http://www.google.com/profiles/ralphthemagician

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ralphthemagician

http://outsourcingroom.com/en/users/profile/ralphthemagician.cbsx

http://whois.domaintools.com/aoatj.com

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=21&threadid=5673&enterthread=y

http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthread.php?t=219121&highlight=michaels+computers&page=25

http://wp01.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/812567?alt=Thresher%2C+as+listed+under+Computers+%26+Internet

http://www.meetup.com/DigitalMediaEvents/members/10747979/

I was about to post the same thing. If you’re ditching work for a day at the beach, don’t put it on Facebook, even if you’ve set privacy to full. If you don’t want someone to see that photo of you leering at the office slut, don’t put it on the Internet, regardless of how secure you think it is.

After reading many interviews with Schmidt and some of his more acerbic comments you wonder if his arrogance is only sustainable (and tolerated) because he is CEO of an apparently unassailable leviathan. When one applies the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ filte, one could be forgiven for thinking that – actually – he comes across as a complete arse.

Did everyone working up their righteous indignation (including Cory) actually watch the video? Schmidt doesn’t say “privacy doesn’t matter”. He’s saying that his company and other search engines can be compelled to turn over data.

And I don’t think he said anything we didn’t already know. The internet works the way it does. There are some areas online that are secure and some that aren’t. If you use the net you need to know the difference.

Blackballing CNET was ill advised. I think Google missed an opportunity to use humor to promote online awareness. And I think that is what’s needed. Reminds me of the scene in the original “The Office” series when David Brent discovers the history function on his Web browser for the first time.

People just don’t get it. They need to be told.

I think it says a lot for Schmidt’s approach that he mentions the invocation of the Patriot Act as the reason why Google might disclose information. That’s a pretty extreme situation. How is that cavalier?

If you want to keep something private, don’t put it on the Internet. And if you have to, host it on your own secure server.

Love it. And thanks for posting this, Cory!

the pleabian masses can suck it

Google is an advertising company and everything else they do is simply to drive increased Internet usages (and therefore advertising revenue) or to more accurately delivery advertising.

Unfortunately many people see Google = The Cloud and this is unfortunate. There are plenty of cloud vendors who don’t have this conflict of interest who are interested in delivering good services and good privacy.

You first.

Give the public full access to your bank records, internet records, have a gps locator attached to your body and get yourself followed by a camera crew 24/7.

Google has the best track record on privacy of any major search engine; and a far better track record than any US phone company.

And yes, he made the “shouldn’t be doing it in the first place” remark, but it didn’t seem to me that he was implying “…and therefore we are cavalier with your privacy,” but instead was suggesting that in the event of court orders and the like there was a limit to the degree of privacy protection that Google was prepared to offer. To me that’s quite different from saying it doesn’t matter.

I wrote an open letter to Eric Schmidt about that interview.

Privacy isn’t necessarily about hiding things. It’s about freedom, choice, about the user being able to draw a line somewhere. It is a human need and right. Google provides us with valuable services, but implicitly we pay by giving up (some) or our privacy. That exchange should never be implicit. It creates a fertile environment to ‘Do evil’.

http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-open-letter-to-eric-schmidt/

“Only the nose knows
Where the nose goes
When the door close.”

But yes, I certainly agree that we stretched irony a little too far here Google. I thought you folks where on the whole do no evil kick? I guess when they say they hire only genius level humans at Google they leave out the ‘evil’ genius part until you shake hands in HR.

Google also run more than 300000 servers maintain everything from positioning data to personal interest on more than 60% of all people on the web.

It’s free, it’s simple, but who controls all this, and what price do we really pay?

You cannot do this without a good head on your shoulders, however. If you really want genuine, authentic privacy and freedom — study the laws of your land HARD. If someone even deliberates violating your privacy expecting you to be stupid or ignorant, crush them in court and make them an example to all would-be criminals. You cannot actualize your natural privacy or freedom without first taking responsibility to educate yourself as to where your privacy and freedom ends and another individual’s begins. Education is the key. Reason is the principle.

Google has more information than almost anyone (except maybe the US government). The more they use that power, the more powerful it (and CEO Schmidt) becomes.

So, of course, it’s very tempting for them to rationalize increasing use of that power.

BUT… I watched the video and I’m not sure that’s the whole story (for this particular clip). The context he’s talking about is Google and the Patriot Act.

I think he’s basically saying that any data Google has, the US government can access.