_b
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.

------
nazgulnarsil
this thread is now too massive to get any decent visibility for this, oh well.

there is a much deeper, more philosophical reason for instituting a right to
privacy than just the fear of corrupt governments.

humans are adapted to signal certain values for the sake of group cohesion. we
have a "public persona" and a private life. this isn't something sinister,
it's a way of coping with the demands placed on us by our interaction with
others. we know in practice that depriving people of the ability to hide
things from each other is extremely detrimental to their psyches. most
importantly, it is detrimental regardless of the triviality of the things kept
secret.

when deprived of the ability to keep secrets people are forced to be "always
on". they must maintain the "proper" signals at all times. this is extremely
draining (yes, even for extroverts, eventually). the things we like to signal
to others aren't necessarily the things that make us most happy.

------
bumblebird
I don't quite understand why this recent trend has started, but things are
showing up on HN that were on Reddit a few days ago.

3 days ago in this case.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ce...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ceo_adopting_the_if_you_arent_guilty_then/)

It's like a very slow echo.

------
va_coder
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.

~~~
by
Maybe this would be a good starting point:

<https://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html>

They claim to be _"The only search engine that does not record your IP
address."_

~~~
nfnaaron
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.

------
jsz0
I think it's a very fair and reasonable advice. You don't _have_ to use
Google. This is the service Google offers. Your privacy is your payment. It's
a great opportunity for someone to start a competing search service that
focuses on privacy.

~~~
jluxenberg
Cuil's shtick is that they don't store any search history
<http://www.cuil.com/>

------
jrwoodruff
The sad thing here really is how obviously limited his perspective is. Maybe
this is true in the U.S. (but I'm pretty sure privacy is still something
highly valued here) but what about foreign citizens? What about people who
have things to hide from the chinese government? What about governments that
have things to hide from their people? Oh, wait, Google already answered that:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#China>

------
mark_l_watson
I bet that he wishes he could roll-back that comment!

I think that most non-tech people would be very surprised if they realized how
much personal data our corporate overlords have collected.

------
wastedbrains
Yeah I disagree with Eric on this point. There are many things I think are
fine and acceptable to do, but they don't need to be a part of my public life.

I don't want employers, grandparents, and the government to have access to my
private and personal life.

No reason everyone should know movies, books, music, games, sexuality,
political beliefs, and everything else about me.

------
sdh
the real problem is not google or schmidt, but things like the patriot act and
the ridiculous habit of our government of using "matter of national security"
as a catchall for abuse.

the more people who realize how little privacy they have left the better. it's
the only way the trend will be reversed.

------
drawkbox
Thomas Jefferson would not approve of that opinion. I actually think less of
Google for this stance.

------
jam
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.

~~~
polynomial
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…?

------
adamc
Cool, so Google will be publishing the search histories of all Google
employees by name?

Hypocrite.

------
singlow
If you need to justify your non-privacy policies with accusations, maybe you
shouldn't be collecting so much identifiable data.

There are plenty of legitimate, even honorable actions which are threatened by
poor privacy policies.

------
vilda
If you have a cancer, maybe you shouldn't have it.

It is very easy to get caught with this type of argumentation. It is wrong.

Keywords may actually reveal a lot more that one would assume, and prone for
des-interpretation as well.

------
codexon
Previously submitted here

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=982838>

Though unfortunately my submission didn't get as many upvotes for whatever
reason.

------
TallGuyShort
In other words, if I use Google Checkout, I should be ashamed of myself for
wanting my credit card information kept private?

~~~
txxxxd
The quote doesn't have anything to do with shame. Not sure how you read into
that...

The message is simply that any information on the Internet is subject to the
risk of exposure. We use credit cards knowing that the risk is very low - but
we all know its _possible_ your credit card number will be intercepted,
misused, etc. This is a fact, not a question of morality.

------
teeja
"in our case we’re building the platform that will allow the content people to
do more targeted content."

Telling us what 'personalized' is about. Not doing better searching, doing
better selling. Find the people with a little extra money, 24/7, and offer
them something they might go for, 24/7, whether they need it or don't. Helping
them stay one paycheck away from broke.

------
zandorg
Go to Scroogle and click HTTPS...

<https://ssl.scroogle.org>

Problem solved!

------
dasht
I think that Mr. Schmidt is trying to do two things: (1) Preparing for Google
to eventually be "outed" about just how much data it actually hands over to
the government on the basis of the Patriot Act; (2) Distracting the general
public from the broader range of privacy concerns that Google raises
(specifically: private surveillance as contrasted with government
surveillance).

He mentions the Patriot Act and I would paraphrase him as throwing up his arms
and saying "Hey, we're subject to those laws just like you! We have no
choice!" Alas, Google does have the choice and unique opportunity to challenge
those laws but it appears that they simply decline. That is why I think he's
preparing for Google to be outed vis a vis the extent of its cooperation with
government.

Next, asked about privacy concerns, he immediately reframes the question as if
it were a question about government surveillance - neatly ducking any issues
about private surveillance. Bartalomo fails to follow up.

The issue about private surveillance is significant in mundane (but serious)
ways and in more speculative, cultural crisis kind of ways.

A mundane concern is the question of whether or not Google "leaks like a
sieve". For example, if someone at Google dislikes me, how hard is it for them
to scratch around for dirt in my (nominally) private information? If someone
at Google is a friend or (black market) business partner of a recruiter at
some other firm to which I apply for employment, is an unauthorized background
check possible? Do such things happen? It's hard to imagine that they are
_technically_ hard to prevent....

A speculative but serious cultural crisis concern regards Google's deliberate
and accidental implementation of what we could dub behavioral tracking and
targeted manipulation. For example, let's suppose that one day I get a crazy
suspicion from something I read on a blog. I think that there could possibly
be a vast conspiracy and that my best chances for survival might be to liquify
all of my assets and invest everything I have in personal caches of peppermint
candy. I don't fully believe it but I start researching via Google. Google's
AIs quickly figure out that I linger on ad-carrying content from backers of
this conspiracy theory and, pretty soon, that stuff is at the top of all my
searches and predicts 40% of the ads I see. From my perspective: that stuff is
"all over the Internet" and I begin to wonder if my neighbors aren't in on the
conspiracy since none of them talk about it. Pretty soon, Google has built me
a personal, private channel of conspiracy news and peppermint candy ads. I
sell my house, leave my family, cash out my retirement plan, by a van to live
down by the river, and fill up a rent-a-store spot with boxes of candy.

Now, that same personal bug - my vulnerability to a conspiracy theory - may
have been there all along. The change here is that back in, say, 1975 - the
biggest mistake I might make is to subscribe to a few newsletters and
magazines, perhaps hedge by buying a dozen boxes of candy rather than a gross.
Meanwhile, the TV, the radio, all these other things are feeding me counter-
evidence to the conspiracy and I'd eventually have a much better chance of
coming to my senses.

But Google is unprecedented in its comprehensiveness as a source of monitoring
and manipulating my attention. Like the Vegas slot machine that convinces me
(wrongly) that I have a system to beat the slots because it pays out 49% of
the time, so long as I pay it with my recognizable frequent-gambler credit
card -- Google's AI can potentially really mess a person up.

 _That_ is a privacy concern. That's a privacy concern directly raised by
Google's stated intentions of dabbling in behavioral tracking. And it's a
concern that Schmidt deflects from attention by turning the question into a
question about government surveillance.

Now, things can get even worse. Suppose that Google's AI doesn't cause large
numbers of people to drop out of society and load up on peppermint candy but
that, shucks, little discrete tweaks here and there can use the same
behavioral science effects to, say, influence the next election for the local
dog catcher. And one of the candidates for dog catcher has a slush fund, and a
friend at Google.... Or, forget the friend at Google... suppose the dog
catcher candidate has a friend who, this year at least, has found some
underhanded tricks that currently work really well for SEO....

The ethics of running search and ad placement are unprecedented and difficult
and hinge very much on how we update our understanding of "privacy". They
hinge very much on the question of privacy vs. behavioral tracking. Schmidt
appears uninterested in talking about these issues and very much interested in
deflecting attention away from them.

At most only slightly exaggerating: we're all analogous to lab rats, now, in
Google's massive-scale human-subject psychological research project with
unprecedented amounts of automated surveillance and stimulus production. With
money and power hinging on the outcome.

------
joubert
'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'

Bullshit argument for invading privacy. I prefer to hide my genitals from
public view.

Since he has nothing to hide, let's set up a streaming webcam outside his
house, zoomed in on his bedroom. Or better yet, let's implant a nano-camera up
his rectum.

------
Legion
So when are people going to start poisoning their search histories by
collectively performing mass searches for "bad" content? I've been expecting
that to be the eventual reaction to Google disclosing search history.

------
protomyth
So, at what point does Google having all your info (e-mail, DNS, search,
Google Voice, social network activity, etc.) become worse than AT&T / NSA
tapping all your calls?

------
tybris
Like participating in the democratic process?

(see voter privacy)

------
raheemm
Absolute power corrupts absolutely

~~~
zackattack
This is why philosopher kings aren't allowed possessions.

------
sbt
Google - Be Evil.

------
lucifer
The register suggests it is possible to avoid Google products, but the web is
literally infested with Google ads and that is a tracking mechanism.

~~~
mapleoin
you can block cookies based on domain name, or from third parties

~~~
mcantelon
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.

------
sabat
If you have something to hide, don't do it on the Internet. Sure. But
Schmidt's careless disregard for privacy? Look, _1984_ was a warning, not a
textbook.

------
natmaster
Does this mean he's going to open source all of Google's infrastructure? And
release all the trade secrets?

That would be awesome!

------
winter_blue
"If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" is valid not
only in the context of net privacy but much more so as a general rule.

~~~
jfoutz
Do you close the door when you go to the bathroom?

~~~
randallsquared
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.

~~~
codexon
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.

~~~
randallsquared
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.

~~~
jfoutz
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.

Maybe this is to abstract to be useful.

