backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by aqaq55.. on Dec 15 at 7:41 AM


Google CEO recently characterized those who want privacy online as sneaky no-gooders -- except for himself. He once blackballed CNET for a year for publishing private information they found on him on Google.  (Source: Zimbio)
Remarks anger many who are concerned with Google's ever expanding influence

Google is stockpiling a wealth of user data.  With its search engine, its advertising services, its applications, its new free DNS service, and more, the company has an incredible perspective on exactly what users are looking at.  Many fear that Google could abuse this information or allow it to be abused, either for profit or to prosecute citizens who aren't necessarily guilty. In short, fears that "Big Brother is watching you" have been replace with fears that "Google is watching you".

Google's recently responded to such doubts, blasting those that would harbor them.  Google CEO Eric Schmidt commented to CNBC, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

He also admitted that Google does sometimes release its users' private data, stating, "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."

Taken by itself, this comment seems pretty reasonable.  Yahoo's Law Enforcement guide offers similar comments, indicating that law enforcement officials must ask within 45 days and come bearing a 2703(d) order to access users' instant messenger logs.  However, there is an expedited process if there's "imminent danger of death or serious physical injury."

The more troublesome comment is Mr. Schmidt's indictment of those who wish privacy.  One must also consider Mr. Schmidt's own demands for personal privacy.  Mr. Schmidt banned CNET, one of the top tech news sites on the web, from Google for an entire year for publishing information about the CEO, including his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations.  Where did CNET find this info?  From none other than Google itself.

In total, the comments paint what is perhaps an alarming picture, when you consider that even large companies have been subject to hacks, data leaks, and subpoenas.  While some may indeed want to cover up their "evil" actions, others may seek privacy to hide persecution at work over medical conditions, or to protect their business from competitors who could seek to use inside info to gain an unfair advantage.  In short, while Mr. Schmidt may consider privacy a luxury a privacy that citizens don't need, it's essential to many.

The CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, who has interviewed Mr. Schmidt before in the past, asks tough but fair questions, like "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?"

Mr. Schmidt's responses indicate a clear disregard for consumer privacy.  At the same time his company has fought deals like the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership complaining that they provide an unfair competitive advantage and possibly endanger consumers' privacy.  And he has fought equally hard to protect his own privacy.

A clip of the interview can be viewed at Gawker.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This angers me...
By DtTall on 12/8/2009 9:05:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.


This is oversimplifying a very complex topic. There are simply some things you don't want others to know. Perhaps he should just tell us all of Google's strategic projects. If he won't then am I to assume Google shouldn't be doing them?

With everything moving online (or moved already) privacy is a huge issue. It should be handled more delicately than this.




RE: This angers me...
By XZerg on 12/8/2009 9:48:22 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, we should not be worried about personal information, personal life, ...

I can't wait for the day some guy uploads some personal/private videos of Schmidt or his family member. Let's see how he handles the privacy BS then.

PS: This picture of him pretty much depicts his personality that is how he feels that the rest of us are just stupid and unimportant.


RE: This angers me...
By Strunf on 12/9/2009 7:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
He would just ban every site hosting the said information, I wonder if CNET saw any difference in terms of page views when they got banned, chance are they did. Google may not be able to stop the information but they can seriously reduce it.


RE: This angers me...
By AstroCreep on 12/8/2009 10:27:45 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed.
Frankly, a lot of my issues with Google these days are things that come from the mouth of this guy.
Seriously, he's just as bad as Balmer with jamming his foot in there.


RE: This angers me...
By scrapsma54 on 12/9/2009 12:16:37 AM , Rating: 5
What he meant to say was "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be using google in the first place."


RE: This angers me...
By StevoLincolnite on 12/9/2009 12:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly, a lot of my issues with Google these days are things that come from the mouth of this guy
Seriously, he's just as bad as Balmer with jamming his foot in there. .


Good free entertainment though, I would love to see both of them in the same room doing there "Foot in mouth disease" impressions that they do so well.


RE: This angers me...
By scrapsma54 on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: This angers me...
By mcnabney on 12/9/2009 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 5
Balmer did join Micosoft in 1980 (24th employee) and was their first business manager. He may not have been a founder, but he did found the business side of Microsoft.


RE: This angers me...
By jonnyrocket on 12/9/2009 8:08:53 AM , Rating: 3
Don't leave out Joe Biden with his gift for gaffe.


RE: This angers me...
By jimhsu on 12/9/2009 12:28:10 AM , Rating: 5
That statement basically eats itself up in an implosion of hypocrisy. "No one should have anything to hide ... except for myself".


RE: This angers me...
By web2dot0 on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: This angers me...
By xti on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: This angers me...
By jbeck on 12/10/2009 1:54:44 PM , Rating: 1
you have nothing to hide right now, but things can change quite fast. And you don't have to look to far back in history to find out why what he's saying is so damn offensive to anyone having lived through the past 60-70 years.


RE: This angers me...
By themaster08 on 12/11/2009 3:02:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I also have nothing to hide.

Well in that case, do you mind sharing your credit card details with the rest of us so I can get me some christmas presents at your expense?

I promise not to spend too much! :)


RE: This angers me...
By Ullallulloo on 12/11/2009 2:28:29 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. If you want to keep something private, don't upload it to a public site. It's a simple concept.


RE: This angers me...
By Myg on 12/9/2009 4:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is the turning point where Google turns from its solid roots into an evil minded company.

This direction will lead to its own destruction; the only thought which makes this situation humourus is that MS will probably be around to pick at its bones in the end.


RE: This angers me...
By Dreamwalker on 12/9/2009 10:02:47 AM , Rating: 5
Agree with all the posts above.

Switching to Bing.


RE: This angers me...
By mcnabney on 12/9/2009 10:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
Frying pan getting too hot for you?

You do know that going to Microsoft isn't going to help at all.


RE: This angers me...
By Dreamwalker on 12/9/2009 11:06:40 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I don't really know for someone that sued Google...
M$ is getting sued all the time;) If M$ gets fishy with collecting private data, someone will sue it, if no one else will, EU will;)

But yeah I know what you mean. Swtiching from the pan on fire for that one on the stove waiting to get used...


RE: This angers me...
By Hieyeck on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: This angers me...
By kkshoe1210 on 12/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: This angers me...
By mayalibre on 12/10/2009 7:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with what *I'm* doing. It has everything to do with trusting the people who receive or use my info, including Google. Very clever maneuver though, to make it seem like people who are guarded are somehow in the wrong. Trust needs to be EARNED, and it isn't earned by demonizing people who are wary or cautious and lumping them in with terrorists. I would tell Google to look in the mirror and see whether THEY are 100% transparent. No? Well, then what do they have to hide? The proprietary info that makes them valuable? Hey, me too! It's hypocrisy and power-tripping, pure and simple.


RE: This angers me...
By aqaq55 on 12/15/2009 7:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


Google's villiany shows it's head.
By MatthiasF on 12/8/2009 9:07:59 PM , Rating: 5
I've said it repeatedly in comments, Google makes money by knowing you and they have absolutely no reason to help you keep your privacy.

Idiots that use their email system are in for a big surprise in a few years after Google has built up it's government lobby.




RE: Google's villiany shows it's head.
By rs1 on 12/8/2009 10:39:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Idiots that use their email system are in for a big surprise in a few years after Google has built up it's government lobby.


Care to elaborate on that?

I'm as pro-privacy as anyone, and think that Google's "so long as you're not doing anything wrong, you don't need any privacy" stance is moronic, but I just don't see what any of that has to do with gmail or some hypothetical government lobby. What exactly will this government lobby do to gmail users that is worse than whatever it would do to regular search users?


RE: Google's villiany shows it's head.
By Tyhr on 12/8/2009 11:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Idiots that use their email system are in for a big surprise in a few years after Google has built up it's government lobby.
quote:
Care to elaborate on that?
My guess is that the privacy of the content of your emails will compromised and open to searching through without your knowledge.


RE: Google's villiany shows it's head.
By GodisanAtheist on 12/9/2009 1:14:37 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah... cause THAT doesn't already happen, right? Shhheeeshhh some people are paranoid...


RE: Google's villiany shows it's head.
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 1:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
No, that DOESN'T already happen... right now, unless it is connected with terrorism, the government needs to get a WARRANT... the federal courts already told them that "Patriot Act or no.... unless terrorism or the threat of it is involved, you still need a warrant! (sing those last 5 words with me)"


By hashish2020 on 12/10/2009 8:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yea like Carnivore is imaginary

I only send stuff that is important through email that would be important to someone who isn't in the government or is "above" me

IE research data, not like a competing researcher has some in with Google to get it from me


By MatthiasF on 12/9/2009 10:07:08 AM , Rating: 4
The FTC has no powers to regulate online privacy at the moment and has repeatedly said (under Bush and Obama) that companies like Google are not adequately disclosing how their data is used for advertisement profiling.

If Google can stop any looming legislation to give the agency the power to force the issue, they will continue to have free reign over all data they take in from not only keywords garnered from your email, web searches and internet history, but also installed add-on programs that they bundle on partner's PCs or the new Chrome OS that track mouse movement and eventually eye-movement.

Intricate data that will pretty much evolve them from just the online advertising clearing-house monopoly that it is today into something far worse when all the data is adopted for other products for sale.

Way too much power in one company's hands if you ask me. Especially a company so quick to corporate activism.


My identity...
By TheEinstein on 12/8/2009 11:36:35 PM , Rating: 5
And your identity... This is the stakes.

You may know nothing of the seriousness of this entity called Google. How we have sunk. Previously we screamed bloody murder at subliminal messages on movie screens to buy popcorn and soda.

This is the break down of the threat:

1) They can identify your likely responses to anything.
Yes I said anything. This is where data mining is essential. They can quickly tell you if you are "Conservative", "Liberal", "Moderate" without even trying. They can tell you if you spend recklessly or never buy anything online. They can tell you how long it takes you to read a given type of web page and what subjects you are into. They can even tell what your normal hours are for 'sleepy' to 'awake'.

2) They can manipulate you
How small is the changes in this string: Pissed Off, Angry, Fuming, Mad, Upset, Frustrated, Unhappy, irritated, flustered, challenged... Notice however that the ending words do not feel the same to the starting words? Switching a single word can change you, if used correctly. But only for a second. A million subtly changed words will change who you are for your lifetime.

3) They can predict you
Possible anarchist? Possible Revolutionary? Next millionaire? You will be known, your value will be known, your risk will be known. They can gauge you, using stuff similar to pascals triangle, where they can determine within certain deviation levels your future. They can destroy the weak without blinking, and cripple the strong with a minor flexing of their arms.

Give me the data Google has, and I guarantee in a year I will be a billionaire, be able to start wars and end wars, and can set up my future as tyrant of the United States. I GUARANTEE IT.




RE: My identity...
By stilltrying on 12/9/2009 1:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. Most people have no idea how easily they are manipulated. Many may think what they think because its of there own volition, but it is of my opinion that they have been trained to think they way they have due to MSM and public schooling.


RE: My identity...
By bugleyman on 12/9/2009 2:02:25 PM , Rating: 1
Of course, none of this applies to you , right? 'Cause you're too smart for that...


RE: My identity...
By JonnyDough on 12/10/2009 5:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
I am. I have what I like to refer to as "global awareness." :)


RE: My identity...
By Helbore on 12/9/2009 5:40:10 PM , Rating: 3
What's more worrying - is that they can get it wrong. They can use all the techniques you just mentioned and conclude that you are a potential revolutionary and danger to society, but you may never be that person.

The worry is when they start to build user profiles from such data and assign them to us as faceless "potential" individuals. Then we all get judged on what we might be, rather than who we are.

Personally, I hope the notion remains as sci-fi as it sounds.


RE: My identity...
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 1:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, they are already doing that with 'sex offenders' and have been for years... even though most sex offenders are people who have flashed someone, have had consensual sex with someone underage, etc.... not forcible rapists, forcible child rapists, etc.

Not the most 'dangerous' people in the world in the slightest.... yet they are still all painted with the same brush.


lost me business...
By roostitup on 12/8/2009 9:43:29 PM , Rating: 5
After this, Google has officially lost my business using their products. Google has been wearing on me lately with everything in the news and I don't think they deserve to keep me as a customer using their search engine. Google has a monopoly, no matter what people think. All they do is keep growing into and taking over every market and gaining more and more private information that they have proven to use irresponsibly and hypocritically. Hello, Bing.




RE: lost me business...
By Smilin on 12/9/2009 9:42:09 AM , Rating: 3
Welcome.

MSFT has had PR issues for decades now and has gained wisdom from it. They are not flippant about your privacy or personal information like Google is.


RE: lost me business...
By Alexvrb on 12/9/2009 5:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. They can't afford to be, because Microsoft is always getting hammered. Everyone is ready to call foul on MS, even when they don't do anything wrong. Especially the EU, I'm still waiting for a "randomized browser ballot" to appear in Chrome, OS X, and all major Linux distros. I may not like everything MS does, but at least I know where they stand.

I miss the old Google.


somewhat expected
By zinfamous on 12/8/2009 10:52:52 PM , Rating: 5
Google lost their identity when they went public and hired a CEO. granted, they guy is himself an engineer, but the nascent company was founded by geeky, brilliant engineers--not short-sighted corporate-minded MBAs.

these are the kind of asinine and out of touch comments you get with these personalities.




RE: somewhat expected
By themaster08 on 12/9/2009 3:24:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
these are the kind of asinine and out of touch comments you get with people who have had their head up Steve Jobs ass for too long.

Fixed that for you.


Privacy is dead, get over it
By jefmes on 12/9/2009 2:34:39 AM , Rating: 3
The fact of the matter is that if you THINK you have any kind of privacy any more, you're kidding yourself. If you choose to be a member of public society and use any kind of electronic system you're leaving tracks, and if someone wants to get to follow those tracks they can. The best way to combat identity issues is to secure your data, be aware of who and where you're sharing your information, and be alert to suspicious activity on any of your accounts.

As long as companies like Google are as reasonably transparent as possible we should be capable of policing them as easily as some of you fear "the law" will be able to police us. Abusing databases for political or monetary gain are obviously abuses of the trust relationship we users build with these companies, and it's our duty to keep them honest. I'm sick of the fear mongering - deal with those who commit actual wrongs. We shouldn't be hindering progress and innovation because you're worried about hiding your pr0n collection.




RE: Privacy is dead, get over it
By MadMan007 on 12/9/2009 6:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
...says the person with the meaningless ananymous username.


RE: Privacy is dead, get over it
By MadMan007 on 12/9/2009 7:02:08 AM , Rating: 1
*anonymous :(

I wish we had something like a short a 5 minute edit window here. I don't like to rely on spell checkers but don't always reread my posts before submitting. Oh well!


By GaryJohnson on 12/9/2009 8:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
Person with real name as username agrees with person with anonymous username.


RE: Privacy is dead, get over it
By jefmes on 12/9/2009 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
It says my username right there, jefmes. Not exactly anonymous...?


Sounds to me...
By CrazyBernie on 12/8/2009 9:29:01 PM , Rating: 5
... like someone needs to take his lips off the government penis.




RE: Sounds to me...
By shin0bi272 on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
So much for "Don't be evil..."
By bugleyman on 12/8/2009 10:17:36 PM , Rating: 5
"Only people who have something to hide care about privacy" is a fallacy that's been dismantled again and again. In case anyone had any doubts, Google's journey to the dark side is now complete.




By AstroCreep on 12/8/2009 10:24:18 PM , Rating: 5
...it's just that I don't want anyone to know how much I truly enjoy certain forms of *ahem*, entertainment.

Look, what a lady does with a goat, a midget, a bottle of Zesty Italian salad dressing and a camera is her business...but I'll watch anything once, and I don't need anyone else knowing about it!
Thanks Google for making me look like a perv!




Privacy?
By atomikyyz on 12/8/2009 10:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Most of us know the intenet was never developed with privacy in mind back in Berkley. But since then having privacy on the net is a logical and welcome move, and yes a necessity even. Eric Schmidt is quite hypocritical in his claims, but if you think Bing or Yahoo or just about any activity you do on the net is not at the very least traceable/recordable, you are sadly misinformed and living in the past. And although on the one hand having high-speed internet available to the masses..aka 'net neutrality', it gravely promotes opportunities for even less privacy. Admit that it is gone, and should we start on all the new GPS enabled handheld devices? Because some people out there screw up a good thing, our leaders (whatever nation) will try and moralize all of your activities for you. It's a sad day in realization. On the one hand, if you have nothing to hide....It is obviously very complex as was mentioned and very precarious.




RE: Privacy?
By rs1 on 12/8/2009 10:46:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
having high-speed internet available to the masses..aka 'net neutrality'


High-speed Internet access for everyone is not the same thing as net neutrality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

And while we're at it, if privacy on the Internet is of serious concern to you, there is always Tor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_networ...

...works great if you ever need to do something that can't be traced back to you. Of course, that doesn't mean that Google and others should just be selling out people's privacy because they can, but at least ways exist to fight back.


this is a logical fallacy
By asgallant on 12/9/2009 12:20:38 PM , Rating: 3
The whole "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" argument is a logical fallacy. Privacy involves a great deal more than "hiding" things you don't want others to know about. Professor Daniel J. Solove published a paper exposing the fallacy in the San Diego Law Review. I suggest you read it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...

You might even learn something in the process.




RE: this is a logical fallacy
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 1:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
True.... privacy has to do with people not being allowed to butt into your private business unless it affects them in some manner.... of course, the media for YEARS hasn't been adhering to this rule, like they should.


Missing the big picture?
By DOOA on 12/9/2009 7:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you log into Google they are keeping information about what your computer is used for. This may or may not represent you 100%. Most likely in a family setting it will not.
Take this one further - that guy surfing for kiddie porn from your cubicle while you are on vacation is pretty smart. Will you be smart enough to defend yourself in court? Do you really want to go through that trial even if you win?




RE: Missing the big picture?
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
As long as you can prove that you were out of town when the stuff was downloaded, you are golden.

Actually, the FBI came to my door a few years ago saying "We have information you were downloading child porn!" I was like "What? Hell.... I do download LOLICON (drawn or CG images of children in sexual situations) but not actual REAL LIFE child porn! Where the hell are you getting that bullcrap from?"

Turned out, they didn't have ANY evidence I was trading ACTUAL child porn..... they just didn't like some of my stances on issues and thought that they would 'intimidate' me into not speaking out... THINK AGAIN!

After that, I call their supervisor at the FBI and reported them... the agents were punished... severely. I don't know if that was just because I was an acquaintance of a certain senator, but it might have been.

That incident showed me exactly why what people do online should NOT be monitored in the slightest, because people with an agenda can use it to harass people who they don't like their viewpoints... though that can happen with non-government organizations as well.


Even more scary
By evolveNow on 12/8/2009 10:32:00 PM , Rating: 1
is the the fact that Google has a very close relationship with a certain administration. What's to stop white house officials from obtaining personal information on political opponents or manipulating search results in favor of a specific candidate?




RE: Even more scary
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
What is to stop them from doing that using LOW-TECH methods, such as hiring a private investigator? NOTHING!

It's not a big worry, and need I remind you.... McCARTHY! The only one (besides Nixon, who was an ass) who had a 'enemies of the state' list.


By Zensen on 12/9/2009 12:03:15 AM , Rating: 3
if we werent at least concerned about privacy then I know I wouldn't think twice about using some service services such as social networking. I only like to share so much, there are people will want to know more than you want to give.

Schmit just wants to read my emails... if he hasn't done so already :S

here have my credit card number.

how about you give me yer credit card number and yer password to your google account so I can read whats up for you in the next year.




Yes it's over simplified
By deputc26 on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yes it's over simplified
By Jalek on 12/9/2009 3:23:38 PM , Rating: 3
Look at the AOL release, that was just 3 months worth and a few hundred thousand people.

There was one person in Illinois that was easily traced, looking up how to divorce a deployed soldier. They also had searches for banks in Alabama, then specific searches in neighborhoods there for various amenities. It appeared that they were planning to move there. Had that been someone fleeing an abusive relationship, there might've been enough there to follow them to Alabama, knowing what bank they used, what elementary schools the kids were likely at...

That was just one I selected at random, I guess the database is still available. That didn't keep anywhere near the quantity of data that Google has access to with it's adsense and analytics used nearly everywhere.


By piroroadkill on 12/9/2009 5:32:00 AM , Rating: 3
... for "Do No Evil"




It's a logical comment
By InternetGeek on 12/8/2009 9:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you're in the business of gathering data for marketing and research purposes, then it is in your best interest that everyone shares their data. You could say that somehow tagging people who don't want their data online as 'bad' is a logical argument. If people start to review how much information they are sharing and remove the unwanted details then you are hurting the agency's bottomline.

Yes, if you're not doing something wrong you have nothing to fear. But doesn't mean you should go around spreading your personal details. If a law enforcement agency wants to review your pricate matters, they better have an order. That way you can prosecute whomever leaks them out.

It's for your own sake, don't share your information freely. Review your privacy details online. You might be surprised. IE: Facebook has you, by default, in the "here's my info, have it" mode.




Hey now...
By thekdub on 12/9/2009 1:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
Just because I don't want anyone to know that I was the one who couldn't control his flatulence in the elevator does not mean I am up to no good!




I don't use Google anyway
By atlmann10 on 12/9/2009 2:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
That is except for email. However; I only route certain things through Gmail. I also have my ISP email and 2 other emails I use regular. I don't use Google search engine and haven't for quite a while now I use Bing before I used a few others and some metasearch engines. Of course I don't know how well that covers me either. I also use open dns and have for some time. So Google really does not have to much of my business and never really has. Either way you would think a man in his position would be smart enough not to make a stupid statement like that.




On CNET...
By anuraaga on 12/9/2009 3:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
The bit about CNET is a little misleading. As clearly written in the article linked to, CNET reporters were blacklisted, meaning they were banned from Google press events, etc. CNET was not banned from Google, unless Google in this case meant Google press events and not the search engine, in which case the next mention of Google as CNET's source for their article would be incorrect since they got their information from the search engine, not press events.

I for one was worried Google had actually blacklisted CNET from their search results and had to confirm this wasn't the case at the source.




RE: On CNET...
By bob4432 on 12/9/09, Rating: 0
Chrome, lol
By MadMan007 on 12/9/2009 6:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
And this is why Chrome will never take off as a 'cloud OS' in the business world for sure, and among any half-informed consumer too. Any business would be insane to use Chrome when Google considers that data non-private.

I'm glad that I never used Google's services other than search personally. This article drove me to finally change my default search engine.




Google info
By Jalek on 12/9/2009 6:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Did they play along with the Obama administration request to report anyone saying "anything questionable" about the health care plan (which wasn't really a plan anyway, just a list of bullet points)? Who's now on some czar's special list?

I know they turned over numbers by region of searches for flu and flu-like symptom searches early in the H1N1 scare, but very specific yet uniquely unidentifiable information doesn't sound harmful.

In any case, I use Ixquick with a SSL connection. Not because 18 months of search info is too horrifying, but it's also not necessary.

I remember playing with this when it was searchable..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scand...




He's an absolute idiot
By Orac4prez on 12/9/2009 8:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, we have people here who have had their private demons exposed. They have been undergoing counselling about depression but Google doesn't give a toss about that! Hopefully their search engine will uncover and release some embarassing facts or some confidential business information to their competitors!

Hope he rots in hell.




Soon to be Congressman Schmidt
By IcePickFreak on 12/9/2009 9:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google CEO Eric Schmidt commented to CNBC, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

quote:
Mr. Schmidt banned CNET, one of the top tech news sites on the web, from Google for an entire year for publishing information about the CEO, including his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations.


Double standards; sounds like Mr. Schmidt is ready to move into a political career, and apparently already has some "friends" in the business.




Guess it's time to use Tor
By Leper Messiah on 12/9/2009 10:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
Not out of paranoia, but out of sheer principle. How long though until google starts logging known Tor nodes and banning them from their network, in the interest of national security of course.




By cyberguyz on 12/9/2009 12:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
... including a brain.

Leave it to a jackass that runs a data mining company to say something so absolutely asinine.

Just goes to show you that making hundreds of millions of US$ per year at the top of a fortune 1000 company does NOT indicate you are smart. It just indicates you know the right butts to kiss.




Wow.
By Chiisuchianu on 12/9/2009 2:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
I am really starting not to like Google.




Title is misleading...
By roostitup on 12/8/2009 10:36:01 PM , Rating: 1
No where in the article does anything like what the title claims is quoted as said by the CEO, it misleads the reader.

Granted Google still is pushing how they are using their acquisition of our private information. It seems like the CEO could care less about the privacy of their users, so why should I continue to use their services? Google is becoming a force to be reckoned with and a far to powerful force on the internet. Antitrust laws are here for a reason and Google is taking over far too many markets.




Roll on Chrome O/S
By Justin Time on 12/9/2009 1:05:57 AM , Rating: 1
All your datas are belong to us.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki