All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
11 Dec 2009
Google has been sharply criticised by Mozilla and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) for its stance on user privacy, after Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview on CNBC that users should not expect search engines to safeguard their private data.
Asa Dotzler, Firefox marketing project co-ordinator at Mozilla, argued that the remarks indicate that Google does not value its users' privacy.
"There is no ambiguity, no 'out of context' here," he said in a blog post, adding that Microsoft's Bing has a better privacy policy than Google and advising users on how to switch Firefox's search from Google to Bing.
The latest data released by research firm comScore claims that Google is used for around 65 per cent of US web searches, while Bing is used for under 10 per cent.
Meanwhile, the EFF ridiculed Schmidt's remarks in a blog post, claiming that they are evidence that Google does not understand why privacy is important, and that they contrast with earlier comments by the company that privacy is important.
"A company that claims to care about privacy is not even concerned enough to understand basic lessons about privacy and why it's important on so many levels, from protection against shallow embarrassments to the preservation of freedom and human rights," said EFF activist Richard Esguerra.
"Google, governments and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power."
Other commentators have also described Schmidt as hypocritical because he once blackballed reporters from US news group CNET when it published a story containing his personal information obtained from a Google search.
Schmidt was discussing user privacy after being asked by CNBC whether people should be treating Google as a "trusted friend".
"I think judgement matters. If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time," Schmidt said.
"We are all subject in the US to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information will be made available to the authorities."
Latest stories from Privacy
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
Service Manager - Technology Managed Services, Service...
Reporting to the Managing Director, the role of the Client...
Senior Technical Support/ Support Engineer...
Job Purpose To analyse system requirements...
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?
10% Bing?! I'll stick with Google.
I do think that people are becoming more reckless these days with their personal information, posting it on blogs, chat rooms and any public system for everyone to see them blame Google or any search engine if it get's mis used. First line of defense when privacy is concerned is the "USER". As the old saying says "Will never, ever be able to justify ignorance". Don't be ignorant and take steps to safegaurd your personal information, your identity!
Posted by: T. Matayoshi 14 Dec 2009
Fully Agree
I have to agree with what Schmidt says, if you post personal data online then dont expect a search engine to protect or filter your information, i for one would never post my telephone number or address on a blogg or open forum for example. The thing that makes Google's percentage 65% is because it doesnt filter its content and people get results from searching with it.
Posted by: Carl Dean 11 Dec 2009
Once again the ignorance of Google
Who decides what information is to be given and why? What acts do others deem worthy of information extraction? Are there obvious reasons that many of us would agree with, like terrorism, child porn, animal abuse, etc... sure and I too would agree in that respect. My concern is, where is the line drawn and by WHOM? The age old problem, once again, large corporations and government freely acting upon our lives without a clear border as to where it ends. There has been more effort to curb music downloaders than to stop child pornography, these are the situations and types of people who decide what's what. It is not about safety of our country, it's not about what we are doing online, it's about control, knowing what everyone is up to. Deviance in any form gives them the opportunity and right to dig into people's lives, they define deviance to suit their own purposes, this way, everyone is guilty. And really, Schmidt is portraying himself as a saint, seriously, he's likely stepped on more people and who knows what but will never get caught and yet, can make statements like he does. Alright, it's an assumption, sure, but I can guarantee he is no saint, and I do agree that you should not put private info online but it's not just putting private info online, it's also about seeing what we are doing regardless if doing wrong or not, the fact that even without just cause, we are watched, our info can be given without that line again, without someone to regulate the regulators who in fact were supposed to be "The people" themselves at one time. When deviance stops becoming defined by whoever sees something as bad at any given time, when we can one day trust *cough* our own governments to do the right thing, then people will likely feel better about the information being saved for the right reasons.
Posted by: PChammer 11 Dec 2009