He and his wife Wendy live in the affluent town of Atherton, Calif., where, at a $10,000-a-plate political fund-raiser five years ago, presidential candidate Al Gore and his wife Tipper danced as Elton John belted out "Bennie and the Jets."
That such detailed personal information is so readily available on public Web sites makes most people uncomfortable. But it's nothing compared with the information Google collects and doesn't make public.
What Google knows about you
• Gmail -- The e-mail service offers two gigabytes of free storage and scans the content of messages to serve up context-related ads.
• Cookies -- Google uses cookies, which are commonly used to link individual users with activities.
• Desktop Search -- Google's Desktop Search lets users easily search files stored on their computer.
• Web Accelerator -- The application speeds Web surfing by storing cached copies of Web pages you've visited; those page requests can include personal information.
Assuming Schmidt uses his company's services, someone with access to Google's databases could find out what he writes in his e-mails and to whom he sends them, where he shops online or even what restaurants he's located via online maps. Like so many other Google users, his virtual life has been meticulously recorded.
The fear, of course, is that hackers, zealous government investigators, or even a Google insider who falls short of the company's ethics standards could abuse that information. Google, some worry, is amassing a tempting record of personal information, and the onus is on the Mountain View, Calif., company to keep that information under wraps.
Privacy advocates say information collected at Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN, Amazon.com's A-9 and other search and e-commerce companies poses similar risks. Indeed, many of those companies' business plans tend to mimic what Google is trying to do, and some are less careful with the data they collect. But Google, which has more than a 50 percent share of the U.S. search engine market, according to the
latest data from WebSideStory, has become a lightning rod for privacy concerns because of its high profile and its unmatched impact on the Internet community.
"Google is poised to trump Microsoft in its potential to invade privacy, and it's very hard for many consumers to get it because the Google brand name has so much trust," said Chris Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "But if you step back and look at the suite of products and how they are used, you realize Google can have a lot of personal information about individuals' Internet habits--e-mail, saving search history, images, personal information from (social network site) Orkut--it represents a significant threat to privacy."
Kevin Bankston, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Google is amassing data that could create some of the most detailed individual profiles ever devised.
"Your search history shows your associations, beliefs, perhaps your medical problems. The things you Google for define you," Bankston said.
The Google record As is typical for search engines, Google retains log files that record search terms used, Web sites visited and the Internet Protocol address and browser type of the computer for every single search conducted through its Web site.
In addition, search engines are collecting personally identifiable information in order to offer certain services. For instance, Gmail asks for name and e-mail address. By comparison, Yahoo's registration also asks for address, phone number, birth date, gender and occupation and may ask for home address and Social Security number for financial services.
"It's data that's practically a printout of what's going on in your brain: What you are thinking of buying, who you talk to, what you talk about."
--Kevin Bankston, staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
If search history, e-mail and registration information were combined, a company could see intimate details about a person's health, sex life, religion, financial status and buying preferences.
It's "data that's practically a printout of what's going on in your brain: What you are thinking of buying, who you talk to, what you talk about," Bankston said. "It is an unprecedented amount of personal information, and these third parties (such as Google) have carte blanche control over that information."
Google uses the log information to analyze traffic in order to prevent people from rigging search results, for blocking denial-of-service attacks and to improve search services, said Nicole Wong, associate general counsel at Google.
Personally identifiable information that is required for consumers to register for and log in to Google services is not shared with any outside companies or used for marketing, according to Google's privacy policy, except with the consent of the user, or if outside "trusted" parties
Correction: The original article incorrectly implied that Google Desktop Search can track what's stored on a user's PC. The service does not expose a user's content to Google or anyone else without the user's explicit permission.
While some people scream privacy, some of us prefer 'publicy'. We pay our bills on time, we respect others, we don't break laws. If Google collects data with a similar code of ethics, they could perform 'subsciption screening' so we receive notice of things of interest from >reputable< companies.
CNET blew it big time with this story, in two ways.
First, it equated information accessible via the Internet with information published in an article that will be read by millions. There is an important distinction between pointing out the accessibility of information, and publishing that information. The Google search engine is just a tool to find information which is already out there. This tool can be used for good or for evil. CNET just demonstrated the latter. It was grossly irresponsible journalism, and should be condemned by journalists everywhere. Didn't you learn anything from Maureen O'Gara's mistake?
Secondly, the whole point of the article was information that Google may be collecting and storing in their private inaccessible archives. While this may be an interesting topic, it is orthogonal to the public accessibility today of information on the Internet, which Google's search engines may make easier to find. The author seems to be confusing and mingling the two separate issues.
Once the information is accessible to Google it is PUBLIC INFORMATION. The reporter certainly did nothing wrong in publishing information about Schmidt. There isn't anything preventing anyone in the world from doing precisely what she's done.
I found it hard to read the whole article because i knew what the writer was getting at, he/she was trying to have a swing at google, it was quite obvious and i still don't understand why.
They have Un-personal identifiable information, they have words that we have searched for, and i might elaborate on words... millions of words, that would take all of Google's staff months just to see what we have searched for let alone find out what our 'beliefs, religion' and etc.
i find this article quite upsetting coming from Cnet as Cnet has always published top notch reporting up until this piece of reporting, using really lame lines to make it seem google are trying to avoid answering questions, such as when they just wrote the writer a answer for everything that was asked, and the writer had the nerve to write underneath that 'google wouldn't elaborate'
personally, i could quite easily write just as good smear campaign on any body. Hmm such as how Paul's Milk knows how much milk i drink and therefore can personally identify my, which is not as far fetched as this reporter is getting at.
Overall, quite pathetic reporting and seems everyone else agrees and i severely hope that this writers credentials are being re-looked, as well with her/his job
This is not poor journalism. Can you not see the privacy implications of every word you have ever searched using google being stored on their servers for an indefinite amount of time? not to mention that if you use gmail, the amount of personal information that could be obtained from that. The fact is that google has expanded and is doing everything. Aim is now available through gmail and the conversations are saved. It is impossible to leave your personal life or personal information out of your email and Instant messaging conversations. some of the information, such as medical information should not be accessible to anyone but yourself. But when the government wants some of this information, the legal route is just too much red tape for them. They will go (and have gone) to these services that collect way too much information about a person such as google, yahoo, etc. luckily, so far google has fought this but as we all know, everyone has a price, and the value of this information is growing steadily as more people put their information out there on google and as google continues to build more buildings to house the ridiculous amount of data it is storing. How long before google offers Mark zuckerberg an offer that he can't refuse? I don't have anything against google, but this is going in the direction of 1984. (not that it hasn't already happened with our government, it is just the fact that google is so brazen about this as if its ok)
This is not poor journalism. Can you not see the privacy implications of every word you have ever searched using google being stored on their servers for an indefinite amount of time? not to mention that if you use gmail, the amount of personal information that could be obtained from that. The fact is that google has expanded and is doing everything. Aim is now available through gmail and the conversations are saved. It is impossible to leave your personal life or personal information out of your email and Instant messaging conversations. some of the information, such as medical information should not be accessible to anyone but yourself. But when the government wants some of this information, the legal route is just too much red tape for them. They will go (and have gone) to these services that collect way too much information about a person such as google, yahoo, etc. luckily, so far google has fought this but as we all know, everyone has a price, and the value of this information is growing steadily as more people put their information out there on google and as google continues to build more buildings to house the ridiculous amount of data it is storing. How long before google offers Mark zuckerberg an offer that he can't refuse? I don't have anything against google, but this is going in the direction of 1984. (not that it hasn't already happened with our government, it is just the fact that google is so brazen about this as if its ok)
People hate google when its founders get thin-skinned, grossly rich, etc., but the googlies restore their "cool" with products like Gmail. The googlies need to ration themselves to a limited number of uncool activities (like getting richer) and continue launching cool product extensions. And restoring diplomatic relations with C-net with a fulsome apology for being thin-skinned would be a really cool thing to do.
I just don't get Google's churlish response to this article. It's a perfectly & responsible article. All the information about Schmidt was publicly available using his own company's technology. These people really have to get a life. It's not like the reporter went dumpster diving or dredged up former lovers or wives who wanted to tell all about him.
If Schmidt wants to be as prickly and thin-skinned as Bill Gates, then he'll have to pay the price in earning the public's disdain for his arrogance.
The report only used fairly innocuous information, she could have revealed much more personal information such as whom the Schmidt's dined with at the White House or what night Bill Cinton was at their house or to be serious, much more revealing information on his family which could possibly compromise their safety. If Eric really cares so passionately about this , Google should allow web sites to "opt out" of Google to protect the privacy of the people who may be on their sites.
Ahh, but probing for personal factoids via Google is exactly like dumpster diving - daring and delicious (uh, no not de.licio.us). And the way Google massively and indiscriminately collects odds and ends could well be likened to a data or content garbage dump. In the future, we will mine our garbage dumps for recyclable materials the same way we mine Google for recyclable data.
If there's nothing wrong with it he would have provided solid answers. Since those are not available he resorts to banning Cnet from Google press conferences. Nice.... I feel so much more confident in the cloud. The direction this is going is like a bad scifi movie.
It was suprising that, inorder to prove what an effective information company Google was- that you felt the need to actually publish the personal information on an individual (like the rest of us care). We would have believed your word for it had you just blanked out Eric Schmidt's wife's name, etc., and boasted that you had that information via Googling Schmidt.
It comes off as being paparazzi tabloid.
Madeleine
PS- The fact that Google can withhold information and did not do so on its own CEO, well......
This is real garbish news... It's not realistic, it's real anti-google fanatism!
For instance, there are lots of tools like google desktop, that provide the ability to find content in documents, emails, etc... This story is trying to "say" to the readers that google save your private information, and that's not true...
This jornalist should apologize for the implicity evil side use of google that he sugest the google tools are about...
For instance, you can use biotech to destroy and biotech to cure, you can use lots of things to good and to evil... nuclear power can be used for good and for evil... but this jornalist only wrote with his evil fanatic anti-google mind!
I mean. Have you ever run a server? I have. Everything you do on a website is saved into a server log unless the server administrator states otherwise. I'm sure this isn't the case with google, given their popularity, people likely attempt to hack them regularly. Don't go around saying what google doesn't do with their servers when you don't know how server administration works.
Ok, the article, as I understand it, was concerned that google was maybe missing the mark with privacy concerns. So, in response, google has limited the publication of private information by not talking to cnet. so, hasn't google just done something to address privacy concerns? you don't need to worry about all that sensitive data bein exposed on cnet for a while...
On another note, however, cnet made a big fuss about all google's caches and databanks, but found all their info from private web sites as far as I can tell; not by digging through google's trash.
So, in summary, while google's response may seem over the top, in a way it is a very logical response. Also, although the reporter no doubt meant well, I think that she may have been trying to dig up resentment for search companies a little too much.
Isaac wrote that there would be a device that could show you the past. People didn't just use it to see 1775, they used it to see 10 minutes ago, two days ago, last week, last month, anywhere anyone. Privace became history, life became a fish bowl.
But will they succeed? Google has this info, and they can do as they please with it. Most likely, they'll with hold it to address said privacy concerns. What's to say an untrustworthy employee at google won't do something unauthorized with the data though? What's to say a hacker won't break into the info and steal it? Lastly, what's to say that law enforcement officers use the powers of the DMCA, the Patriot Act, or some other equally controvertial law to get this information? Google itself may address privacy concerns strongly. It's individuals that merit worrying about.
most of the 'personal information' that u see in google is collected from public sources. IF u r that important then the information is accurate...most of the time the information is not accurate
Instead of all complaining about all the information Google, and News.com, for that matter collect. Remember ONE inportant fact. Information is ONLY useful if it is ACCURATE.
Unless it is vital to do otherwise e.g. when applying for a loan, there is is the simple effective strategy that knocks them ALL flat. Enter totally bum and spurious information whenever possible.
I maybe the CEO of an avionics Company to one Company, a Brain Surgeon to another. I may live in the USA, the UK or Europe or Iraq, depending upon how I feel.
Why do I do this? Simple - they have NO RIGHT to require you to answer their personal and totally irrelevant questions - look at the ones required to join this outfit as an example. Were they necessary? Of course not they are just being nosey and hope that this information will assist them in some way or another mostly for THEIR benefit NOT yours. And yes a lot of this private information does leek out, and I suspect much is sold under the counter as well. Information equates to MONEY.
So play them at their own game whenever possible and finally give them a Yahoo or HotMail typed email address. Thats normally pretty useless to them as well.
Regards
Cheyanne Bodie or is it Fred Flintstone or Cliff Richard? It's my memory playing tricks again - now where are those tablets the doctor gave me?
One hardly knows where to begin. Of course you can use INACCURATE information. It quite useful to spread lies and distortions. Here's some inaccurate information about August: his name is really April. See what I mean?
The article didn't mention the most freaky part of google. With the google adsense program, they can track down every click on the internet. Coupling this information with the complete google database and they know with websites you visit. Even when you don't use any google product at all.
When a webmaster places the 'google ads' on his website, he gives google the permission to collect any kind of information about himself and the visitors of his website. The code they have to put on their website contains a key to session tracking, cookie placement, site statistics, etc. Enough to track everybody on the internet!
It isn't just technical possible, i think they abuse it already. Just read the terms of use from the google adsense program: "Google may retain and use, subject to the terms of the Google Privacy Policy (located at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.google.com/privacy.html," target="_newWindow">http://www.google.com/privacy.html,</a> or such other URL as Google may provide from time to time), all information You provide, including but not limited to Site demographics and contact and billing information. You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about You for the purpose of approving and enabling Your participation in the Program, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than Your own. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google disclaims all responsibility, and will not be liable to You, however, for any disclosure of that information by any such third party. Google may share non-personally-identifiable information about You, including Site URLs, Site-specific statistics and similar information collected by Google, with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. In addition, You grant Google the right to access, index and cache the Site(s), or any portion thereof, including by automated means including Web spiders or crawlers."
I understand why many people would not want their click paths tracked as it can be considered as an invasion of pricacy. I just don't feel that Google will mis use its data. Google AdWords and the subsequent AdSense program is one of their biggest revenue machines and is pretty much the reason Google makes money. The share holders know this and thats what drives the company now. They wouldn't want the apple cart disturbed! For more info on Google Adsense visit www.TheAdSenseFiles.co.uk
In case you don't want to be tracked by a search engine, just don't use them! I personally trust google, and don't mind the data they collect. Anyone who is more suspicious, however, always has the option of not using any of the search engines or alike.
I didn't like the author's tone in the article. Publicly available data and publicizing data are two completely different things. I wish he had been more careful.
I think the issues raised by the article are gaining more attention that they should have been. The last two hours I spent on the issue was a waste of time.
Jean-Pierre Khoueiri of ConstantClick.com speaks on Google
If the information Google collects is in any way used in an unethical manner, the first complaint will cause a media storm that will likely force the comapny to react to citizens concerns. The only thing Googlers can do is wait and hope Google sticks to it's credo: "Do no evil"!
Dr. Eric Schmidt has very many mafia friends, some of whom produce p_rn, even child p_rn from captive women and children, which is how Google got sued for profiteering from deliberatly promoted child p_rnography & why they withheld the identities of child p_rn distributors from police. http://endmafia.com
Google's claim on others' personal works as writings are, personal financial dealings and matters of utilizing own purchased internet use, meaning to be confidential and with others trusting, I don't mean to lame myself by giving what is mine away to goons trusting that slanderous soveriegnty is their real offering.
Bleeding is appropriate. As a real Laws Enforcement priority.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
"I always feel that somebody's watchin' me
Is it just a dream?"
.... No, it's an Internet Search Engine.
"I always feel like somebody's watching me
I can't enjoy my tea!"
First, it equated information accessible via the Internet with information published in an article that will be read by millions. There is an important distinction between pointing out the accessibility of information, and publishing that information. The Google search engine is just a tool to find information which is already out there. This tool can be used for good or for evil. CNET just demonstrated the latter. It was grossly irresponsible journalism, and should be condemned by journalists everywhere. Didn't you learn anything from Maureen O'Gara's mistake?
Secondly, the whole point of the article was information that Google may be collecting and storing in their private inaccessible archives. While this may be an interesting topic, it is orthogonal to the public accessibility today of information on the Internet, which Google's search engines may make easier to find. The author seems to be confusing and mingling the two separate issues.
Your skin seems as thin as Schmidt's.
They have Un-personal identifiable information, they have words that we have searched for, and i might elaborate on words... millions of words, that would take all of Google's staff months just to see what we have searched for let alone find out what our 'beliefs, religion' and etc.
i find this article quite upsetting coming from Cnet as Cnet has always published top notch reporting up until this piece of reporting, using really lame lines to make it seem google are trying to avoid answering questions, such as when they just wrote the writer a answer for everything that was asked, and the writer had the nerve to write underneath that 'google wouldn't elaborate'
personally, i could quite easily write just as good smear campaign on any body. Hmm such as how Paul's Milk knows how much milk i drink and therefore can personally identify my, which is not as far fetched as this reporter is getting at.
Overall, quite pathetic reporting and seems everyone else agrees and i severely hope that this writers credentials are being re-looked, as well with her/his job
Patriot.Aus ***
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.realmeme.com/Main/savinggoogle/index.jsp" target="_newWindow">http://www.realmeme.com/Main/savinggoogle/index.jsp</a>
If Schmidt wants to be as prickly and thin-skinned as Bill Gates, then he'll have to pay the price in earning the public's disdain for his arrogance.
It comes off as being paparazzi tabloid.
Madeleine
PS- The fact that Google can withhold information and did not do so on its own CEO, well......
For instance, there are lots of tools like google desktop, that provide the ability to find content in documents, emails, etc... This story is trying to "say" to the readers that google save your private information, and that's not true...
This jornalist should apologize for the implicity evil side use of google that he sugest the google tools are about...
For instance, you can use biotech to destroy and biotech to cure, you can use lots of things to good and to evil... nuclear power can be used for good and for evil... but this jornalist only wrote with his evil fanatic anti-google mind!
You should be ashamed... get apologize!
Joao Oliveira
On another note, however, cnet made a big fuss about all google's caches and databanks, but found all their info from private web sites as far as I can tell; not by digging through google's trash.
So, in summary, while google's response may seem over the top, in a way it is a very logical response. Also, although the reporter no doubt meant well, I think that she may have been trying to dig up resentment for search companies a little too much.
Privace became history, life became a fish bowl.
Thanks Google!
Unless it is vital to do otherwise e.g. when applying for a loan, there is is the simple effective strategy that knocks them ALL flat.
Enter totally bum and spurious information whenever possible.
I maybe the CEO of an avionics Company to one Company, a Brain Surgeon to another. I may live in the USA, the UK or Europe or Iraq, depending upon how I feel.
Why do I do this? Simple - they have NO RIGHT to require you to answer their personal and totally irrelevant questions - look at the ones required to join this outfit as an example. Were they necessary? Of course not they are just being nosey and hope that this information will assist them in some way or another mostly for THEIR benefit NOT yours. And yes a lot of this private information does leek out, and I suspect much is sold under the counter as well. Information equates to MONEY.
So play them at their own game whenever possible and finally give them a Yahoo or HotMail typed email address. Thats normally pretty useless to them as well.
Regards
Cheyanne Bodie or is it Fred Flintstone or Cliff Richard? It's my memory playing tricks again - now where are those tablets the doctor gave me?
When a webmaster places the 'google ads' on his website, he gives google the permission to collect any kind of information about himself and the visitors of his website. The code they have to put on their website contains a key to session tracking, cookie placement, site statistics, etc. Enough to track everybody on the internet!
It isn't just technical possible, i think they abuse it already. Just read the terms of use from the google adsense program:
"Google may retain and use, subject to the terms of the Google Privacy Policy (located at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.google.com/privacy.html," target="_newWindow">http://www.google.com/privacy.html,</a> or such other URL as Google may provide from time to time), all information You provide, including but not limited to Site demographics and contact and billing information. You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about You for the purpose of approving and enabling Your participation in the Program, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than Your own. Google may also provide information in response to valid legal process, such as subpoenas, search warrants and court orders, or to establish or exercise its legal rights or defend against legal claims. Google disclaims all responsibility, and will not be liable to You, however, for any disclosure of that information by any such third party. Google may share non-personally-identifiable information about You, including Site URLs, Site-specific statistics and similar information collected by Google, with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. In addition, You grant Google the right to access, index and cache the Site(s), or any portion thereof, including by automated means including Web spiders or crawlers."
I didn't like the author's tone in the article. Publicly available data and publicizing data are two completely different things. I wish he had been more careful.
I think the issues raised by the article are gaining more attention that they should have been. The last two hours I spent on the issue was a waste of time.
what is the fuss all about?
Bleeding is appropriate. As a real Laws Enforcement priority.