

Attack Ad: Google CEO Moonlights as an Evil Ice Cream Truck Driver - robg
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Attack-Ad-Google-CEO-Moonlights-as-Evil-Ice-Cream-Truck-Driver-4925

======
andyn
Firstly I'm glad we don't have attack ads like this in the UK.

Secondly I was curious as to how a consumer group managed to get enough cash
together to make this. A quick search reveals
<http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/> which suggests
that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by
Microsoft.

Certainly Google aren't completely innocent and raising awareness among people
about privacy on the internet is a good thing. But this ad doesn't seem to
have come about from the goodness of someone's heart.

~~~
_delirium
I could see Microsoft sponsoring anti-Google astroturfing, but it seems
strange that they'd sponsor something specifically calling for a "do not
track" list for the web. Is Microsoft actually in favor of that? It's not
impossible, but I would've guessed that it would be something they'd be
opposed to, given that it'd also put restrictions on them.

~~~
yanw
Microsoft have long advocated for internet IDs and a "do not track" policy
would establish that.

A "do not track" list on the internet doesn't make sense, the reason ad
networks use cookies is because people don't have an identifiable ID online,
so they are proposing government mandated internet IDs which is exactly the
opposite of what you want if privacy is what you're after.

~~~
xilun0
what about a simple standard navigator control emitting headers or maybe a
kind of cookies stating that you don't want to be tracked ? i don't see the
need for any ID

~~~
what
Google lets you do that. You can opt out of advertising cookies [1] and Google
Analytics [2].

[1] <http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html>

[2] <http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?hl=en>

------
nkurz
This ad really strikes me as a stretch. I'm all for people trying to organize
data protection laws, but I'm also OK with Google trading free services in the
present for information they hope will be valuable in the future.

But I'm frequently surprised by the diversity of opinion on this site. Are
there people here who feel the ad speaks to them? Who are moved to act from
having watched it? What do you like about it? I'd love to hear the other side
on this.

------
Tichy
I despise the people who created that ad. Their attitude is to me one of the
worst that humans can display. It reminds me a little bit of the anit-jewish
movies the nazis created (sorry for evoking Godwin's law, but it is like
that).

Nothing good can come from scapegoating like that. And Smith is hardly to
blame if teenagers spill their guts on facebook. Seems to me he rather tried
to warn those kids.

------
pclark
These adverts are beyond insulting.

------
petercooper
How is it "utterly ridiculous" to "[suggest] that children may want to change
their names when they grow up to escape the embarrassing online mistakes of
their youth that will have been recorded on social networking sites"?

It's ridiculous that people might _need_ to do that or that they feel ashamed
enough of being themselves to do that but it's not ridiculous to note that
yes, sadly, this might be a requirement for some people who have tarnished
their reputations. People have changed their names to escape previous misdeeds
for centuries.

Schmidt is just giving advice that hints at truths some people don't want to
accept. That's not ridiculous; it's _advice_.

------
stellar678
Sweet irony that the best place to share this was...YouTube.

~~~
enomar
Not only that, but consumerwatchdog.org uses Google Analytics:

view-source:<http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/>

------
danilocampos
Whatever your feelings on the ad, it brings up an interesting point:

Eric Schmidt may be doing Google more harm than good these days. His remarks
on privacy _have_ been weird. And not a little creepy.

More often than not, the big things that move the needle on my opinion of
Google have been remarks of Schmidt's. Gruber said it well here:

<http://daringfireball.net/2010/08/creep_executive_officer>

"Tthe problem with Google is that Eric Schmidt is creepy. I think he’s a
really weird dude. Recall, for example, this comment of Schmidt’s from 2009,
regarding Google and privacy: 'If you have something that you don’t want
anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'"

Schmidt is really the public face of Google. Larry and Sergey seem to keep
quiet, Marissa Mayer isn't doing those magazine features anymore, but every
few months Schmidt just does or says something odd.

It's a questionable strategy. edit: Questionable, that is, when your company
is trusted with the personal data of hundreds of millions of people. Caesar's
wife must be above reproach.

~~~
extension
He's no more creepy than Google the company, and they are no more creepy than
present day technology in general.

I don't find anything Schmidt has said to be particularly _incorrect_. If you
have something you want to keep secret, you indeed should not be doing it,
because privacy is dead and there is nothing Google can do to change that
reality. In fact, Google is doing a relatively good job of easing us all into
a world without privacy. Be glad it's not Microsoft doing it, or just about
anybody else.

Changing your name when you become an adult is an excellent idea (but I
thought of it first <http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10020477071> ).

And the serendipity thing is right on. Google is already great at giving
people what they want but not so great at giving them things they don't know
they want, in contrast to Facebook, Twitter, and Apple.

Schmidt seems like a straight talker to me. At worst, he's a bit ambiguous.

~~~
Qz
The name change thing is bogus and isn't a solution anyway.

------
gojomo
Sad that the same personal demonization tactics of political campaigns are
being applied to this issue. Schmidt can be _in error_ without being _evil_.

Imagery that gets the 'Consumer Watchdog' group lots of emotional reaction and
opt-in TXTs isn't likely to create the most reasoned, respectful discussion or
public policy.

And, the effort spent campaigning for a legislated 'do not track me' list
would be better spent promoting and expanding the sort of self-help that's
already listed on this group's 'Privacy Toolbox' page:

<http://insidegoogle.com/takeaction/privacy-toolbox/>

These solutions don't require any congressional action or one-size-fits-all
approach or national-database-of-opt-out-identities -- you can adopt them
today, if concerned. Self-help can also keep up with changing technology
better than a regulatory solution. And a campaign for self-help doesn't
require anyone to send lawyers and lobbyists and political contributions to DC
to make their case.

