Linked by David Adams on Fri 11th Dec 2009 01:25 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption I was reminded of Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy's infamous sound byte (used as the title of this article) when I read about Google CEO Eric Schmidt's foot-in-mouth moment during a recent CNBC interview (YouTube Link). Here's what Schmidt said: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. 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 and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
Permalink for comment 399016
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good article
by Vlad on Fri 11th Dec 2009 08:03 UTC in reply to "Good article"
Member since:

As questionable as the value of the Patriot Act is, in the grand scheme of things it will have little effect on your privacy.

The problem is - and I think Schmidt alludes to this - is that MANY, MANY parties log electronic communications, and any one of these can be an avenue back to authorities, fraudsters, your future employers, etc.

Take online backup sites - do you think your files are safe because they're encrypted? Nope - all the major online backup providers I checked retain the right to decrypt your data (although some will require a warrant).

The real test of privacy is if companies which offer anonymous/protected services are legally allowed to operate. Is it legal to sell encryption the government can't crack? Is it legal to pipe your access.log to /dev/null? In other words: is privacy illegal?

Reply Parent Score: 1