Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google CEO Schmidt Predicts End of Online Anonymity

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the scott-mcneally-1999 dept.

Google 591

Andorin writes "A tweet from the EFF pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt, true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior. 'Governments will demand it,' he says, referring to full accountability and a 'name service for people,' possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: 'If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No, I don't (4, Insightful)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159780)

Yeah no photos of me ... no Facebook account!

Re:No, I don't (2, Insightful)

EricWright (16803) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159788)

Beat me to it ... same here.

Re:No, I don't (5, Insightful)

asn (4418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159812)

That doesn't stop your friends (or enemies) from posting photos and tagging them with your name...

but... (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160066)

Don't you have to have a FB account to begin with, to even appear in the tagging dialog overlay that appears for that process?

Re:but... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160098)

No. People can type things in.

Re:but... (4, Informative)

berwiki (989827) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160178)

nope. it won't be a hyperlink to your profile, but someone can type your name.

Re:No, I don't (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160108)

Good luck finding me with just my name. There were at least half a dozen people on the internet with the same name as me over ten years ago, ther'e probably a couple hundred by now.

Re:No, I don't (2)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160150)

There is almost nobody with my name....but amusingly enough there is someone from almost the same town with the same name.....google away, I am not that guy. Wish I had his money...

Re:No, I don't (4, Insightful)

chomsky68 (1719996) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160244)

And how many with your name was a "USAF stationed in Thailand"? Quickly looked into all your posts and found it within couple minutes...

Re:No, I don't (4, Informative)

Crunchie Frog (791929) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159798)

i don't have Facebook either but have found photos of me among my Facebooking friends....

Re:No, I don't (3, Funny)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159840)

I've been avoiding photos for as long as I can remember. It's unlikely that there were more than a dozen taken (analog and digital combined) over the past 20 years...

I therefore doubt there are [that m]any available on the Net.

Re:No, I don't (4, Informative)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159868)

Do you live in a big city with street cameras? Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID? Ever been to an airport or government building? There are photos of you all over the place.

Re:No, I don't (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159880)

Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID?

Maybe he lives in New Hampshire and exercised his right to have them delete the photo out of DMVs database after printing his license?

Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....

Re:No, I don't (4, Insightful)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159978)

Because progressive these days is moving away from personal rights, not towards more.

Re:No, I don't (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160020)

Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....

Because some of us aren't paranoid and couldn't give half a shit about a mug shot being present in a state database, when their use for it is obvious and clear. Get over yourself.

Re:No, I don't (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160160)

See, that is the problem. Information collected, regardless of the initial reason, can be used for ANY purpose later on. That is the whole theory behind data mining in the business world. Collect a bunch of data and then mine the hell out of it for useful trends and other information.

Privacy is not paranoia, at least not by default. Are you telling us you completely trust your government to do what is best for you with the information it collects and stores forever? What about businesses that contract with the government and gain access to the information? What about the businesses that collect the information for the government and keep a copy for themselves?

Re:No, I don't (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160172)

I'm going to obviously and clearly use your ass for fucking. That doesn't mean you're going to like it.

Re:No, I don't (1, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160214)

If you aren't paranoid about your privacy then why don't you register for an account under your real name instead of posting as an anonymous coward?

Re:No, I don't (4, Insightful)

Shugart (598491) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159810)

I don't have a Facebook account either. Unfortunately, someone I know put up pictures of me on his Facebook account. I've stayed away from Facebook because of privacy concerns. You just can't win.

Re:No, I don't (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159842)

and ya know what, those friends of yours talk about you when you're not around too.

Re:No, I don't (1)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159818)

Just because you don't have Facebook doesn't mean you don't have pics out there.

I've posted 1 image of myself that's actually me, there are 5 friends who have pictures that I'm in posted. Grand total of 6. Guess the Google-Boys don't know all. :p

Re:No, I don't (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159944)

You have just given them the info that there are exactly 6 pictures of you on facebook, that should help them narrow it down ;)

Re:No, I don't (1)

euyis (1521257) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159830)

Thanks to the Great Firewall of China I have no Facebook account... and no idea what the Facebook thing is!
So, the good side of censorship?

Re:No, I don't (4, Informative)

NTmatter (589153) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159832)

Just because you don't have a Facebook profile doesn't mean that people can't upload compromising pictures of you to Facebook. Furthermore, you can still be tagged by name in photos even if there's no profile to link to.

Re:No, I don't (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160152)

Just because you don't have a Facebook profile doesn't mean that people can't upload compromising pictures of you to Facebook.

First they'd have to acquire them.

There may be photos of me on the Web (my image is no more private than is that of anyone else) but they are certainly few and far between and would be very difficult to link to me.

Re:No, I don't (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159844)

No kidding. I came to the internet from BBSes. Handles originated because it was hard to fit everyone's full name into 8 characters.

And you know what? I'm still using handles today. Handles and limited photo exposure for THIS EXACT REASON. I value my privacy and I value my anonymity. And y'know what? Every idiot I know who is doing/has done criminal behavior eventually trip themselves up, so claiming that you need to strip away everyone's anonymity to catch the criminals is not just ludicrious, it's CRIMINAL. And I hope swift and punitive actions are taken against the people who even dare breath word of doing such in public.

But hey this is the 'land of the free' and the 'home of the brave' right? Despite us being less free than a lot of other places, and being so brave despite covering and letting our rights be stripped away for the superficial semblance of safety.

I'm not bitter; I just don't know anybody who agrees with me.

Re:No, I don't (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160180)

Hi, my mother did not name me filthpickle. I agree with you.

Re:No, I don't (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159854)

Yeah no photos of me ... no Facebook account!

Same here, /. is as social as I get. I guess that could be considered by some as sad. Those attention whore social sites annoy the hell out of me. Hmmm, I guess I'm anit-social and therefore could be considered a threat. You just can't be left alone.

Re:No, I don't (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159926)

First of all, the police can tie your Slashdot account to your name in less than 24 hours if they really need. Slashdot will provide your IP and your ISP will provide your name and address. It works a bit differently in different countries, but they pretty much will get it if you are the suspect in a criminal investigation of any importance.

Secondly, that statement by Schmidt in TFA was just his wallet talking. When you use free (as in free beer) services on the Internet, you are the product, advertisers are the customers. The product ain't no good if it doesn't have a name. Simple as that.

Re:No, I don't (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160144)

You're assuming he doesn't use any means to cover his tracks. Even using a VPN in another country like IPREDator means having to ask the Swedish courts for the evidence, proving to them the case is important enough to deserve such action, etc. Lots and lots of red tape to take care of.

Bonus points if the IP they provide is actually a Tor exit node :)

Re:No, I don't (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160198)

Why go to all that trouble (setting up and paying for a VPN) when you can simply find an open wi-fi network somewhere?

Re:No, I don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160042)

Same here, /. is as social as I get. I guess that could be considered by some as sad.

Not by me.

Those attention whore social sites annoy the hell out of me.

You speak out of my soul.

You just can't be left alone.

By my definition, this proves that "the others" are anti-social.

Re:No, I don't (3, Funny)

minogully (1855264) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159990)

Thank God I stopped at 13 pictures!

Re:No, I don't (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160138)

Yes, but you really should have stopped before that picture with the goat.

Re:No, I don't (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160136)

Please note: I'm not saying your choice to not have a Facebook account is stupid, wrong, or anything like that. This is merely me expressing my opinion because of your comment, rather than directed at you.

Using this as an argument against having a Facebook account has always bothered me. Facebook only shows and knows as much as you tell it. If you fill out nothing but your name and age, that's all that will show. Likewise, if you decide to tell Facebook every little detail about your life, that's what will show. Photos work the same way...don't want someone to find out you were hitting a crack pipe last weekend? Don't post photos of you doing it. It's the "invasion of privacy" reason why many people I know have profile pictures that aren't them, or only have a handful of photos posted up. They don't want people in their business, but they still want the ability to contact people who use the service; hence, they don't put their business out there.

The same rules for chat rooms apply to Facebook. If you don't want someone to find out, don't talk/post about it. It's that simple.

Re:No, I don't (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160186)

Me either. TFS says the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior

Copyright infringement, computer intrusion, child porn... is there anything else that's against the law you can do on the internet? And why just on the internet? Why not make everyone simply wear a badge with a number on it like The Prisoner? [wikipedia.org] After all, I could commit a crime offline, too. Hell, I smoked a joint last night, better put a camera in my bedroom. That's where it looks like we're going, only instead of as small island, everyone in the world is a either number six or number two.

You think you had problems with Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Murrow Building, that last bunch from earlier this year, keep this shit up and you're just going to add to the numbers of violent government haters. Stupid politicians.

Fuck Apple, fuck Microsoft, fuck Google. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159784)

Fuck them all.

And the internet... (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159806)

... will just fight back. The idea they can end internet anonymity is bullshit, programmers and smart people can always way's to game the system.

Re:And the internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159852)

What about 99% of the population who won't take the time to carefully maintain pseudo anonymous identities?

Fuck the doomed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159888)

What about 99% of the population who won't take the time to carefully maintain pseudo anonymous identities?

Fuck 'em. It's their complacency and ignorance that has put us in this situation, and is forcing their betters to waste inordinate amounts of their time developing cryptographic and other methods of protecting the privacy they should be able to enjoy be default.

They get exactly what they deserve.

Re:Fuck the doomed (5, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159964)

I do sometimes wonder if the internet was better off as a geek thing and not something the main stream adopted.

It's becoming more and more about exploitation of the user.

Re:Fuck the doomed (1)

Meneth (872868) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160218)

It was way better off. However, the mainstream itself was not. Hence the adoption. Inevitable, I think.

Re:Fuck the doomed (5, Insightful)

miketheanimal (914328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159966)

Unfortunately, governments are likely to assume that the 1% who can remain anonymous, must have something to hide. Lose/lose :(

Re:Fuck the doomed (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160016)

Then that premise will be simply part of "gaming the system".

Re:Fuck the doomed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160088)

You can't expect everyone to have working technical knowledge in cryptographic systems and anonymity.I think it would be the duty of those who still have free speech to spread the information to the rest of the population.

Thats absurd to say its everyone fault except those who know how to fight back or understand the broader nature of the issue. So your average citizen can now be screwed by his government when he is looking in the wrong direction and its his fault because he is an idiot and gets what he deserves? Seriously?

I understand you got to stand up for your rights, but we all got to help each other out.

This will not end well (4, Interesting)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159816)

I suspect that entire subnets of the Internet will be encrypted and continue to allow anonymity. Not to mention, there is always your public library or Internet cafe. It's not like spies will stop using the Internet, so "solutions" to this problem will inevitably surface.

Re:This will not end well (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159870)

A required ID to get onto the internet would kill that plan rather quick.

Re:This will not end well (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159886)

Not every country will require it. Not to mention you could encrypt everything you do while you are connected, effectively making everything you do hidden. This might even open up a whole new black market for "connection laundering". :p

Re:This will not end well (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159908)

I rather doubt that would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, given that SCOTUS has an extensive history of upholding the right to anonymous political discourse. I also doubt it would fly in the Scandinavian countries. Not so sure about the rest of the world (the British seem to be competing with themselves to see who can surrender their civil liberties the fastest....) but that's not really my concern as an American.....

Re:This will not end well (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160242)

A required ID to get onto the internet would kill that plan rather quick.

I rather doubt that would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, given that SCOTUS has an extensive history of upholding the right to anonymous political discourse. I also doubt it would fly in the Scandinavian countries. Not so sure about the rest of the world (the British seem to be competing with themselves to see who can surrender their civil liberties the fastest....) but that's not really my concern as an American.....

The U.S. could always just create some new law, like the USA PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org] , that can bypass the constitution. They could even retroactively [wikipedia.org] change laws if it suits their goals [wikipedia.org] (make it easy for yourself and keyword search "retroactive legislation" here).

Of course these endeavors to find and punish 'criminal' and 'anti-social' behavior has, and will have to do with; sex, drugs, political descent, everything that is anti-war and anti violence. So that, like usual, the government will prop-up legislation that supports oppression and the jail economy and will punish things that involve pleasure (demonizing them as sinful and evil, and destructive to the [much cliched] 'moral fiber' of society). Of course these laws will only affect the common man, and not the rich and their corporations (again, read the link [suits their goals [wikipedia.org] (make it easy for yourself and keyword search "retroactive legislation" here)] above as just one example.)

The common man will have to live with their wits and luck on their side. Everybody else will have "diplomatic" immunity.

black market (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160112)

That would inevitably trigger a broad demand for "internet passport" credentials, illegitimately obtained from others. And they would probably be easier to get than CC numbers and/or SSNs (which are all rather easy already).

Man who makes money from tracking web activity... (5, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159820)

...masturbates to the thought of attaching your name to your every click. Film at eleven.

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159952)

I like how he uses "anti-social" behavior as one of the reasons that Governments will demand an end to online anonymity. When did it become a job for Government to deal with "anti-social" behavior? Are there FBI agents trolling through this discussion waiting to pounce on the GNAA?

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (2, Funny)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160084)

Are there FBI agents trolling through this discussion waiting to pounce on the GNAA?

This is slashdot. They'd need a steamroller.

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160096)

In the US definitely not, but the UK has had ASBOs for quite a while, and they seem to think that it's appropriate for the government to clamp down on anti-social behavior, as does the Chinese government.

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160200)

I like how he uses "anti-social" behavior as one of the reasons that Governments will demand an end to online anonymity.

It is one of the reasons they will give.

When did it become a job for Government to deal with "anti-social" behavior?

Anti-Social Behavior Order [wikipedia.org] . Governments consider it their business to deal with all behavior.

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160000)

...masturbates to the thought of attaching your name to your every click. Film at eleven.

Eww. I think I'll watch Law & Order reruns instead.

Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160190)

They already do attach your name to every click. Use noscript sometime, and find how many sites DON'T get you to load something from google.

Self-fulfilling prophecy (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159822)

What Schmidt actually meant was "True transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because we here at Google can make a bundle by eliminating it. Advertisers, governments, you want it, we got it!"

Re:Self-fulfilling prophecy (1)

viperblades (576174) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160176)

Really I think he meant this more as a warning. Unfortunately not many people realize that what he says is true currently and what consequences it can have. Sure the average slashdot user will say 'not I' , but what about all your family / friends. There is a strong reality that what he said is entirely possible and could have strong public support if pitched to the public correctly.

Re:Self-fulfilling prophecy (3, Insightful)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160224)

No kidding. The only reason he's predicting that is because it's better for their increasingly creepy business model.

All for marketing (5, Insightful)

Galahad (24997) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159836)

He wants to know who you are for marketing and advertising purposes to increase corporate profits. The rest is the usual FUD. That is all.

Re:All for marketing (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160114)

Doesn't matter why he wants the information. As long as somebody is keeping track of it, somebody can get a hold of it for their own ends. It's a completely unacceptable situation where Google or somebody else can track you all over the net without your say so. It's one thing to monitor your email if you've got a gmail account, but quite another to keep tabs on other people that aren't so enmeshed.

Worrying (5, Insightful)

DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly (655625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159846)

What worries me isn't his opinion, or what he thinks is coming. What worries me is his lack of resistance to it and his acceptance of "oh well, that's how it's going, that's what we'll do".

This seeming blazay attitude, coupled with his comments a while back where he said something like "People only need privacy when they're doing something they shouldn't be" really worries me, since he commands a lot of power and sway online. Eric, imagine if someone posted a video of you taking a dump and posted it on youtube, your views on privacy and "I have nothing to hide" might change...

He's probably right in that every government will want online identity, of course they would. But it's up to us to battle for "what is right" and we always hoped Google would help us. If he just rolls over and accepts it, that's terrible for us.

Re:Worrying (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159882)

What worries me is the general lack of resistance to it and the acceptance of "oh well, that's how it's going, that's what we'll do".

There, FTFY.

Re:Worrying (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159920)

blazay

It's blasé. For goodness' sake, read a book!

Re:Worrying (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160134)

I appreciate your use of the é

Re:Worrying (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159950)

What worries me is that he will use his lobbyists to get laws passed that will ensure the force of law requires the elimination of online anonymity.

If you want to access your healthcare records or use the DMV, you have to log in to your Google managed government user-account that looks like and acts like Facebook.

Re:Worrying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160126)

It's never going to happen, unless millions of men suddenly stop viewing online porn.

Re:Worrying (5, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160168)

What worries me is his lack of resistance to it and his acceptance of "oh well, that's how it's going, that's what we'll do".

As others have pointed out he's not just accepting it, he is actively promoting it. All Schmidt cares about is profits for Google and if he
can get the Govts of the world to help him he would love nothing more then to build the Grand Unified DB that will track and report everything
we do. Governments win, advertisers win and Google makes ridiculous money from it all.

Don't be evil died when this guy took reigns at Google. Where the F are Sergey and Larry now? What do the think about the death of anonymity?

Re:Worrying (1)

cybaz (538103) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160202)

Lately Google seems to getting the mindset that if it's not illegal, there's nothing wrong with it, so blame the lawmakers for not writing laws prohibiting them from doing it. Their stance against China was promising, but I'm not sure anymore if that was an actual stand based on ethical motives, or just the realization that filtering search result based upon the moral/political stances of a countries current regime would be too complex for all the countries that would be demanding such a thing.

You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159866)

I have been very very careful about my identity on the internet. My user name is a random collection of letters and gives no hint of the hostels and room numbers I had in my college years.

Re:You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (1)

sundru (709023) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159918)

lol and the man posts on slashdot :) am sure they have a profile of ur underwear colors by now. -S

Re:You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160004)

whooosh

Re:You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (5, Funny)

AndrewBC (1675992) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159936)

Hi Carl.

Erm... (5, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159872)

"show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are"

I highly doubt that. I assume we're talking about a globally unique identification of a single individual. I call crap, given that we can't even do that with anything at all - fingerprints, DNA, or anything else. No biometric is that good. And, besides, if you have 14 photos of me, you know who I am anyway - I'm the guy who's in the photo. It doesn't exactly prove much at all, or help you out unless the photo shows me doing something illegal and I need to be traced. I *guarantee* you that other humans will catch me from my photo in a newspaper before any computer-based system does, and probably with much smaller margins of error.

And 14 photos is a HELL of a lot. And it depends on their quality, and your clothing, and the lighting, and the angles, and the focus, and anything obscuring the picture, and the resolution. Otherwise you're magical "14 photos" system could be used on 14 frames of any CCTV footage and instantly pinpoint the criminal. See what a ridiculous assertion that is?

Re:Erm... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159958)

Perhaps it is just a variation of "tell me your name and I tell you who you are".

Re:Erm... (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160062)

Fourteen photos is nothing considering how many cameras there are flying around all over public areas. They have cameras at airports that can take a photo with HUNDREDS of people on them and identify their faces from a database within seconds. The 14 photos of you don't have to come from your limited view of the Internet (consider every place you've been that has had a camera: banks, airports, schools, etc.). There is a lot more information out there collected about you than you can being to imagine.

Once your "photo blueprint" is a associated with you as an individual, you can be tracked all over the place without you ever knowing. Imagine a program that you feed a security tape into that spits out a list of names of everyone it identifies and a variety of frames of those that it does not. Sure beats having a human go through and collect that information. The scary part is that this is not "future tech"... it is stuff available today.

A bit of overkill (4, Interesting)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159874)

If there is a problem with online banking, why not put all the banks in a different net, accessible only to identified persons? Putting all the websites in an ID-net, for the problem of just one small segment of the whole net, seems a bit of an overkill.

Sadly... (2, Insightful)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159878)

He is right. I do not like it, but he is right.

This quote interested me most (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159916)

You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'

The learned Mr. Schmidt should know that there are folks like me for who, Facebook and themselves do not mix [for now] and probably will not for the foreseeable future.

NFL shop offers kid 's nfl jerseys (-1, Offtopic)

ptdybj (1857594) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159922)

Are you look for the cheap but high quality Authentic jerseys for long time ?why don’t you sign in the websit to look of?Nfl shop, http://www.jerseysshops.com/ [jerseysshops.com] many new and hot nfl jerseys in each one website,I think. NFL jerseys, Philadelphia Eagle nfl jerseys,A lthough it is the larger furnitur that mani peopl focue on when thei view item at a furnitur store.

This is Why I Avoid Google Products (2, Interesting)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159948)

Everyone loves gmail & google apps. But it came out early on that google had no respect for people's privacy. I've avoided every on-line product of theirs besides google search & earth.

Fuck you Eric Schmidt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159960)

What a fucking asshole. Government has been using the threat of "criminal" and "terrorist" activity in order to diminish freedoms for decades. That was the justification for the Iraq and Afghan wars as well. Oh yes, I will bow down before the fucking Google gods because my information is perfectly safe from Chinese hackers.

Fuck you Eric Schmidt! When you put your house on Google Street View, and give me high rez sat pictures of it, then you can open your mouth.

Time to jump ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33159972)

Looks like it's time to abandon Google. First the half-assed denial of turning their backs on network neutrality, now this. If Google does not understand that anonymity enables people to share more information, then others will and take Google's market. If your neighbor could see everything you searched on Google, would you still do it?

No they'd just like to have you think that (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159974)

There's been a war regarding privacy for a long time. Now days in the legal system it's all 'think of the children and this will help stop terrorists' on the internet it's all 'Look at these awesome features you can get if you just give us all your personal info and colonic map.' Everyone wants to make the idea of privacy seem like you're trying to hide something but that's nothing further than the truth. You let the government in you let them compile huge dossiers on you (more so than they do now) and all you do is hand them everything they need. Because there is no telling what it looks like you do to an outside person or what they can make it look like you do in a Court room. It's the same reason why my lawyer always tells me to never speak to the cops, you never know what some casual thing you say will be used to hang you, or in this thing casual thing you do. Bottom line is you can have my privacy when you come and take it from me, and I won't let it go with out a fight.

Creepy (5, Insightful)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159976)

And Google wonders why nobody wants to join their social network? Schmidt makes Zuckerberg look good.

they can demand it all they want.. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 4 years ago | (#33159980)

because it's not going to work if you allow bytes to be transferred, computers to be bought and all kinds of electronics to be available for pennies.

if it was something you could just decide and make it happen by being the "government" then we would already be there with non-anonymous internet.

and what good is having the supposed identity of some guy who -doesn't even have a real identity from his goverment- logged into the computer on the other side of the globe in some cafe. so schmidt, fuck you, your lucky break was that altavista turned to a shit portal.

And to prove his point (5, Funny)

LatencyKills (1213908) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160030)

I'm going to send Eric Schmidt 14 pictures of my ass.

You've got Facebook photos! (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160054)

No I don't.

Who's paying for this? (1)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160072)

He said that addressing issues such as identity theft, for instance, required "true transparency and no anonymity".

This will come down to a simple equation. Is the cost of developing a system that's foolproof to anonymity greater or less than the cost incurred from identity theft, fraud, etc..

Anonymous Coward (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160124)

... is rolled over in laughter.

Drivers License (1)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160164)

I was pondering about the Internet the other day and also came to the conclusion that there will probably be some sort of license to access the Internet.
I am kind of glad that I am living now, 200 Years from now people will probably run around with a government issued RFID/GPS butt plug.

No thanks.

Re:Drivers License (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160258)

Please unsubscribe me from your newsletter.

Erik Schmidt Predicts... (0, Flamebait)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160204)

I predict Erik Schmidt will make George Bush look like Mother Teresa.

You've got Facebook photos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160212)

You've got Facebook photos!'"

Does that hold if I'm one of the last... what.... 3? people in the western world who aren't on Facebook? I suppose they could identify me through other peoples photos but even then there'd have to be an entry point tying my name to a face on a photo and as far as I know even my employers never succeeded in putting a photo next to my name on the internet.

screw google, bing, yahoo, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160220)

then new internets will arise, mirroring data from the existing internet in many forms of neighborhood wireless networks, walled off with some, connected with others if they choose.

google exists because of the people, without us, where would they be?

Disinformation Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33160236)

Internet users need to embrace the concept of disinformation. If you post enough bogus information about yourself and pictures that are not actually YOU, then you can throw a monkey-wrench into such attempts to create a dossier of yourself.

John Q Citizen

If Steve Jobs said it (1)

tiredoompa (1860384) | more than 4 years ago | (#33160240)

If Jobs would even REMOTELY hint at what Schmidt is getting to, the whole Internets would be abuzz. All I see are double standards and the omnipresent Google-love that prevents ppl from a full fledged and rightful assault on Google’s hidden agenda.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?