Google's Schmidt: Don't worry too much about 'Big Brother'

From the same guy last month: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-about-privacy-risk-posed-by-civilian-drones/.

What does he mean it's "bad business"? You mean the same business his company relies on and would probably collapse now without? The same company that gave ABP the boot out of its store because it violated their terms, meaning their tracking got blocked? The same company that came up with Street View? The same company that paid 22.5 million for privacy violations last year? http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/08/10/tech-ap-google-fine-privacy.html.

Okay, we'll leave Google alone a moment. What about companies like Evidon who is serving up a tracker right this minute to me on another site in another tab? (you know, those wonderful people behind Ghostery..that addon that *ahem* "blocks trackers"?) What about ComScore, Omniture and Chartbeat? Is it "bad business" for them? They sure don't seem to think so.

What's this guy on anyway? It must be wonderful being that loopy. He's hypocritical as all get out. He won't have to worry about privacy concerns from G-Glass, the thing is already flopping and hasn't even reached the general public yet.

 

I find Glass very interesting, but mostly from the Borg perspective (except for the collective part). And I'd never use it unless all Google firmware/software could be stripped away, and replaced with open-source stuff.

 

It is finally getting apps made, such as being able to take a picture by "winking" instead of talking to a damned inanimate object in public, but I'm sure you can see problems cropping up with even winking Even Google seems to be taking the project lightly, more of a "see what we can do? This might happen in time." sort of thing than some serious "G Glass is about to change the world!" attempt. They admit themselves the thing is awkward and distracting at best, and so far the select few who got test devices aren't enthralled.

 

I don't get the social-networking focus. Mostly, that just creeps me out

What interests me primarily is data access. An implementation of that old MIT bar code reader would be very cool for comparison shopping. Or getting directions while driving. Or an app for remembering peoples names

 

Oh don't worry, data access is precisely why Google Glass exists. Unfortunately data access for YOU is an afterthought

 

Ha. Ha.

That's why I don't yet own an Android device.

But Glass works with both Apple and Android devices, right? So maybe it's mostly hardware, and more securable.

 

In my opinion Glass is useless. I'm not saying that the technology is not impressive, but it is more of a gadget than a useful item. As for Schmidt, note how he hopes that "everyone will be using wearable computing devices someday". Dream on!

 

It's not that far fetched, really. It just depends on what these devices are, how they work in every day circumstances (Google Glass for instance interferes with daily life more than it helps it). how expensive they are, yada yada. Smart watches are one example, and we're basically already wearing computers if we're walking around with smartphones.

 

I predict a high number of GG being ripped off of nerd's faces (stolen) when these things hit en-mass. Might cut down on adoption. Someone needs to come up with a GG Jammer.

PD

 

I'm waiting for the inevitable crimes of stupid people recording what acts they commit, Google Glass voyeur porn sites to crop up, etc. Equip people with more things to use in their quest for ultimate stupidity and they'll run with it. I'll steer the topic back towards the original discussion by saying that, quite frankly, Google is Big Brother.

 

Remember SimStim? It's coming. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it's coming.

-http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Resources/Hosted/Resource.php?Name=SimStim

 

Good one! The morons today do it with cell phones...GG will doom them even more, LOL!

PD

 

mate, can you elaborate a bit on this, cos I'm still using Ghostery together with adblock plus, NoScript and better privacy .
Is it really "proven" that Ghostery is "bad stuff" or this is still just a quess ?

thanks.

 

"Bad stuff" vs "Good stuff" is not the best way to argue over which extension is better than another for privacy, although the part you quoted actually was happening at the time and I do consider that "bad" for the kind of privacy protecting addon Ghostery is supposed to be.

Evidon used to be called Better Advertising, and it essentially is now what it was then. It is a company that helps customers see the "invisible web", the tracking servers/ad servers behind the ads you see on the web and the reason why websites can show you your general location, serve ads for "women in your area ready for a date!", etc. That's really good of them..however, they also cater to advertisers in the form of helping advertisers gain information on effective ways of advertising, being a sort of Better Business Bureau for advertisers and, with Ghost Rank enabled, transmitting certain data to both them and passing it along to said advertisers.

Where "good vs bad" comes in is, who would you rather entrust your privacy to, a company that doesn't get advertisers involved and doesn't have any need for your data, or one that works with advertisers and collects data to "make advertisers more accountable and respectable"? The "DNT" debacle thus far should show quite clearly what advertisers as a whole think of consumer privacy and choice. They want it dead, and don't respect the DNT flag now even if it's enabled.