Internet co-creator: ‘Privacy may be an anomaly’

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Nov 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,094
  2. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    Duh! Of course that I don't expect to stay private if I post all my life on a social network! But this is not the kind of privacy people are expecting, online or offline, and probably Vint Cerf knows this very well... But now he is "Google’s chief Internet evangelist", so what should I expect from him? :thumbd:

    Yeah, because we are all idiots... :rolleyes:
     
  3. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    687
    Really? Is this guy for real? He's clueless how to write protections? I doubt it.

    How hard is it for people to actually apply a little brain activity to rememberwhat privacy actually means. Theres always the good old dictionary if you've lost the concept of what privacy is, oh unless you read the meanings in places that make anything mean anything. :blink: Course being on googles team wouldnt have anything to do with this idiotic statement would it. :thumbd:
     
  4. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    He's clueless regarding how to define the real problem without admitting that their business model IS the problem. His quote should read:
    "he would have no idea how to write privacy protections for consumers right now without adversly affecting their bottom line."
     
  5. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,027
    I don't think that there's any cause to question his integrity.

    His initial work on what became the Internet was with the US military. In those days, everyone on the nacent Internet knew each other. I don't see evidence that his position on privacy has changed much, and have no reason to think that it's all about money for Google.

    Notwithstanding all that, I don't agree with him ;)
     
  6. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    687
    As far as Im concerned, and after all the evidence available, Id say you don't get to be a Google superdude unless you're in bed with the string pullers.
     
  7. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,027
    Even if you actually did help create the Internet?
     
  8. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    687
    The sharper the knife, the more damage done should it go off course.
     
  9. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Google is evil :cautious:
    http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/20/...ternet-evangelist-says-privacy-may-be-anomaly
     
  10. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,027
    True.

    But if you went to another town, nobody would know you.
     
  11. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Initially true but in a very short time they would know who you were and what you do for a living and know your business as well. That's how it works in small towns.
     
  12. emmjay

    emmjay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Posts:
    879
    Location:
    Triassic
    The legal definition of Privacy is different all over the world. Since Google is a US based company, this US legal definition applies to them, no matter what their guru believes or has doubts about ...

    "The meaning of the term privacy changes according to its legal context. In constitutional law, privacy means the right to make certain fundamental decisions concerning deeply personal matters free from government coercion, intimidation, or regulation. In this sense, privacy is associated with interests in autonomy, dignity, and self-determination. Under the common law, privacy generally means the right to be let alone. In this sense, privacy is associated with seclusion. Under statutory law, privacy often means the right to prevent the non-consensual disclosure of sensitive, confidential, or discrediting information. In this sense, privacy is associated with secrecy."

    Legislation can be fuzzy and it gets challenged all the time, but just because technology out paces the law it does not mean it has no bearing. These laws are intended to be applied without bias and exist to protect fundamental democratic and constitutional rights (re: USA only). Having a 'Google group think moment' will have no effect on the definition of statutory law as it applies to privacy.

    Google could argue that their service clearly states that the user chose to share their personal data when they accepted their services. They are an advertising company and they do not hide that fact. This is their business model. The user can argue that sensitive and confidential data is protected under the law, so their browsing habits should be considered secret and not for sale. If the user has taken appropriate steps to protect their 'secrets' and have stated that they do not give consent, then their privacy should be protected under the law. Google contends that they do comply, as users can opt out. Only those who do not take advantage of these options 'give consent'.

    This is an individuals decision to make. Make it an informed decision.
     
  13. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    This is a total exaggeration. Sure, a postmaster could see where everyones mail came from, if he chose to do so. He's not opening it all and reading it like they are. Knowing what you do for a living is nowhere near the same as knowing what you're doing from moment to moment. Even in small towns, no one is monitoring what you're reading or looking at in real time or recording your conversations.
     
  14. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    687
    Yup.
    There is so much wrong with this statement. Privacy ... "a fairly new development"....whaaaat? :rolleyes: What sort of language is that other than word twisting? The guy is trying to redefine age old principles that were inherently built in to people for 1000's of years. To suggest that privacy MAY be an anomaly is like drip-feeding you the idea/lie it is abnormal or not the norm. This is simply NOT true. How ridiculous to implicate privacy levels by town size. Nevertheless, these types of sweeping statements are typical of those trained in the art of rhetorical side-winding.

    As for the future, I think we can safely say - when all is said and done, theres more said than done.

    The bottom line is hes really saying we're gonna snoop on you PERIOD. :thumbd:
     
  15. RollingThunder

    RollingThunder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Posts:
    187
    Location:
    https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
    Mirimir:

    The man is with Google. Google makes money data mining customer email and then uses the results of that data-mining to send targeted ads at the users specific interest groups! Do you really think Google or any large corporation employee at that level is a privacy advocate? It is against Google's best financial interest to be pro privacy. However, as more and more information via Snowden comes out that may start changing a bit. The public is sickened by the NSA invasion.

     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  16. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,027
    I'm saying that he arguably never supported privacy.
     
  17. RollingThunder

    RollingThunder Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Posts:
    187
    Location:
    https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
    Ahhh, excellent.

     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.