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).
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:
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.
at the least, i think you are misreading the tone and giving a rather generous interpretation of what was said. schmidt could have said what you wrote. he could have something much more critical of the position he was in. he did neither.
also, your definition of "reasonable" is not one we all need share. there is a trade-off between profit and privacy here - the balance google has chosen is not the only one possible.
so twice you slant your argument to suit google. once by interpreting what was said in as favourable a way as possible, and once by presenting the false dichotomy of "google v martyr".
I realise that Schmidt was taken out of context for media hype purposes but...
Even in context what he says is worrying though. It is not just advising you on how to keep you data out of government hands. It is also making some sort statement about Google's position.
Under what conditions does google have to turn over the search records? Can the government say, "Give ue all the records for those who searched for 'murder' related queries." I'm guessing not, and that a warrant must be presented, but I'm still curious.
My search history probably makes me out to be a psychopath, when in fact I just have a wide array of strange interests.
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.
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 :)
It's a bit facile to say that it's evil for Google to watch us. Yes, a company can abuse the data in its possession, and yes, all that data in one place makes the government lick its lips in anticipation.
But don't forget, Google does a lot of wonderful things. Millions (billions?) of people's lives are enriched by Google's products, and most of those people (certainly those of us on HN) know that Google needs some information about us in order to deliver the things it delivers. The startups that will change the world in the next decade or two are likely to be built with the help of things Google makes — and which Google cannot make as well without some personal data about its users.
So yes, companies now know more about you than they did 20 years ago, and we should certainly note the dangers of that. But don't ignore the huge value of what you get in return.
> Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing.
Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently? I suspect his arguments are more philosophical musing relying on circular logic, unstated assumptions and social norms, rather like pretty much everything I seem to read from Schneier. I'm sure they sound rather clever but do they really amount to much more than a circle jerk?
One could just as easily argue that 'need for privacy' is just a learned social construct.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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."
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 ...
[+] [-] ekiru|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] andrewcooke|16 years ago|reply
also, your definition of "reasonable" is not one we all need share. there is a trade-off between profit and privacy here - the balance google has chosen is not the only one possible.
so twice you slant your argument to suit google. once by interpreting what was said in as favourable a way as possible, and once by presenting the false dichotomy of "google v martyr".
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
I think you nailed it right there; after carefully re-reading exactly what he said I believe that was the intended meaning.
[+] [-] netcan|16 years ago|reply
Even in context what he says is worrying though. It is not just advising you on how to keep you data out of government hands. It is also making some sort statement about Google's position.
[+] [-] 3dFlatLander|16 years ago|reply
My search history probably makes me out to be a psychopath, when in fact I just have a wide array of strange interests.
[+] [-] maudineormsby|16 years ago|reply
"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|16 years ago|reply
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 :)
[+] [-] karzeem|16 years ago|reply
But don't forget, Google does a lot of wonderful things. Millions (billions?) of people's lives are enriched by Google's products, and most of those people (certainly those of us on HN) know that Google needs some information about us in order to deliver the things it delivers. The startups that will change the world in the next decade or two are likely to be built with the help of things Google makes — and which Google cannot make as well without some personal data about its users.
So yes, companies now know more about you than they did 20 years ago, and we should certainly note the dangers of that. But don't ignore the huge value of what you get in return.
[+] [-] dejb|16 years ago|reply
Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently? I suspect his arguments are more philosophical musing relying on circular logic, unstated assumptions and social norms, rather like pretty much everything I seem to read from Schneier. I'm sure they sound rather clever but do they really amount to much more than a circle jerk?
One could just as easily argue that 'need for privacy' is just a learned social construct.
[+] [-] pohl|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
I applaud the librarians for standing up to the government. Google... not so much.
[+] [-] andreyf|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randallsquared|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|16 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] KevBurnsJr|16 years ago|reply
Scheier's response is expectable from someone living in a fear-based society such as ours.
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roundsquare|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wendroid|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply