Eric Schmidt On Privacy (VIDEO): Google CEO Says Anonymity Online Is 'Dangerous'

Google knows what you watch, what you search, and even with whom you're friends. The availability of all this information raises an important question: Where does Google CEO Eric Schmidt stand on the issue of online privacy?

Schmidt has previously said, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

In a more recent interview with CNBC conducted at the Techonomy conference earlier this month, Schmidt offered an additional look at his views on online privacy and anonymity.

Speaking on a panel at the event, Schmidt argued that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous. "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you," he said.

Schmidt took the stance that governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a [verified] name service for people," he said. "Governments will demand it."

He expanded on his thoughts in a separate interview.

"Privacy is incredibly important," he said, adding, "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."

However, there should be limits, he said: "[I]f 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 and I don't think we want that either."

He additionally noted, "People aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them."

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Google has been struggling and "soul searching" to answer the question: "How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels--the vast trove of data it possesses about people's activities?" A leaked vision statement reveals the company is grappling with what it should do with the data it has about its users.

What do you think of Schmidt's comments? Are they worrisome? Reassuring? Do you agree or disagree and why? Tell us in the comments below.

(via NetworkWorld)
WATCH:

Comments

[fjpoblam]

03:24 PM on 09/07/2010

Here are some quotes I've gathered from Eric Schmidt:

"If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it."

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

"Ultimately, search is not just the web but literally all of your information..."

I begin to think this fellow is a megalomaniac. This is the same fellow who had several blogs blacklisted from GOOG after they published details of his private life! I don't know what the proper reaction should be, against GOOG or against Eric Schmidt. I think they have become, at very best, irrelevant. They are obsolete and not worthy of the attention and commerce of modern humanity.

[bigbubba90210]

02:29 AM on 08/20/2010

Anonymity is dangerous to G00gles bottom line...

[WhyTheSurprise]

11:49 AM on 08/19/2010

Personal Privacy is dead - another innocent victim of the hyped-up "war on terror".

We have completely traded our personal privacy for the so-called "security" provided by our Government.

How does it feel to be "secure"?

Thank-you Mr. Cheney for creating my new "security" for me.

Love,
(Signed) WhytheSurprise?

[Barrister2010]

04:46 PM on 08/17/2010

the job of google is not to assist the government, it is to provide a service. it is a disservice to imply that anonymity is no good b/c governments will not accept it. this is not a dictatorship, this is America.

[saintjule]

07:59 PM on 08/16/2010

I voted scary. I have checked my name on Google and I checked my address, Google maps. I didn't give them permission to take pictures of my home or collect private information, yet there it is and their response is predictable, they are going to claim they are public records. Only because our crack government made them public by law to turn us into compliant little drones.

[gbrooks]

10:55 PM on 08/12/2010

Yeah. Because the Gypsies, g@ys and J3ws in 1940 certainly shouldn't have anonymity or privacy--that woulda made things tougher on the poor government.

[gbrooks]

10:54 PM on 08/12/2010

Yeah. Because the Gypsies, gays and Jews in 1940 certainly shouldn't have anonymity or privacy--that woulda made things tough on the government.

[Matthew Harrold]

10:48 PM on 08/12/2010

Let's change "Don't be evil" to "We'll spy on you for the government".

[RepliCounts]

08:12 PM on 08/12/2010

How can Eric Schmidt say privacy is unnecessary, right after Wikileaks showed why it is?

How can he say, "[I]f you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it's not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity" -- when anonymity would shield terrible, evil crimes of governments -- such as indiscriminate massacres of civilians?

How can he say, "It's very important that Google and everyone else respects people's privacy" -- when clearly governments will not respect anybody or anything, and anonymity is the only real privacy we have?

[kkrimmer]

01:24 PM on 08/12/2010

Google reminds me of that old Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man"

If you don't know the reference, google it.

[carnitine]

07:41 AM on 08/19/2010

"It's it's a cookbook" I think Schmidt reminds me more of Twilight Zone episode "A Good Life "You're a bad man! You're a very bad man!"

[agxphoto]

11:01 AM on 08/12/2010

The right to not speak, including to not say who you are, is a part of our freedom of speech. When will corporations get it through their thick skulls that our Constitutional freedoms are not sales options?

[norkas]

09:47 AM on 08/12/2010

The danger with Goggle and other listed wall street firms is that profit is the bottom line as opposed what is best for the consumer. Goggle as other firms are told do this we know it may upset some people but lets see what the limits are.

Here is what will happen a new search engine will be born that does not need to make billions and billions in revenue and will be happy with a little less.

The new search engine will be sensitive to the consumer in many areas that google is not and that will be the catalyst that will drive many users to this new company.

The business model learned what people hate and like about search engines and will utilize this information to make a product that the vast majority will like.

Privacy today is important to many for good reasons and many people will leave goggle embracing a new platform.

[BastiatsGhost]

09:40 AM on 08/12/2010

I love how the interview takes place in Lake Tahoe, which is an elite enclave surrounded by Federal land.

Boy are there some stories to tell about that.

Do a google (or yahoo, or ixquick if you prefer anonymity) search on: "The National Parks: The Super-Rich's Greatest Idea" and "Libertarian Vacationers Demand Their Subsidies" by Gary North.

What's good for the goose (the elite) is most definitely not good for the gander (the public) according to them. It's okay for them to own private property enclaves surrounded by Federal land, but we the mere proles, must restrict ourselves to vacationing.

[sarapy]

09:00 AM on 08/12/2010

recently, in france, an employee critized an ILLEGAL (and immoral) practice by his employer. though the employee was measured in their comments, and under a pseudonyme, the employeur managed (sic) to obtain the true identity of the employee (who wrote the comments on a public blog, from their home) and fire the employee because the views expressed were not in accordance witht the company. a judge upheld the employee's firing. the case of the boss' illegal (and immoral) activities are "under investigation" (which probably will never go farther)... so the question remains, if a whistle blower can be fired with no conseauences for their own security and no real investigation of the criminal acts committed, then ANONYMITY MUST exist. this case has made many aware in france that 1) whistleblowers must exist, 2) public boycott must endure for illegal immoral bosses 3) the justice system in france today does not yield justice, just mob-protection for friends of nabotleon.

[gcomt]

08:42 AM on 08/12/2010

Why doesn't Schmidt give us access to everything he does online and see how important transparency is then.