

Schneier's response to Eric Schmidt - tlrobinson
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html

======
ekiru
It's very nice for Bruce Schneier to express opposition to invasion of
privacy. I agree with him. But unless I totally misunderstand Schmidt's
comments, Schmidt is not suggesting people should not make love to their
wives, for example, but rather, that if you are going to do something that you
don't want the government to know about you, you shouldn't give it to someone
that is legally obligated to tell the government about it if they ask.

Regardless of how Google feels about privacy, it's unreasonable to expect them
to martyr themselves for our sakes when the Department of Justice or the FBI
knock on their door with a subpoena. The way to protect your privacy is to not
tell people things you don't want them to know(or to use Tor or the like).

Edit: fixed a minor typo

~~~
mechanical_fish
Eric Schmidt is an American business leader. He has the same First Amendment
rights as anybody else. He is obligated to follow the law, but he is not
obligated to do so without complaint, let alone make excuses for his
activities and those of his government.

Schmidt could have said "We understand that Google collects a lot of data; we
have privacy policies that protect that data and we fire anyone who abuses
them. We take data privacy very seriously. But we're aware that people are
unhappy that various governments can compel us to disclose data. We believe
that this is wrong. We believe that a world where anonymous government
employees can see anything you do is a dangerous world. We believe in the
power of data, but we want to encourage society to take steps to prevent this
kind of abuse."

But he didn't, of course. Instead he told us that the innocent have nothing to
hide.

 _it's unreasonable to expect [Google] to martyr themselves for our sakes_

"Martyr", indeed. That is no mere hypothetical. Read this:

<http://www.signandsight.com/features/1910.html>

This is Herta Mueller, formerly of Romania, describing her life in the
Ceausescu regime. There you could, indeed, face harsh reprisals, ranging all
the way up to martyrdom, for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect _those_ people -- Mueller's friends,
stuck in a scary totalitarian regime -- to stick up for their principles and
resist the state's order to inform on their friends. (Though many did resist,
and paid the price for it.) But Google? Google isn't even human. It has no
fingernails to pull out. It is an American corporation, whose leaders live in
America, with enough legal budget to sue God himself. I don't think it's
unreasonable to expect the company's leader to use some of that power to lobby
for good, instead of looking sheepishly at his feet, kicking the dust, and
claiming that he's only following orders.

~~~
txxxxd
"But he didn't, of course. Instead he told us that the innocent have nothing
to hide."

Please keep in mind you're commenting about a snippet of a televised
interview. For all you know Eric Schmidt agrees with everything you wrote
above. (He may have even said something along these lines and it was edited
out.) He certainly did not say or even imply "the innocent have nothing to
hide."

~~~
mechanical_fish
I stand corrected. He did not literally say "the innocent have nothing to
hide". He literally said this:

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

I'm not convinced, however, that there's a reassuring amount of daylight
between these two statements.

~~~
jfager
Except that the former is plainly false, and the latter is pretty much
indisputable provided you aren't walking up to the phrase with a preconceived
notion that it's codespeak for something more sinister.

I should add that I very much agree with what you said about Google being in a
position to make a much stronger stand for privacy rights in this country. I
equally think that this is a pointless little shitstorm that detracts from the
larger issue by making privacy advocacy look like petty language lawyering.

------
maudineormsby
What a fantastic last paragraph. Something from the original essay that was
left out:

"A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the
framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy
as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and
their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable.
Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen
in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled
your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty."

Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing. Google
shouldn't watch us because it violates our rights, but because it's _evil_.

~~~
csallen
Why is being watched evil?

EDIT: I hear this claim all the time on the internet: Collecting data is
_evil_. So please, go beyond the claim, and give me an explanation. Why is
knowledge about people inherently evil?

EDIT 2: I know you're not supposed to complain about downmodding, but this
comment has been downmodded four times. If you disagree so vehemently, then
try defending your position rather than censoring me :)

~~~
netcan
If something is 'inherent' it cannot be explained further almost by
definition. I think this is what that paragraph is claiming.

It is claiming that invasion of privacy is evil in the way that hurting people
is _inherently_ evil. You do not call on someone to explain why hurting people
is evil. It is calling on you to accept that invasion of privacy is just evil.

~~~
dejb
This is exactly the problem. By saying something is 'inherent' you are
essentially saying that there can be no debate on the issue. I believe that
the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct, not
something inborn like physical pain.

~~~
zmimon
> I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social
> construct

I, and many others, including Schneier think you are wrong. Privacy is a basic
human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is as deeply entrenched
as all our other basic needs and emotions. We are not whole, happy, fulfilled
human beings without it. I guess one can debate whether this fits the
definition of "inherent" or not. But I don't think it's necessary to pursue it
beyond this point because it doesn't really matter - once something is a basic
human need, taking it away from them is wrong.

~~~
dejb
> Privacy is a basic human need, a fundamental part of our psychology that is
> as deeply entrenched as all our other basic needs and emotions.

That is an assumption not an argument. Can you reference any studies or data
to support your position?

The only place to find evidence I can think of would be to look at different
cultures with differing level of privacy to see what inherent 'needs' there
might be and what the results were in terms of people's mental well being.
Totalitarian societies would not be a good example as they actually rely far
more of secrecy than more open societies.

I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually
caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion. If
these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a 'need'
for privacy.

~~~
zmimon
> I would argue (without data I admit) that the desire for privacy is actually
> caused by the desire to avoid punishment, ridicule and/or social exclusion.
> If these could be avoided then I don't believe there would be much of a
> 'need' for privacy.

I think you deconstruct things far too much. If you removed all those things
from society right now people would still "need" privacy because we have been
programmed by thousands or millions of years of evolution to need it. We don't
need it on a rational basis (although there are plenty of rational arguments
one can make for needing it), we need it because our brains evolved that way
and we're stuck with it.

If you find a culture that has no privacy and no compensatory substitute for
it then I'll readily grant that people in that society don't need privacy and
we can qualify "basic human need" to something slightly more constrained. But
it won't change the fact that we are stuck in a situation where the vast
majority of human beings DO need privacy and it is wrong to take it away from
them.

~~~
dejb
> because we have been programmed by thousands or millions of years of
> evolution to need it.

Actually I think our early ancestors would have lived with much less privacy
than we do today. Many of the concepts of privacy don't even make sense the
further back you go. Living in a tribe, spending nearly all your time outside
and visible to other tribe members, with no/limited clothing, sleeping in
large groups would offer limited opportunities for privacy.

If anything I would think that many of the traits of 'privacy' would have
evolved more from the desire of others not to have to experience the 'private'
matters of their fellow tribe members (i.e. see them having sex/naked/aroused
or be interrupted by their loud conversations).

Even now they say that in small towns 'everyone knows everything about
everyone else'. Only with the anonymizing effects of very large groups is the
modern concept of privacy possible. So to me this all suggests that the 'need
for privacy' is not a innate.

> But it won't change the fact that we are stuck in a situation where the vast
> majority of human beings DO need privacy and it is wrong to take it away
> from them.

I would argue that this is true primarily because of people's upbringing - in
the same way that it would cause people discomfort to have to adjust to a
world where they would routinely be naked in public.

------
pohl
I remember this essay from when it was new. To me, it is Schneier at his best,
and it makes a perfect retort to the most pessimistic interpretation of what
Schmidt said. And bravo to Schneier for doing so in a timely manner.

That said, I wonder what Bruce would say in response to a more optimistic
interpretation of Schmidt's statement. What if Eric's sentiment was more along
the lines of "if you don't want people to see you making love, then don't do
it behind the bushes in Buena Vista Park"?

------
fnid
You know, the government told librarians they had to turn over the lists of
books people checked out from the library and so they stopped storing that
information. They delete it.

I applaud the librarians for standing up to the government. Google... not so
much.

~~~
andreyf
Google (and the vast majority of their users) has a whole lot to lose by
deleting search history while its competitors pursue personalized search.
Librarians - nothing at all.

~~~
boryas
Then couldn't Google offer some sort of non-personalized version where such
data was discarded that privacy conscious users could choose to use? This
would bring me back to believing that Google isn't "evil"

------
randallsquared
In a world where watching other people is easier and easier, I don't think
that asserting that not being watched is a human need is going to hold up.
Data collection is only going to get easier in general, no matter what laws
are passed. Cameras and listening devices are only going to become more
prevalent, in spite of last ditch attempts by theater owners and angry police.
Aggregation of everything that goes on around a person will become a tool that
is so useful that those without it are like those refusing to use search
engines today: able to get along, but at a noticeable disadvantage.

No amount of posturing and rhetoric about rights and privacy will long delay
the world we're moving into; those are political activities, and the coming
abolition of privacy is a technological and economic matter; politics can only
weakly affect such things without becoming overwhelmingly invasive -- a
solution more to be feared than the problem.

~~~
karzeem
True. I think a big danger underlying people's general reservations about this
stuff is government abuse of all this newly available data.

~~~
pyre
Corporate abuse too. If someone is out-spoken against Google, what's to stop
Google from silencing them by threatening to reveal secret information about
them (or to plant information about them, like child porn searches in their
search history).

Not only that, but it makes it easier for 3rd party groups to try and gain
information to silence opponents, Scientology being the first to come to mind.

In general, all of this information will benefit people, but possibly only
people that 'keep their head down' and don't 'go against the flow.' For people
that have strongly held beliefs that are against the 'norm,' it will make it
easier for them to be attacked and (eventually) silenced. It will be the tool
used to bludgeon people into becoming a homogenized society.

------
netcan
Good response.

While I think that it is worthwhile trying to increase privacy on the data
collection side (eg Google recording search queries), the more important part
is what happens after. Is it anonymized? Is it available to government
organisations? What happens after they get it?

------
KevBurnsJr
I think Schmidt is really saying: don't be afraid of who you are.

Scheier's response is expectable from someone living in a fear-based society
such as ours.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Has there ever been any society free of busybodies, thoughtcrime, and
persecution? I think Schmidt is blaming the victims and advocating an inhuman
degree of conformity.

------
roundsquare
Does anyone have all the links in this conversation between them? I missed
something and I'm having some trouble following but would like to catch up.

------
wendroid
Those with nothing to hide can't always see into the future Mr Schmidt.

<http://www.stockmaven.com/ibmstory.htm>

"This approach appears to have been used in the Netherlands when small-area
tabulations of population data by religion from the 1930 Dutch census made up
one of several data sources used in the development of the so-called 'dot
maps' of Amsterdam," he says. "These maps, which showed areas of the city
where the density of the Jewish population was the highest, were used in
planning Nazi-inspired attacks on some of these neighborhoods in February
1941."

------
Jimega36
Google = totally free lets not forget it => you give up some pricacy for
service to be free in a way = not invasion of privacy but maybe price of
service? Love to complain but if google does not make money, how can all thse
cool apps be funded in practice. Advertising can be seen as privacy invasion
too by the way. Money money money it's a ...

