Google CEO: No Anonymity Is The Future Of Web

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Is it just me or does Google’s CEO creep you out the more he talks?

Privacy is incredibly important," Schmidt stated. "Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity. It's very important that Google and everyone else respects people's privacy. People have a right to privacy; it's natural; it's normal. It's the right way to do things. But if you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that. Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole.
Click to expand...
 
"Do Massive Harm" is their new mantra I guess...

Google went to shit the day they went public.
 
Anonymity is a myth anyway. If someone wants to know who you are, they'll find out, it's just a matter of time, etc... security is a myth as well. Funny how they go hand in hand sometimes...
 
i don't know, that quote excerpt sounds pretty levelheaded to me. it doesn't really reek of the Google is bad meme that people are running with lately.
 
XamediX said:
i don't know, that quote excerpt sounds pretty levelheaded to me. it doesn't really reek of the Google is bad meme that people are running with lately.
Click to expand...

+1

From the movie Ghost Writer, I feel it sort of applies here.
There's a similar outburst in Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer, also towards the end, from an authority who's about to be called out for, shall we say, bending the law for what, in his mind, is the greater good. Goes something like this: I'd like to set up two lines at every airport. In one line, you can walk up, check in, no questions asked, no security checks and board your plane. In another, you'll first deal with all the precautions we've taken based on information we've gathered, yes, some of it through torture, and I'd like to see which line [Mr Irritating, Politically Correct, Constitution-Observing, Law-Abiding Ex-Foreign Minister] would choose before he puts his kids on a plane.
Click to expand...
 
jstnomega must have been hacked. Cause the link doesn't even relate to this topic it seems :rolleyes:

Regardless. The case of anonymous is purely that, its fake. Its a line of crap. Given a reasonable amount of time and data, you can connect dots. How people type, their writing styles, what they say, common lingo connections, phrases. If they post pictures, and all kinds of other key indicators.

Hell with 4Square + Cell you have idiots telling you where they are every minute of the day so you can rape them freely without any effort.

Social networking turned the Internet's dark side into its new playground for the masses. What used to be talked about in AOL chatrooms is now whats talk about on Facebook boards. Its the same group of douchy non technical people in new clothing. They'll tell you, show you, and express everything to you all in the name of being "social" and "hip".

There's still a dark part of the Internet, but the first rule of that is we don't talk about that :D
 
You think identity theft is bad now? Just wait until this shit hits the web...
 
Am I missing something here.....what did Google say that is so "evil"???

They are saying you are absolutly free to do anything you want and for the most part no one will ever care nor notice. But when you start doing things particularly noticable there will always be a paper trail back to you and that companies like Google (or many others) are obligated to uphold this requirement of a modern society.

If you think this is evil, then you may as well preach about the evilness of DNA testing because its not fair to those who commit crimes, or any type of evidence at all.

Look no one gives a shit if you want to surf anime porn or read the Anarchist Cookbook. Millions of people do this stuff every single day. Its when you want to push the boundaries and start raping children or blowing up office buildings, thats where you can expect to be discovered.
 
westrock2000 said:
Look no one gives a shit if you want to surf anime porn or read the Anarchist Cookbook. Millions of people do this stuff every single day. Its when you want to push the boundaries and start raping children or blowing up office buildings, thats where you can expect to be discovered.
Click to expand...

the subtlety and grace of a monster truck with a canon on the roof.
 
So they want to stop kiddie porn and nigerian scammers, by making the web more traceable?

I'm sure the RIAA, etc. would be happy that too.

Sounds ok to me. I think the people who hate this the most are breaking the law. The same reason I hate traffic cameras, they catch me breaking the law!!
 
From GenMay to the games forums, most of us wouldn't post 90%+ of the things we post if it wasn't for anonymity...

(I'd hate for anyone to know, let alone a potential employer, who I really am when I'm posting that I have a backlog of games about 600 games long, and my Steam account's got 350 games tied to it... Thank God not a single one of them is WoW, though!)

(not dogging WoW necessarily, but rather acknowledging the stereotype that follows it for employers... "I want a job so I can buy a new gaming PC" isn't the impression I want an employer to know when they Google me...)
 
Yay! Lets give up more personal rights!


"If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." - What BS. People are slowly giving up their rights as people. My point is not about some one doing something they shouldn't, but rather if we do not exercise our rights to certain things, we will loose them all together.
 
Privacy is incredibly important," Schmidt stated. "Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity. It's very important that Google and everyone else respects people's privacy. People have a right to privacy; it's natural; it's normal. It's the right way to do things. But if you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that. Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole.
Click to expand...

I still use google for searching so far, but I don't see google as the way of the future.

Privacy and anonymity have a strong relationship. Data gets leaked or hacked. Other people will sell your data. And of course Schmidt would use evil crimes to further his agenda. In reality, anonymity is lost regardless of evil crimes.
 
Tolyngee said:
From GenMay to the games forums, most of us wouldn't post 90%+ of the things we post if it wasn't for anonymity...

(I'd hate for anyone to know, let alone a potential employer, who I really am when I'm posting that I have a backlog of games about 600 games long, and my Steam account's got 350 games tied to it... Thank God not a single one of them is WoW, though!)

(not dogging WoW necessarily, but rather acknowledging the stereotype that follows it for employers... "I want a job so I can buy a new gaming PC" isn't the impression I want an employer to know when they Google me...)
Click to expand...

But wouldn't the ermployer have to use [H] to start with, and then they probably wouldn't mind so much. It's like meeting the new boss at a strip club. You both went there.

Hey but anyway "if you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that." confessional and psychiatrists.
Also that was the reason that 2chan in japan was completely anonymous. If you debate with people with faces most of your statements will be based on your relationships to the other members, people won't like you, you'll like people, be trying to gain status etc. But if it's all nameless then noone has to be scared of their opinion and what that might reflect about them. Now there was that man who said he was going to blow up people and he got found and caught, so it is provably not so private, just on a functional level.
Anyway noone has one single personality. I doubt many people are the same around their friends as they are round their grandparents or children. Which is now why I know it's a stupid idea. People need a bit of safety to express themselves in weirdass ways. Like buying 600 games and secretly playing WOW. It's a good thing not many people that know me know about my activities...
 
some of you guys didn't read his speech I see. He's talking about privacy with the general public versus expectation of privacy when committing a crime. Think about it. One of the reason we have a hard time going after botters and spammers and cybercriminals are because of their anonymity on the internet. Everyone here wishes these jackasses were all caught and put away for a long time, but they're still out there because they're protected by layers of anonymity.

If you post on the internet anonymously that you have a 13 inch penis, nobody would know who you are and Google isn't about to tell anyone who you are.

If you post on the internet anonymously that you have a 13 inch penis and you're using it with a little boy at the altar, Google's sure as hell going to try and expose you when information is being requested by law enforcement (with a warrant, ideally), and as per law, the public has the right to know the crime. So there goes your privacy.

I suppose on the other side of the coin this is a sort of blackmail, with Google hanging over our heads the knowledge that they hold every information about us we put on the internet and as long as we behave ourselves, we have nothing to fear.
 
DeathPrincess said:
But wouldn't the ermployer have to use [H] to start with, and then they probably wouldn't mind so much. It's like meeting the new boss at a strip club. You both went there.
Click to expand...

If you Google your nickname right now, at the top of the list are going to be your [H]forum posts...

If a potential new boss Googles me and finds pics of me at a strip club, it might affect their hiring.


Azhar said:
some of you guys didn't read his speech I see.
Click to expand...

Not sure what's funnier: that we're reading a speech, or that you'd expect anyone to not post 'til they've at least attempted to click on the source material being commented on!

What he's really commenting on is ol' news. They call always figure out who you are, nothing magically new about that now...
 
Proxy said:
Yay! Lets give up more personal rights!


"If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." - What BS. People are slowly giving up their rights as people. My point is not about some one doing something they shouldn't, but rather if we do not exercise our rights to certain things, we will loose them all together.
Click to expand...

You've *NEVER* had a right to anonymity. You have a right to *PRIVACY*, which Schmidt is in favor of, but you've never had a right to anonymity.
 
Tolyngee said:
From GenMay to the games forums, most of us wouldn't post 90%+ of the things we post if it wasn't for anonymity...
Click to expand...
This is the real fear of people right here. I know I regret things I've posted in the past on various forums, and I wouldn't want someone to read some of the stuff I've posted and know whom I am. I'm willing to bet if people had to use their real names, the tone of political discussion in this country would change dramatically, and for the better. People who post vile hateful, racist crap, or veiled threats against elected officials, would learn very quickly that actions have consequences, when they got outed for who and what they really were.
 
qdemn7 said:
People who post vile hateful, racist crap, or veiled threats against elected officials, would learn very quickly that actions have consequences, when they got outed for who and what they really were.
Click to expand...

Threats aren't tolerated anyway, and they'll certainly learn who you are...

But racist crap? Have you been to the south lately?

My dad's side of the family's from down there in the toe of Louisiana, maybe an hr from New Orleans... And I can assure you "N-bomb" is still a typical sentiment to hear about someone with the skin of Obama, and unfortunately no, not even the BP leak has anything to do with it...

N-bomb is used down there as I would use black in the midwest... To be honest, I found it disturbing, and got laughed at for being disturbed.

Beyond that, it's a damn lovely place to visit... But no, down there, I see no consequences for using N-bomb... Them using their real name on the 'net, it wouldn't stop them from initially acting that way to the entire world... I imagine some would stop, while others would just rant about what's come of this country since losing in the War of Northern Aggression...
 
What is thy name?" And he answered, saying, "My name is Legion: for we are many."
 
kllrnohj said:
You've *NEVER* had a right to anonymity. You have a right to *PRIVACY*, which Schmidt is in favor of, but you've never had a right to anonymity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but my worry is this: He is in favor of privacy now, but what about later on down the road.
 
Tolyngee said:
But racist crap? Have you been to the south lately?

My dad's side of the family's from down there in the toe of Louisiana, maybe an hr from New Orleans... And I can assure you "N-bomb" is still a typical sentiment to hear about someone with the skin of Obama, and unfortunately no, not even the BP leak has anything to do with it...

N-bomb is used down there as I would use black in the midwest... To be honest, I found it disturbing, and got laughed at for being disturbed.

Beyond that, it's a damn lovely place to visit... But no, down there, I see no consequences for using N-bomb... Them using their real name on the 'net, it wouldn't stop them from initially acting that way to the entire world... I imagine some would stop, while others would just rant about what's come of this country since losing in the War of Northern Aggression...
Click to expand...
I've lived in Texas almost 50 years, so I'm familiar with Southern attitudes. I imagine things would start changing if and when average Joe Schmoe got fired from his job, or didn't get hired for one, if he was known to be a racist. If employers are using social networking sites to research employees, do you think they would shy from checking out a person's postings on websites, if people's identifies were out there in the open?
 
qdemn7 said:
If employers are using social networking sites to research employees, do you think they would shy from checking out a person's postings on websites, if people's identifies were out there in the open?
Click to expand...

One reason I'm not on any social networking sites as I figure it's the easiest way for my on-line nickname to get accidentally or maliciously associated with my real identity.

While some of the rants are fun, some of the flame wars (which you don't necessarily had to have been the ignition or the fuel for, sometimes just showing up is a mistake...) can leave you looking bad for no good reason...

The other reason I don't do social networking is I want to be social, I'll f-ing go outside...
 
I do not use social networking sites but I can assure you if this name was Googled I probably would not be able to get a job anywhere. Anonymity rules.
 
As much as I'd like to believe that anonymity would help us catch the bad guys I feel that the internet - with the current way its built, will always offer anonymity. The only people who lose out on anonymity is us, [H]ard users, gamers and forum posters. Can someone honestly claim that anonymity can be eradicated from the Internet when services like TOR exist? Anyone looking to cause cyber crime will still be able to do so in total anonymity, all it takes is a couple offshore proxies or zombies on a botnet. Anonymity isn't really the issue here and to me, it looks like a buzzword to cloud the data mining business. The only sort of cyber police that will benefit from the apparent eradication of technology will be the RIAA, and sub urban cops looking to catch teens drinking.

Besides, anything google has planned on doing to mine information is probably already being done, and has been for the last couple of years. Its only coming to light now that everyone and their mother uses a computer.
 
Proxy said:
Yeah, but my worry is this: He is in favor of privacy now, but what about later on down the road.
Click to expand...

That's a non-argument.

Sure, you're against child porn now, but what about later on down the road?

See? Ridiculous.
 
well if the CEO is just saying browsing should be private with the ability in place for authorities to track down someone when there's a need to then I have no problem with that
 
kllrnohj said:
That's a non-argument.

Sure, you're against child porn now, but what about later on down the road?

See? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah because people never "change their minds" or say stuff for political reasons, right?

Don't be naive. Any smart CEO, PR person, politician will say what you want to hear. You think they are all as (stupidly) honest as Tony Hayward? Hell John McCain spent how long "being a maverick" and now he claims he never said that (even though hes been recorded saying he is). John Kerry was "for the war before he was against it" which was infamously called flip flopping.

There are tons more examples, but I think my point is clear. People in positions of power have a tendency to say lots of things and either change their minds or contradict themselves later. Sometimes it might be a true change of heart, other times its for business or politcal reasons.
 
Ultima99 said:
Yeah because people never "change their minds" or say stuff for political reasons, right?

Don't be naive. Any smart CEO, PR person, politician will say what you want to hear. You think they are all as (stupidly) honest as Tony Hayward? Hell John McCain spent how long "being a maverick" and now he claims he never said that (even though hes been recorded saying he is). John Kerry was "for the war before he was against it" which was infamously called flip flopping.

There are tons more examples, but I think my point is clear. People in positions of power have a tendency to say lots of things and either change their minds or contradict themselves later. Sometimes it might be a true change of heart, other times its for business or politcal reasons.
Click to expand...

*EVERYONE* contradicts themselves, but you seemed to have missed the point. When they change their stance, THEN challenge that stance. You are arguing against a guy for doing something *he didn't do*. You could go murder a hooker tonight, should we all brand you a murder? You haven't done it yet, but you *COULD*!!! So let's all gang up on the murderer! Down with Ultima99, he murders hookers!

Oh, what's that? Claim you aren't going to go murder hookers? Sure, you're just saying that for political reasons. We all know you murder hookers. Murderer.

Get it now? Your position may be clear, but it's still ridiculous and non-issue.
 
Anonymity is overrated. If someone tracks me and finds my home, come by on Saturday evening and we'll go through my liquor cabinet, I want to get rid of two bottles of cheap whiskey and shoot the shit with some new person I've never met before. I'm bored in this shitty city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top