Go ahead - answer the question - I’ll wait.
Eric Schmidt’s quote that I posted earlier couldn’t come at a more appropriate time. I’ve been spending a lot of time lately thinking about privacy as it relates to the world’s largest search engine*.
*and purveyor of countless other non-search related technologies, many of them free.
I talked with several friends today about Google and privacy. Bear in mind that like me, all of these people are in the Internet technology world - so their opinions, like mine, are somewhat skewed.
But the salient point this, “we don’t have words to describe what privacy means today”.
Privacy in many senses used to be easily described. Federal law prevented a wiretap, and your phone was really the extent of “your private life” leaving your home. As such, that bastion of privacy was protected by strong federal law for some time.
Today however “who you are” is one thing, and “what you do” is another; especially as it regards the Internet. As was mentioned in our conversation today, privacy is in many regards much like credit. Most people don’t understand what it is, how to get it, how to keep it, and what to do to protect it.
My goal in beginning this conversation with you, the reader, is three-fold:
- To begin a conversation about what privacy is, today.
- To begin cohesive thought about the importance of privacy as it relates to Google and the inconceivable breadth of information that they collect on the global populace every day.
- Make clear that the choices that you make every day about privacy have implications and costs - and help you understand them - and open a global dialog regarding their importance.
Privacy is a Pandora’s box. Once opened, it cannot be regathered, contained, or closed again.
My goal in creating this conversation is not to accuse Google of anything. A long time ago, when my employer (not Google) was accused of “being evil”, I heard the quote “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.” And it’s all too often true (it sure was in one key aspect of that particular case).
Whether this conversation evolves to the point where we identify it as ignorance or simply a lack of concern about the risks, I remain a pretty fervent believer that Google’s often quoted “Don’t be evil” credo is true - that their main goal is indeed to make the world’s information infinitely more discoverable and usable than it ever would have absent their existence.
But I think it’s also important that we all understand the true costs of making that information available “at your fingertips”. Because if it is at your fingertips, it’s also available conveniently at the fingertips of an identity thief, the NSA or FBI, a stalker, etc. This is where Schmidt’s point about privacy breaks down. The ricochet of risk due to the Patriot Act is one thing. But in this case the risk goes beyond your rights as a US Citizen - there are broader concerns that I don’t think are necessarily understood - or at least not brought to the surface.
Two disclaimers: 1) The words you read here are mine, mine alone, and do not reflect the opinions of my current employer or any former employers of mine. 2) Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I worked for Microsoft. Since leaving I’ve effectively left Windows as well. So I’m no fanboy - but I’m no hater either. I have a lot of respect for Microsoft, and especially for my friends who still work there.
Thanks for joining me for this journey.
