All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
08 Dec 2009
Google boss Eric Schmidt has said that internet users who are concerned about privacy shouldn’t be fretting if they have done nothing wrong.
In an interview with CNBC, Schmidt said that users who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear and confirmed that Google was retaining customer information that could be accessed by the government.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," he said.
“If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”
Schmidt showed a certain amount of chutzpah with his comments, in light of his decision to ban CNet from Google events after the news site published information about him that it had found solely on Google’s search engine.
His comments come after a privacy storm engulfed Yahoo after leaked documents showed the search engine was selling access to user accounts to law enforcement agencies.
Costs range from $20 (£12.15) for an individual's basic subscriber records, to $80 (£48.60) for groups.
Latest stories from Management
Related videos
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
V3 examines the key strengths and weaknesses of Samsung's latest iPhone killer
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
There is NO right
I cannot agree with Eric Schmuck about this for many reasons... This was the same attitude from a Texas law enforcer who wanted cameras in all peoples' homes, same statement, if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. This statement is the most communistic, denying the attacks of our freedom, while putting our lives, both personal and non in the hands of large corporations and government. Let me ask, since we are very limited to how we browse the internet, what gives Google or any other search engine the right to hold our information in the first place? Are they the law? Are they our employer? Are they any ranking authority? No, they are a service. Ok, sure most of us know they do this anyway and we know if we want to browse, we don't have a lot of options. There are proxy, however, they too hold your info, don't be fooled. If I gather someone's personal information or browsing habits, it's criminal. So if I put out a browser, it makes it right? Hmmmmm. Just think, Erick Schmuck holds millions of peoples' information, every day habits, regardless if illegal or not and the law is using Google as their own personal file storage. Basically, that's what it boils down to. What I don't like is from a social perspective, everyone is deviant, or can be made to look so, the problem is, we "basic people" get put under microscopes while people like Eric Schmuck, and most large corporate types, including government officials use the basis of our behaviors to keep their status, making examples out of us, the ones the law CAN touch. Has it been this way for a very long time? Yes. However, the internet is not making it better. For those lost, let me say it this way, if Mr. Eric browses or downloads things he shouldn't, do you think a large fine or "if he even was noticed" would be affected by the law? No, but we would. So he can sit there and say "if you did nothing wrong..." blah blah... while who knows what he's doing behind the law's back. "Not that he has to worry about the law". I don't recall any corporate types getting the death penalty for any reason, maybe one, not sure, but my point, it's these types that have the money, the power, and can point a finger at the little guy. In the U.S., we have a society where if you are driving and kill a construction worker, it's 10,000 dollar fine, however, if you copy a DVD, it's 250,000 dollar fine. Can we think about this for a minute? Something wrong here? Anyway, going a bit off track, I am going anti-Google now, after hearing that statement, I would go WITHOUT internet first before using Google. I won't sell my soul to Eric Schmuck or anyone else. I will find other means of searching, even if it's MSN. Goodbye Gmail too. Just think, if everyone did this, there would be a large change and fast from any corporate idiot. Too bad it'll never happen.
Posted by: PChammer 09 Dec 2009
Should google keep records so long
If one looks at Germany in World War 2 would stored information have been accessed by Hitler? Most certainly it would. Storing information about peolple is o.k. if we have a good government in power. If we don't we have a problem. It should be considered that we protect our privacy and our democracy. We should do evrything in our power to preserve democracy and keep voting the right people in.
Posted by: Ecnal 09 Dec 2009
bold but completely false. a little scary that this guy is ceo of google.
He implies that it's only wrongdoers who wish to retain their anonymity.. which is completely false... From cyberslapp.org: "The Internet has become a place where persons who might otherwise be stigmatized or embarrassed can gather and share information and support victims of violence, cancer patients, AIDS sufferers, child abuse and spousal abuse survivors, for example. They use newsgroups, Web sites, chat rooms, message boards, and other services to share sensitive and personal information anonymously without fear of embarassment or harm." "Anonymity also allows "whistleblowers" reporting on government or company abuses to bring important safety issues to light without fear of stigma or retaliation" "And human rights workers and citizens of repressive regimes around the world who want to share information or just tell their stories frequently depend on staying anonymous sometimes for their very lives."
Posted by: save_your_anonymity_ 08 Dec 2009
All the people who love google so much now
Will quickly come to be the people calling for the company to be broken up in the coming years. Google is getting bigger than ever, their ambitions are bigger than ever, and they obviously care waaaay more about bottom line than user satisfaction or security. I realize that US law, in certain situations, allows authority's to access certain records and information about private citizens. That doesn't mean that Google has to play nice. Many companies stopped retaining user data, or severely limited the amount of time it was stored, so that even if they receive a subpoena they will no longer have the data to turn over. I have for awhile now been disenchanted with Google.
Posted by: Shab 08 Dec 2009