Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is where someone typically parrots: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." -- Eric Schmidt; Executive Chairman, Google, Inc.

To which I reply: I'm sorry, but my personal matters are personal _expressly because_ I've found people to be ignorant, bigoted, biased, or otherwise untrustworthy when it comes to matters of my identity.

The fact that I could lose my job because of my thoughts on cannabis prohibition? Or that I could be disowned because of my political and [lack of] religious tendencies? These things are private not because they're wrong, Mr. Schmidt. They're private because _someone_ thinks they're wrong; and _someone_ is making decisions that could impact _my future_ by judging what's publicly available.

I can no longer trust Facebook to be a secure messaging platform, which is basically all I used it for. I'm going to take charge of my web presence to whatever degree I can. I'm done letting large corporations abuse my data for their own gain, only to have shit like this happen.



And the obligatory full-context followup:

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.”


As much as I disagree with Schmidt about true anonymity being "too dangerous," I have to point out that he said anyone, not everyone, and he was specifically mentioning the government.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: