Google CEO: "People aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Google knows what you watch, what you search, and even with whom you're friends. The availability of all this information raises an important question: Where does Google CEO Eric Schmidt stand on the issue of online privacy?

Schmidt has previously said, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

In a more recent interview with CNBC conducted at the Techonomy conference earlier this month, Schmidt offered an additional look at his views on online privacy and anonymity.

Speaking on a panel at the event, Schmidt argued that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous. "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you," he said.

Schmidt took the stance that governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a name service for people," he said. "Governments will demand it."

He expanded on his thoughts in a separate interview.

"Privacy is incredibly important," he said, adding, "Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity. It's very important that Google and everyone else respects people's privacy. People have a right to privacy; it's natural; it's normal. It's the right way to do things."

However, there should be limits, he said: "If you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that. Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole and I don't think we want that either."

He additionally noted, "People aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them."

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Google has been struggling and "soul searching" to answer the question: "How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels--the vast trove of data it possesses about people's activities?" A leaked vision statement reveals the company is grappling with what it should do with the data it has about its users.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/eric-schmidt-privacy-stan_n_677224.html

[FreakinDJ]

1. Technology Revolution - you mean INVASION of PRIVACY

Oh I forgot - they are a Multinational Corporation - they can do what ever they like

[EmilyKent]

2. Well it's true people aren't ready

for the technology revolution, but I'm sure they'll fight the privacy issue all the way.

[tridim]

8. I see no evidence that will happen

Just look at facebook.

The People are going to have to wise-up fast. If Google is still following their mantra, this is a warning.

[EmilyKent]

13. You're on a thread protesting it!

[Hydra]

14. You're so right about facebook

It scares the hell out of me that people happily post their whole lives there...and wonder why I refuse to.

[Jennicut]

3. There is not really any privacy on the internet.

Whoever runs the social networking sites knows a lot of your personal data when you signed up. It is an illusion.

[tridim]

4. This all has a "Max Headroom" feel about it.

I'm thinking the "blank" lifestyle might become a reality soon.

[snagglepuss]

15. Not familiar with Max Headroom. What do you mean by a "blank" lifestyle?

[tridim]

18. There were people on the show that called themselves "blanks"

Meaning they erased their electronic identities to avoid detection by anyone who was interested in gathering data on them.

Thirty years ago the show predicted almost everything that is happening today with the Internet and mass media.

[eShirl]

21. (offtopic) BTW: " 'Max Headroom' Returns"

‘Max Headroom’ Returns
Trent PinkisthenewBlog.com 08/09/10 01:04 PM

Here's a blast from the past that only those of you who were old enough to enjoy the bounty of the 1980′s will remember and appreciate (but you young'ns can learn a thing or two about a very cool, way-ahead-of-its-time TV show) — Max Headroom. The 80′s were full of movies and TV shows like Tron, Terminator, Back to the Future 2 and Max Headroom that focused on what technology of the future might look like. Max Headroom was a short-lived TV series that featured a talking head on a computer screen as the star of the show. While the TV series didn't last very long, the character of Max Headroom enjoyed much more success in commercials, t-shirts and board games. The LA Times has written an article on the upcoming DVD debut of the Max Headroom TV series which reminded me of the show (yes, I watched it when it first aired on TV) so I thought I'd share it with all y'all:

Set "Twenty minutes into the future," the ABC series "Max Headroom" is now 23 years in the past. And on Tuesday, Shout! Factory is releasing all 14 episodes from the short-lived sci-fi-thriller-social-commentary. ----SNIP----


more: http://www.tv.com/max-headroom-returns/webnews/128941.html

[snagglepuss]

22. Thanks

:hi:

[SydneyDundee]

5. ..the problem with Privacy and anonymity..

is that no one can really agree on what the definition of "acceptable" anonymity is or what is a "legitimate" access to privacy protections....its all in the context. The anonymity required for say, a 'battered housewive" seeking healthcare, with address sensitive information etc, is different from the anonymity we all think we need to enjoy while pursuing our online lives......and as so much of our "real lives" will be accessed through online services, who gets to decide what is acceptable and reasonable?......it is a legislative minefield.

[kenny blankenship]

6. So basically Google is in the business of spying on people

spying on people on behalf of other corporations that want to sell them stuff right now, and or groom their consuming habits to buy something later.

This is the 21st century's star business in America and perhaps the world: spying on people.

[Kalun D]

7. The Rich Pig Money Mongers

the manipulating crooked cheaters

aren't ready for the revolution that's going to happen to them

[Capitalocracy]

9. Leaked vision statement:

"Maybe a little bit evil?"

[JCMach1]

10. I for one welcome our new Google overlords (crosspost)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4499734

[Newest Reality]

11. Though they are spoken more softly

those are the words of a true authoritarian tyrant punctuated with threats and intellectual violence against humanity via technology.

Oh, we may be more than ready for the technology war, ah, enslavement ... I mean revolution that they are preparing to unleash on us. While this bigwig thinks its going to "happen" to us without our consent, that may not be the case at all, so it is not a good strategy to assume such things.

A true servant of Big Brother for us to love long time speaks with big mouth and far too much elitist pride sitting behind the protective curtain of wealth and privileged.

My perspective on Google has now become completely tainted since they are proclaiming themselves a potential enemy of the people and waxing dictatorial about what are rights are and how they are to be defined.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. He's right that privacy and anonymity are separate things.

However, the easiest way to preserve privacy is to protect anonymity. This vast amount of data Google has would be nearly as lucrative when used in an aggregate form, and if we had any decent privacy laws in this country private companies would be required to suppress data that is individually identifiable unless the subject is a) has given permission for its dissemination, b) has full awareness of the intended use of the data and c) has been compensated for it.

Anyone who has ever had to deal with an IRB knows that a) and b) are standard restrictions on data collections. Compensation is just a natural extension for usage where private companies plan to profit from said use.

[snot]

16. Exposing a criminal is one thing; selling personal data for lucre is another; AND

using personal info to unjustly silence protesters is yet another.

As Chris Hedges said recently, "we forgot that the question is NOT, how do we get good people into power. The question is, how do we limit the damage the powerful can do to us?"

(video at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25298.htm )

[Amonester]

17. I guess that greedy control freak wants to know....

when a true revolutionary will ask where HE lives, hey?

I thought we had a ... Constitution!

[Ghost Dog]

19. It has always been possible to communicate anonymously

in all societies beyond the tightest-knit clan or small tribe, I'd suggest.

History has many examples of anonymous letters, articles, broadsheets and works of art and of literature, yes, and anonymously-organised social and political movements too.

[DailyGrind51]

20. The American taxpayer paid for the establishment of the Internet, and NOW we should be forced to pay

again?

[woo me with science]

23. "that's going to happen to them"

Even the wording is ominous.