Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Google to you: What do you have to hide?

Dec 7, 2009#1

Espy

http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people

Eric Schmidt suggests you alter your scandalous behavior before you complain about his company invading your privacy. That's what the Google CEO told Maria Bartiromo during CNBC's big Google special last night, an extraordinary pronouncement for such a secretive guy.

And even better he goes on to say this lovely little quote:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Google has a hell of a lot of power. And that is their CEO speaking about it on CNBC.

I'm not sure I care for that line of thinking. I know google used to trump itself as a "non-evil" company but it seems like this is rather counter-productive to that sort of claim... what do you think?

Dec 7, 2009#2

Tinwhistler

I have a book of chinese philosophies, that basically says that same thing: "If you don't want your neighbors to know you've done a thing, don't do that thing." (paraphrased).

I always took it to mean that skeletons have a way of coming out of the closet.

Dec 7, 2009#3

fade

Like one of the Gawker comments said, I think he probably meant to say "then don't put it on the internet".

Dec 7, 2009#4

MindDetective

I gotta agree with him, really. Be good or hide your badness better. Welcome to the 21st century.

Dec 7, 2009#5

Espy

While I do agree with it, the issue isn't whether or not it's good advice (clearly it is), it's privacy rights concerning the company Google and whether or not they have the right to do what they please with all the information they gather on you. He's seems to be saying don't question what they do with your information, just don't do anything bad.
So good advice in a general sense, but when it comes to a company dealing with privacy rights I'm not sure that it's a policy I want from a company that gathers so much information about people, thats all I'm saying.

Dec 7, 2009#6

MindDetective

Espy said:
While I do agree with it, the issue isn't whether or not it's good advice (clearly it is), it's privacy rights concerning the company Google and whether or not they have the right to do what they please with all the information they gather on you. He's seems to be saying don't question what they do with your information, just don't do anything bad.
So good advice in a general sense, but when it comes to a company dealing with privacy rights I'm not sure that it's a policy I want from a company that gathers so much information about people, thats all I'm saying.

I, for one, look forward to Google Blackmail.

Dec 7, 2009#7

Dave

I love the way they posted links to his sexual dalliances and blondie girlfriends including her Tweets, etc. Seems that someone lives in a glass house, yes?

Dec 7, 2009#8

Espy

Dave said:
I love the way they posted links to his sexual dalliances and blondie girlfriends including her Tweets, etc. Seems that someone lives in a glass house, yes?

Not to mention:
From CNNMONEY

CNET:We've been blackballed by Google
Tech news site says Google froze out its reporters for publishing Eric Schmidt's personal info.

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."

So I guess either he has had a serious change of heart or he feels like only he is exempt from it.

Dec 7, 2009#9

Bonhomme Richard

MindDetective;310604][quote=Espy said:
While I do agree with it, the issue isn't whether or not it's good advice (clearly it is), it's privacy rights concerning the company Google and whether or not they have the right to do what they please with all the information they gather on you. He's seems to be saying don't question what they do with your information, just don't do anything bad.
So good advice in a general sense, but when it comes to a company dealing with privacy rights I'm not sure that it's a policy I want from a company that gathers so much information about people, thats all I'm saying.

I, for one, look forward to Google Blackmail.[/QUOTE]Beta

Dec 7, 2009#10

crono1224

Espy;310608][quote=Dave said:
I love the way they posted links to his sexual dalliances and blondie girlfriends including her Tweets, etc. Seems that someone lives in a glass house, yes?

Not to mention:
From CNNMONEY

CNET:We've been blackballed by Google
Tech news site says Google froze out its reporters for publishing Eric Schmidt's personal info.

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."

So I guess either he has had a serious change of heart or he feels like only he is exempt from it.[/QUOTE]

Clearly most people who do these sort of things find it to be prefectly legitimate until it comes back to bite them, which he will say that its not the same thing or some other line of bs.

Dec 7, 2009#11

Gared

What about people who have privacy concerns due to good things they've done for which they may face recrimination?

Dec 7, 2009#12

bhamv3

I don't want people to know what my facial expressions are when I take a particularly large dump. Clearly this means I must either wear a mask, or just hold it.

Just because I don't want someone to know or see something, does not automatically make it something I shouldn't be doing.

Dec 7, 2009#13

Shakey

I don't know why Google should be expected to filter out certain information. I can't even imagine how difficult that would be. I would be more concerned with how they handle the information they have from your personal searches, email, and soon to be OS. As long as that private information stays private, I'm OK with it. I don't even mind them using it to target ads, as long as that information is not sent to the actual advertiser. If you post something on the internet for all to see, expect it to be searchable.

Dec 7, 2009#14

Gared

Shakey said:
I don't know why Google should be expected to filter out certain information. I can't even imagine how difficult that would be. I would be more concerned with how they handle the information they have from your personal searches, email, and soon to be OS. As long as that private information stays private, I'm OK with it. I don't even mind them using it to target ads, as long as that information is not sent to the actual advertiser. If you post something on the internet for all to see, expect it to be searchable.

Well said. If you're stupid enough to post something online, be prepared for someone you don't want to see it, to see it.

Dec 7, 2009#15

Soliloquy

While I agree with the general philosophy, It worries me that it's coming from the CEO of a huge search engine such as google.

Methinks I should start using Bing.

Dec 7, 2009#16

Shakey

Bing isn't any different. They do the same thing, index as much information out on the internet and make it searchable as possible. If you post something on an indexable site, you're SOL.

Dec 7, 2009#17

Soliloquy

Shakey said:
Bing isn't any different. They do the same thing, index as much information out on the internet and make it searchable as possible. If you post something on an indexable site, you're SOL.

I'm not talking about posting stuff on sites. That's a no-brainer.

Dec 7, 2009#18

RocketGirl

Tinwhistler said:
I always took it to mean that skeletons have a way of coming out of the closet.

So...skeletons are gay? :suspicious:

Dec 7, 2009#19

Nile

RocketGirl;310713][quote=Tinwhistler said:
I always took it to mean that skeletons have a way of coming out of the closet.

So...skeletons are gay? :suspicious:[/QUOTE]

-resists 'bone' joke-

I'm hoping he meant it as "Don't put your secrets on the internet" and is just abysmal at getting his meaning across.

Dec 7, 2009#20

Fun Size

bhamv3 said:
I don't want people to know what my facial expressions are when I take a particularly large dump.

I wondered why you stopped updating your photo-blog. I do miss that vein on your forehead that pops out after you've been eating too much cheese though.

Dec 7, 2009#21

Deschain

I always took it to mean that skeletons have a way of coming out of the closet.

The dead will walk one day.

Dec 7, 2009#22

Fun Size

Fortunately, the lack of muscle means they won't walk far.

Dec 7, 2009#23

Tinwhistler

Nile;310734][quote=RocketGirl;310713][quote=Tinwhistler said:
I always took it to mean that skeletons have a way of coming out of the closet.

So...skeletons are gay? :suspicious:[/quote]

-resists 'bone' joke-

I'm hoping he meant it as "Don't put your secrets on the internet" and is just abysmal at getting his meaning across.[/quote]

You've never heard of the phrase "skeletons in the closet"?

:confused:

Forums