Eric Schmidt, 2009
Eric Schmidt, 2009
Schmidt and Google claim to be "progressive" but that kind of rationale of "nothing to hide" would mean that every progressive movement would have been shut down in its early stages had this kind of tech and surveillance been available at the time because it went against what was currently judged as right by the people in power
I don’t see how this implies anything about a particular political ideology being more virtuous. Why would you even think that?
Nobody thinks they're evil, people can rationalize all sorts of crazy behavior.
I do, because evil is banal. Rationalizing crazy behavior is what evil usually looks like. Larger evils occur when "trivial" problems are ignored, allowing the deviant behavior to be normalized. Intentions are not relevant, because it's easy to rationalize away the craziest of behaviors.
"No one involved in an extralegal activity thinks of themselves as nefarious. I'm a businessman, okay?" - Quark, DS9 S6E25
It's the classic dilemma: "People ask 'Can we do this?' and rarely ask 'Should we do this?'"
Sure, but only in the minds of people who don't even know themselves, and can't make a coherent argument to save their lifes. They confuse the "data" they have on things with the things themselves, not to mention people -- same noobs doing the same shit, different day.
Eric Schmidt's concept of privacy is so focused on the sort term where we live in free countries. Who knows what the future holds in store?
Imagine if in 50-100 years the political situation gets really bad in the US and they decide to pass such a law. That hypothetical future government could simply get all the data from companies like Google and pinpoint their targets with scary accuracy. Imagine being jailed for web searches that you have done decades prior.
As a trans person, that's the kind of things that keep me up at night. Especially since the ads that Google are presenting to me recently shifted and my shadow profile is clearly tagged as "trans" now.
>To the older generation, privacy is about secrecy. And, as the Supreme Court said, once something is no longer secret, it's no longer private. But that's not how privacy works, and it's not how the younger generation thinks about it. Privacy is about control.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/privacy_and_c...
I'm about the same age as Bruce, and I often respect what he's written. Not this time. In fact I'd bluntly claim he's wrong.
Let's not conflate privacy and secrecy and blame the old. Secrecy is not revealing the private conversations with a friend of the opposite sex is actually the surface of an affair. It would embarrass (or worse) if revealed. Privacy is not telling because there's no need, that's their business, but happy to tell SO if it came up for some reason.
For the older generation privacy is about control and agency too. Who gets to know mum or dad is ill, what they earn, who can see or use their information or their photo, even who their friends or habits are. The expectation is all of that goes to those who need it or others at the sole discretion of the individual or couple. Volunteered at their discretion unless a job or mortgage depends upon it. They just share a lot less than the kid's generation, but not for reasons of secrecy.
CNET on Friday reported "Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story." That story, by reporter Elinor Mills ran under the headline "Google balances privacy, reach."
Google spokesman David Krane told CNN the company declined comment.
> To underscore its point about how much personal information is available, the CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt -- his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations -- all obtained through Google searches.
Eric Schmidt, 2009
Where did he post his e-mail address and password so we can all have a look? After all, if he's not doing anything wrong, he has nothing to hide.
(edit, I'm posting this in support of the parent comment, as it has overtones of this famously chilling phrase)
Roland Barthes
Outlines the steps the Nazis (and other fascists) took to silence the opposition, get everyone slowly into line, undermine the "public sphere" and rational discourse, replace truth by obedience to power, etc. and then gives some hints what each of us can concretely do to stop these processes.
A good read on Google and Eric Schmidt's relationship with the State Department and federal government in general
"There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast"
https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-workin...
The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has his own show on RT [2], which mean's he's essentially being paid by Russia's state propaganda media [3]. That, along with attacking the Panama papers leak for "going after Putin", and a string of other pro-Russia activity, means Wikileaks is not to be trusted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...
[2] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
RT has some of the best coverage of some things around, and this constant talking as of it is putins right hand in media form is grounded in tribalism and not in careful evaluation of the facts.