
Dear Eric, the proper response is I'm sorry - mattjung
http://gigaom.com/2010/02/18/dear-eric-the-proper-response-is-im-sorry/
======
Silhouette
Whenever privacy as a topic comes up in discussions on the forums I follow, a
lot of people chime in with a fairly dismissive "no harm, no foul" kind of
attitude. They don't mind the Eric Schmidts and Jonathan Schwartzes and Mark
Zuckerbergs of the world proclaiming the death of privacy, because apparently
no-one in the Facebook generation cares.

It's odd how when something like this becomes public, when everyday, non-geek
people actually appreciate the implications of what is going on, there never
seems to be a shortage of people who care, and whatever Schmidt says there
obviously are examples of real harm being done.

I have been saying for a while that I think privacy and data protection will
have to get worse before they get better. Right now, our societies are
drifting into a situation where governments and megacorps can build databases
for whatever purpose they want, because as long as that is all they are doing,
the average guy in the street doesn't know or care.

But as we are seeing increasingly frequently now, those databases are subject
to both deliberate abuse and accidental compromise. There can be consequences
for very large numbers of people and/or very serious consequences for some of
those people.

We need serious laws, with company-destroying penalties attached, to protect
the privacy of individuals and regulate the collection of any kind of
potentially sensitive, personally identifiable data in any database, and we
need them _before_ the frog is dead.

~~~
coffeemug
_We need serious laws, with company-destroying penalties attached, to protect
the privacy of individuals_

We already have them, and I don't think we don't need more. There is a
fundamental difference between the government spying on citizens or abusing
the information they collect, and companies doing so. People voluntarily sign
onto Facebook every day, and the company does _not_ violate its privacy policy
(if it did, you'd have grounds for a law suit). If Facebook users find its
privacy policy acceptable, I don't think establishing contrarian laws is a
proper response. It's not the government's place to institute laws to protect
consumers from themselves. I don't believe Facebook abuses the customer's
trust (and there are already contract laws against such things). The proper
action here is educating people about privacy, not adding more legislation.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Uhh, I voluntarily signed up for GMail and GMail _ONLY_. This however does not
imply that I agreed that Google can package their "Facebook-Killer" without as
much as asking.

In my opinion that's actually worse then Apples completely slimy attempt to
smuggle their software onto my box without asking. Just because I had the bad
sense to install Itunes.

Don't be evil; Ha!

~~~
coffeemug
Has your privacy been compromised in a way that conflicts with their privacy
policy? If that's the case, you can file a lawsuit. Otherwise, the legal
system cannot help you (and should not be able to help you). If this is a huge
concern for you and it wasn't covered in their privacy policy, you shouldn't
have used their product. If you implicitly trusted them, you can stop doing so
now.

I agree that they are wrong. I just don't think we need more legislation to
patch it up. It's between consumers and the companies - the government has
nothing to do with it.

~~~
emarcotte
And when privacy policies change, do I have to re-evaluate each time/product
that may or may not be involved (since google products are sort of all merged
into one)? If I do re-evaluate, and decide I no longer agree with the policy,
and I delete my account is my data really gone or will the data still be
there, just hidden, and part of the new policy which may give them more rights
to for example sell that information? I believe facebook makes notifications
of these changes, does GMail?

There are lots of issues that a simple 'privacy policy' document does not
solve and may that it adds.

------
andybak
He's not very good as the public face of Google, is he?

Especially as his privacy blind spot corresponds to the one PR topic that has
the ability to genuinely harm Google.

I wonder why the geek-friendly faces of Sergey and Larry don't appear more
often and why someone doesn't persuade Eric to stay in his lair, errr, office
a bit more.

~~~
jasonlotito
No, he's not a good public face is you are want to hear him tell you what you
want to hear. He is an excellent public face if you want him to tell you want
really went down. It's refreshing and encouraging. No company should have to
play to the lowest common denominator.

~~~
raganwald
_No company should have to play to the lowest common denominator._

Well, if you boast that you have hundreds of millions or even a billion
users... You might want to spend a lot of time thinking about the lowest
common denominator.

~~~
jasonlotito
I understand what you mean, and why you say it. I do, however, disagree. From
a pure business stand point, it makes sense. From a technological stand point,
I think it hurts them. I'm having a hard time expressing this nicely, so I'll
say it plainly as a I can. Hopefully no one takes offense.

I don't want Google wasting time on things that are only there because people
are dumb. I'd rather them spend time on things that help people get smarter,
not allow them to remain ignorant.

Again, this is a lot harsher than I intend, so hopefully you understand the
meaning. My apologies in advance.

~~~
raganwald
_I don't want Google wasting time on things that are only there because people
are dumb. I'd rather them spend time on things that help people get smarter,
not allow them to remain ignorant._

I think we are in violent agreement on this principle. In the case of Buzz, I
think they failed us both. I understand we shouldn't have to build software
that throws up massive confirmation dialogs "Really, REALLY publish those
public photos on Picasa of you mountain biking on a "sick day" to the
following 12 frequently emailed people at your workplace including your boss
and the dragon lady in HR?"

But at the same time, making people smarter shouldn't mean making people
figure out the non-obvious consequences of the choices you give them. I
_still_ can't figure out exactly how the original Buzz worked or didn't
work... I think it boiled down to whether you created a profile, but I'm not
sure and I'm not going to try it to find out.

I hope Google find the middle ground and do a better job of designing software
that has great user interfaces, software that makes its affordances visible
without nannying or nagging users.

~~~
jasonlotito
"Software that makes its affordances visible without nannying or nagging
users."

That's a difficult task, one which I think we'll be wrestling with for a long
time.

------
philk
I get the feeling that Eric doesn't always remember he's in PR and that no
prizes are awarded for arguing with the company's critics.

He should really stick to simple, upbeat, sympathetic messages. To be honest
I'm surprised he didn't learn that after his last privacy debacle.

~~~
orblivion
The thing is, the last one wasn't even bad at all. I don't think he actually
made the usual "if you're not doing anything bad what do you have to hide"
argument, I think he said "if you have something you want to keep secret,
maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet" which I agree about.

Though I guess your point is about PR, and I guess I have to agree it could
have been phrased more positively.

------
rabidgnat
If I had to guess, Eric Schmidt thinks he can't apologize. At this point,
they've set a big precedent: they're willing to automatically network you
based on information that you've given them. If they apologized, they'd have
to neuter future roll-outs and remove this automatic user base, removing a
major competitive advantage. How many other businesses have products that are
popular enough to piggyback a social network? Not many. Google can, and they
want to keep it that way.

------
dc2k08
The level of outrage being directed at google over this seems to be far
greater than that directed at facebook when they made a lot of their users'
information public by default.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Google messed with email. Email is one of our oldest electronic media; we all
know how it is supposed to work. Changing the default privacy rules of your
email inbox and address book without asking you _very clearly and explicitly
in advance_ is... well, sabotage. Also: Bait and switch.

Facebook is a sandbox. People kind of understand that. I sign on to Facebook
knowing that (a) I don't know for sure what it is; (b) its inventors aren't
quite sure what it is, either; (c) we're going to find out by trial and error.
Whereas I sign on to GMail because _I want a personal email system_ , which
despite all its flashy trappings retains the underlying semantics of email. If
I wanted a social network, or another sandbox, I'd have signed up for one. And
I'm not sure _anyone_ wants a thing that impersonates a personal email system
for a decade and then decides to become something else overnight without
warning or clarity.

~~~
orblivion
> Facebook is a sandbox. People kind of understand that.

Which is why I tend to cite Beacon as their biggest failing.

------
amix
Eric Schmidt is painting a pretty grim picture, especially when considering
his other views on privacy:

"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." - Eric Schmidt

~~~
jasonlotito
You are twisting his words (or at least your comment makes it seem like you
are). He doesn't suggest that you shouldn't do these things. Rather that the
reality is these days, if you don't want people to find things out, the only
guaranteed way of preventing that is by not doing it. This isn't his view on
privacy; rather, it's his view on the state or privacy. Where it currently
stands.

------
protomyth
At some point the extreme conclusion of what happened to the lady with the
violent ex will happen. Once you pass a certain number of users you need to
expect people using your service aren't that computer savvy and really aren't
going to spend the time doing more than the bare minimum to use your service
(e.g. check e-mail, post a picture for friends). After all, a lot of people
are put on these services by their tech savvy children or siblings who spend
the bare minimum of time setting up a todo list or basic tutoring on how to
use this service for its basic purpose. It seems pretty much a bad idea to
change the rules and not think of the implications to a more public revealing
of data to world for these people. Particularly when you take what is
generally regarded as a private service (e-mail) and turn it into a public
service.

------
Create
bs. GOOG is business, not personal -- inherently no privacy.

Along with the running-up fanfare of "privacy settings", GOOG knows exactly
what it is doing.

And the title just emphasizes cynicism: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it
is to get permission.

