Google: Only naughty little boys and girls worry about privacy

Jacqueline DiOrio 8 Dec, 2009 at 4:25pm ET Article published in Tech

Consumers today are often concerned about the amount of private information available to the public, especially in light of how easily search engines like Google can sort it. Google CEO Eric Schmidt, however, has a simple suggestion in mind.

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” he stated to CNBC, instantly creating controversy.

Schmidt then went on to admit that sometimes search engines do release private information.

“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,” he said.

Schmidt makes a good point here, in that government intervention can trump privacy, but his general attitude is extremely flippant of the privacy concerns of the ordinary citizen who may not even realize that Google is hoarding their information. Surely there has to be a better option than avoiding Google entirely, or living a perfect, puritan life?

Despite the implication that anyone concerned about their privacy must be doing something very naughty, Google has recently taken action to alert the consumer as to what private information they do possess, through their Dashboard.

Comments

8 Dec 2009 ~ 4:30pm Grimnoc One thing's for certain. Eric Schmidt isn't going to be winning any favor points with such poor apologetics.
8 Dec 2009 ~ 10:02pm Garg Those kind of comments don't do anyone any favors. Eventual results: Either Google's flippancy turns to outright disrespect of their customers, or the government will respond by over-regulating and holding back technology.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 9:11am kryyst I'm sorry and the outcry is what exactly? He may not have sugar coated things but, that's the reality. MSN, Yahoo, Facebook, Public forums - whatever. If you put info up there some place has a record of it and under certain circumstances it could become public.

It's better to let the public know this fact then pretend that their info is 100% safe. We are so far into the information age that there is no longer any excuse for people that aren't informed.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 9:23am timuchan What bullshit! Read this article, great insight on "The Eternal Value of Privacy." http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html

I understand the whole patriot act and whatever, but I agree... he was much too flippant on the matter.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 9:45am BetsyD

kryyst wrote:

I'm sorry and the outcry is what exactly? He may not have sugar coated things but, that's the reality. MSN, Yahoo, Facebook, Public forums - whatever. If you put info up there some place has a record of it and under certain circumstances it could become public.

It's better to let the public know this fact then pretend that their info is 100% safe. We are so far into the information age that there is no longer any excuse for people that aren't informed.

ITA.

I found my birth mother through the power of Google. From a closed adoption 25 years ago. Before I contacted her the first time I knew where she lived, all of her family's names, where her kids go to school, what organizations she belongs to, what her husband does for a living, what church they attend, etc ...

Privacy doesn't exist. I don't believe that it ever did exist completely. Before the internet people lived in smaller communities where everyone knew everything about everybody. I grew up in a small community. If I got "in trouble" my parents knew about it before I got home because their neighbor's second cousin's husband's niece saw me do it and the grapevine lit up.

Unless you are the only person that knows it happens and there is no electronic trail at all (so basically it happened while you were alone in your house with all curtains drawn and doors shut) There is always a chance that the information will become public. And even if you *are* the only person that knows it still might become public if you are a talkative drunk.

Plus, we do live in the age of the Patriot Act. Regardless of your personal feelings about it, it does exist and it is enforced regurally.

As a CEO of a major corporation I'm suprised that he didn't sugar coat it a little more, but the basis of what he say's is just true no matter how much people want to stick their heads in the sand.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 12:48pm GHoosdum It's just like I always say, if you don't want pictures of it on the internet, don't do it.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 1:41pm kryyst

Timu-chan wrote:

What bullshit! Read this article, great insight on "The Eternal Value of Privacy." http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html

I understand the whole patriot act and whatever, but I agree... he was much too flippant on the matter.

I assume you read the essay you pointed to. Yet you entirely missed the point. Schmidt isn't against privacy. He's blatantly stating that if you put stuff on the internet don't make some false assumption that what you put there will be private. Schmidt said as much their hands are tied they have to legally reveal information under certain circumstances. So if you don't want fact to be known don't put them on the net where they could be found out. Schmidt is advocating privacy and telling people that the internet isn't private. It's that simple.

Personally I don't think he was flippant enough. The fact that people find what he said shocking and alarming proves how naive people are. That's the true shock in all of this.
9 Dec 2009 ~ 5:51pm ardichoke It still amuses me that people think anything they put on the Internet is private. There should really be a competency test for getting on the Internet. It should go something like this:

Do you think that anything you put on the Internet is really private?
y/n

If they answer yes, no Internet for them.