Jeffrey MannGoogle CEO Eric Schmidt is getting a lot of flak for a statement he made about privacy in a CNBC interview. Here is the quote that many people are upset about:
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
Wow! What an incredible attitude, right? I mean, if Google thinks that only perverts and terrorists need to worry about privacy, then they have totally gone over to the side of evil.
But listen to the whole interview, and read what else he had to say, and what the question was that he was answering:
Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?
A: I think judgement matters… If you have something that 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, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”
That puts the outrageous statement in a different light. The word “it” refers to treating Google as your trusted friend, not to having something to hide.There might be many reasons to distrust Google, or to expect them to do better. But not on the basis of this extremely poorly-worded, but legitimate and even insightful answer.
All he is saying is that laws like the US Patriot Act exist. The UK Official Secrets Act exists. The Chinese government exists. Google must obey the government where they operate. It can be argued whether they obey too enthusiastically or should use their influence to change policies, but refusing to obey the law is not an option. Search engines and ISPs keep information to provide better service and comply with the law. He is saying that given that governments have these powers, you cannot rely on someone like Google – or anyone else online – to protect you completely. So if you have something to hide, you shouldn’t be blabbing about it online. That seems like an un-outrageous statement.
This clip tells me that Eric Schmidt needs media training more than that Google has a privacy problem. It is far too easy to take this quote out of context and make it sound like something outrageous, as many commentators have been doing. But talking about the limits of what Google can do to protect you is perfectly legitimate. So this was a stupid, bonehead thing to say, because the bald statement in the first quote is clearly not what Schmidt meant to say. Now just like Al Gore has to continually explain what he really said (it was not that he “invented the internet“), Schmidt will spend the rest of his career clarifying what he really meant to say. There would have been no problem if he had said:
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be talking about it online in the first place.
But CEOs of major corporations with a high profile shouldn’t need a PR flunky or analyst/blogger to come along behind him insisting “What he meant to say was… ” In this area certainly, we should expect better of Google and Eric Schmidt.
Gartner’s John Pescatore also had a comment on this incident.
Category: Google privacy technology Tags: cnbc, Eric Schmidt, Google, privacy, something to hide, spanking
8 responses so far ↓
1 Andrea Di Maio December 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I am not really sure why his statement is outrageous. Yes, we may dislike this big-brotherish future, but the problem is neither the US Patriot Act not Google. We are the problem. We share information and we capture information that we share with others. If you have kids and look at what they put on Facebook, there would be enough for them to get suspended by their principals, and yet they keep doing this.
What Google does is to index information and make it easy to find. We don’t complain if that concerns products or services we are looking for, but we do if we happen to be the subjects. Well, that’s not Google’s fault, it is just a matter of fact. Sure you can protect your privacy, but will you sue all those who post a picture including you on does not matter which social networks? With image search becoming more and more efficient, people will be able to take our facebook picture, submit to a search engine and figure out all the pictures posted anywhere on the web with us (or our twins) on the foreground or the background. Will the search engine be liable? I doubt it.
Sometimes I am surprised by the naivity of people who believe there is a chance of control. Schmidt is right: both on the Internet and in the real world, you’d better behave.
2 Tweets that mention Google’s Eric Schmidt Needs Media Training, Not a Privacy Spanking -- Topsy.com December 18, 2009 at 2:40 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by lars basche, Jeff Mann. Jeff Mann said: Google’s Eric Schmidt Needs Media Training, Not a Privacy Spanking http://bit.ly/8dz6TA [...]
3 Jeff Mann December 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I can only say that I disagree with the sentiment that only the wicked need privacy. There are plenty of areas where it is good to be left alone. Yes, I should be careful what I put out there about myself. But that does not remove the obligation of information holders to meet their obligations.
Yes, I should lock the door when I go out. But if I don’t that doesn’t give anyone the right to come in and steal my stuff.
4 No, I Think Google Still Needs a Preemptive Privacy Spanking December 18, 2009 at 4:50 pm
[...] colleague Jeff Mann weighed in on Eric Schmidt of Google’s recent statement about privacy that I commented on here last [...]
5 Is privacy an illusion? « Elemental Matters December 20, 2009 at 6:06 pm
[...] Since the incident Google has been on damage control releasing a presentation that outlines their approach to privacy that may be worth [...]
6 John Pescatore December 21, 2009 at 8:46 am
There are many cases where people may care to share more information than we (or others) think they should, but that still doesn’t mean that all privacy is or should be gone.
There are many sites that are very good at letting your share information with those you choose to share with and provide very strong privacy controls. They have local search capabilities – Google can’t get to the local data. Those sites also do NOT have large advertising revenue streams.
Now, the Googles and Facebooks DO have large advertising revenue streams – and they definitely would rather see no private space that limits their ability to resell user data and user data access patterns. That will be fine for many who have no care about their data at all, but for many (see the pushback against Facebooks latest move) it is not acceptable – time to change social network providers.
7 My New Year’s Anti-Resolutions for 2010 December 31, 2009 at 8:42 am
[...] analysts usually do; we rarely do stuff, but we comment a lot on what other people or organizations should do. Most of the resolutions are also “anti” because they describe something that I hope [...]
8 Curtis Neeley February 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm
My decision is to sue Google – - oops I did that last year… Their search engine has been added to the list of referrers that are rejected to a message or rejected.
I am asking for billions and to set up a punitive damages award of 100 billion.
Leave a Comment