

If Schmidt Thinks Privacy Doesn't Matter-He Should Post His Own Browsing History - jboydyhacker
http://www.blindreason.org/2010/02/if-george-schmidt-thinks-privacy-doesnt.html

======
ippisl
"In 2005, he(Eric Schmidt) threw a legendary hissy fit when CNET's Elinor
Mills, in an article about privacy, published some details about his
residence, his finances, and his politics that she had uncovered through
Google searches. Google infamously cut off all contact with CNET for a couple
of months. Schmidt didn't seem so casual about the value of privacy when his
own was at stake."
[http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/01/other_peoples_p.ph...](http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/01/other_peoples_p.php)

------
wmeredith
WOW this article is a mess in scope, structure and grammar. He should have
stopped with the title, it's such a good point; but the following narrative
doesn't do it justice.

~~~
ErrantX
The point is a mess too to be honest. It misrepresents what was said; we went
over and over that at the time. :-)

~~~
doobieTR
we as in who? Google?

~~~
ErrantX
We as in us hn users.

------
jsz0
There's a big grey area between both extremes. While I don't want my browsing
history to be public I acknowledge the fact it could happen. It's a risk I'm
willing to accept. I might be more careful about what I search for knowing the
risk exists. It's my choice to continue using Google's services. If I was
really concerned about privacy I'd reward the companies who make it a higher
priority. It's amazing that even when consumers have choice they so often
stick with whatever is popular and well known despite what they think are
major problems/flaws. One outraged blog post is nothing compared to deleting
your Google account if you feel super strongly about it.

------
aresant
This post title says everything that's in the article – save yourself the
read.

Also – who’s George Schmidt (from article) – does author mean Eric Schmidt?

~~~
jacquesm
It says Eric Schmidt now.

~~~
Frazzydee
In case anybody thought aresant was going nuts, the URL still says "george".

~~~
aresant
heh - thank you :)

------
TinaL
Also, did you know that there is some kind of "internal privacy agreement"
that prohibits Google employees use of social tools? I know a lot of people
working at Google that don't share any news, don't use twitter and even Buzz.
They don't share favourites videos or anything.

~~~
nostrademons
I have never heard of such an agreement. Considering I'm a Google employee and
am posting on Hacker News, I rather hope it doesn't exist.

The reason many Googlers don't use such social tools is, in my experience:

1.) There're still very strict confidentiality requirements about work-related
information. Considering that people tend to make a big deal whenever a
Googler leaks anything, and that we come in casual contact with many such
secrets during our day, many Googlers just find it safer to say nothing.
Witness the media firestorm when someone accidentally leaked the Nexus One in
a tweet when it was handed out.

2.) Many of us just don't have time. In past jobs, there've been times when I
spent 75% of my time on FaceBook and 25% coding. At Google, I've lately been
spending about 120% of my time coding.

