Firstly I'm glad we don't have attack ads like this in the UK.
Secondly I was curious as to how a consumer group managed to get enough cash together to make this. A quick search reveals http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ which suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft.
Certainly Google aren't completely innocent and raising awareness among people about privacy on the internet is a good thing. But this ad doesn't seem to have come about from the goodness of someone's heart.
I could see Microsoft sponsoring anti-Google astroturfing, but it seems strange that they'd sponsor something specifically calling for a "do not track" list for the web. Is Microsoft actually in favor of that? It's not impossible, but I would've guessed that it would be something they'd be opposed to, given that it'd also put restrictions on them.
Microsoft have long advocated for internet IDs and a "do not track" policy would establish that.
A "do not track" list on the internet doesn't make sense, the reason ad networks use cookies is because people don't have an identifiable ID online, so they are proposing government mandated internet IDs which is exactly the opposite of what you want if privacy is what you're after.
what about a simple standard navigator control emitting headers or maybe a kind of cookies stating that you don't want to be tracked ? i don't see the need for any ID
To be clear, as andyn said: the blog post "suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft." Emphasis mine.
Take a look around his site. For example, the links at the very top include: "Comes vs. Microsoft", "OOXML", "OpenDocument", "Novell". He's not an impartial observer.
This ad really strikes me as a stretch. I'm all for people trying to organize data protection laws, but I'm also OK with Google trading free services in the present for information they hope will be valuable in the future.
But I'm frequently surprised by the diversity of opinion on this site. Are there people here who feel the ad speaks to them? Who are moved to act from having watched it? What do you like about it? I'd love to hear the other side on this.
I despise the people who created that ad. Their attitude is to me one of the worst that humans can display. It reminds me a little bit of the anit-jewish movies the nazis created (sorry for evoking Godwin's law, but it is like that).
Nothing good can come from scapegoating like that. And Smith is hardly to blame if teenagers spill their guts on facebook. Seems to me he rather tried to warn those kids.
How is it "utterly ridiculous" to "[suggest] that children may want to change their names when they grow up to escape the embarrassing online mistakes of their youth that will have been recorded on social networking sites"?
It's ridiculous that people might need to do that or that they feel ashamed enough of being themselves to do that but it's not ridiculous to note that yes, sadly, this might be a requirement for some people who have tarnished their reputations. People have changed their names to escape previous misdeeds for centuries.
Schmidt is just giving advice that hints at truths some people don't want to accept. That's not ridiculous; it's advice.
"Tthe problem with Google is that Eric Schmidt is creepy. I think he’s a really weird dude. Recall, for example, this comment of Schmidt’s from 2009, regarding Google and privacy: 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'"
Schmidt is really the public face of Google. Larry and Sergey seem to keep quiet, Marissa Mayer isn't doing those magazine features anymore, but every few months Schmidt just does or says something odd.
It's a questionable strategy. edit: Questionable, that is, when your company is trusted with the personal data of hundreds of millions of people. Caesar's wife must be above reproach.
> 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'
That was taken out of context. What he said was that if you don't want the government to know about your google search you should not be doing them because google would be forced by law to give the government your google search if they ask for them, there is nothing google can do about this as google is not above the law. Also, Gruber is a famous anti-google pro-apple guy so it's not surprising to see him quoting schmidt out of context to make a point against google.
He's no more creepy than Google the company, and they are no more creepy than present day technology in general.
I don't find anything Schmidt has said to be particularly incorrect. If you have something you want to keep secret, you indeed should not be doing it, because privacy is dead and there is nothing Google can do to change that reality. In fact, Google is doing a relatively good job of easing us all into a world without privacy. Be glad it's not Microsoft doing it, or just about anybody else.
And the serendipity thing is right on. Google is already great at giving people what they want but not so great at giving them things they don't know they want, in contrast to Facebook, Twitter, and Apple.
Schmidt seems like a straight talker to me. At worst, he's a bit ambiguous.
That one quote was in reference to the patriot act and it was taken out context too many times it's ridiculous, the more recent WSJ quotes were about Schmidt playing the Scifi author, it's no excuse to depict him as a child molester and certainly no reason to agree with an anstroturfer anti-Google organization masquerading as a consumer advocacy group.
It doesn't matter. Like I said above in my edit: Caesar's wife must be above reproach. He doesn't get to say weird things that are taken out of context. He needs either better handlers or to step back and let someone more relatable be the person who represents the company to outsiders.
I suppose from a purely PR angle you have a point.
I once watched an interview with Steve Ballmer sitting next to him was a MSFT PR/Lawyer guy, his job was basically to hit Ballmer with a stick if he felt something stupid was about to be said, I suppose that approach could be adopted by Google, or better yet Google needs to get their women to do the interviews, as women perceived as more aware and sensitive to the privacy issue and it wouldn't hurt Google's image to show off their lady Googlers.
His comments over time indicate to me that Google is already doing some very creepy things, possible under court order with a gag order as well. Maybe he's trying to warn us. If not, then it's even more creepy.
Sad that the same personal demonization tactics of political campaigns are being applied to this issue. Schmidt can be in error without being evil.
Imagery that gets the 'Consumer Watchdog' group lots of emotional reaction and opt-in TXTs isn't likely to create the most reasoned, respectful discussion or public policy.
And, the effort spent campaigning for a legislated 'do not track me' list would be better spent promoting and expanding the sort of self-help that's already listed on this group's 'Privacy Toolbox' page:
These solutions don't require any congressional action or one-size-fits-all approach or national-database-of-opt-out-identities -- you can adopt them today, if concerned. Self-help can also keep up with changing technology better than a regulatory solution. And a campaign for self-help doesn't require anyone to send lawyers and lobbyists and political contributions to DC to make their case.
Secondly I was curious as to how a consumer group managed to get enough cash together to make this. A quick search reveals http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ which suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft.
Certainly Google aren't completely innocent and raising awareness among people about privacy on the internet is a good thing. But this ad doesn't seem to have come about from the goodness of someone's heart.