Jan 30
Panopticlick - How unique do you appear on the web?
Is your browser configuration rare or unique? If so, web sites may be able to track you, even if you limit or disable cookies.
Panopticlick tests your browser to see how unique it is based on the information it will share with sites it visits. Click below and you will be given a uniqueness score, letting you see how easily identifiable you might be as you surf the web.
Only anonymous data will be collected by this site.
Click here to test how trackable your browser is.
Dec 30
Mashups in the WSJ! Nirvana + Lady Gaga = NirGaga: Love it or Hate it? - Speakeasy
via blogs.wsj.com
Dec 9
Spot-on: "Schneier on Security: My Reaction to Eric Schmidt"
Schneier on Security
A blog covering security and security technology.
« Emotional Epidemiology | Main
December 9, 2009
My Reaction to Eric Schmidt
Schmidt said:
I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.This, from 2006, is my response:
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.
[...]
For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.
[...]
This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
Posted on December 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM • 51 Comments • View Blog Reactions
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.
Comments
Dear Bruce,
The well thought-out, rational responses by yourself to power hungry, incompetent bureaucrats and their disciples is the sole reason why you are a personal hero of mine. You are a true american, keep up the good work!!!!
Posted by: james at December 9, 2009 12:33 PM
Google is quite aware of privacy concerns and Schmidt's quote is disingenuous. Google is commonly used research medical conditions, and most people are rightly private with information about their health -- information that may, in the future, affect their job performance, their relationships, and their social status. Especially when given a tentative diagnosis -- in the 1920's Carl Jung wrongly diagnosed the UK's central banker with insanity secondary to syphilis -- people need the ability to keep it private. This is neither hypothetical nor shameful, it is a simple and clear case of information that should be kept private. Eric Schmidt was pursued at times by people seeking insight into his marriage, so he should understand privacy.
Posted by: Another Schmidt at December 9, 2009 12:52 PM
Hi Bruce,
I wrote an open letter to Eric Schmidt today with a similar view. Privacy isn't just about hiding things, or assuming that things that you do not want to disclose could be bad things. It's about choice and freedom. The biggest issue imo is that Google, and others, implicitly take some of our privacy away in return for services.
If interested the letter is located here:
http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/...Posted by: Alexander van Elsas at December 9, 2009 1:03 PM
Bravo. I'm glad someone with your credibility is around to speak truth to power.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at December 9, 2009 1:06 PM
Privacy isn't about getting away with illegal things. It's about being able to do what is legal and your business without having to answer to people who have no business questioning you to begin with.
Posted by: HJohn at December 9, 2009 1:08 PM
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
Posted by: RH at December 9, 2009 1:09 PM
Well said, Bruce. I read that essay when you first released it and it's no less true today than it was in 2006.
Another good read in regard to the "nothing to hide" argument is a paper written by Daniel J. Solove, an associate law professor from George Washington University, entitled "'I've Got Nothing to Hide,' And Other Misunderstandings of Privacy". In fact, Solove references Bruce's linked "The Eternal Value of Privacy" essay.
I had hoped that much of the anti-privacy rhetoric in the U.S. would have subsided by now, but alas, no.
Posted by: Archon at December 9, 2009 1:22 PM
Bravo for your stand. Let those who champion "have nothing to hide" be the first to let everyone else examine their private lives (i.e. Congress, the White House, NSA, CIA, FBI et al). Those seemingly in power want all your information but hide behind the very protections that they would deny you, in order to hide their information.
Posted by: kashmarek at December 9, 2009 1:22 PM
And kashmarek... there's also the point that, even if there are folks out there who want to live "the declarative life", whether I do so or not should be a matter of choice for me, not a factor driven by *their* choice.
My own rant on the topic via the URL, if you are interested...
Posted by: Robin Wilton at December 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Is it just me, or can Schmidt's quote be read as having a subtext with a helpful warning. Basically, "if you don't want this seen by anyone else, don't do it in a semi-public forum like the internet, because data on our servers is not 100% under our control and even the most committed dedication to user data privacy can be pushed aside with warrants and invasive legislation".
If he had said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it _online_ in the first place", there'd be no doubt in my mind that was what he meant.
Posted by: Jared Lessl at December 9, 2009 1:45 PM
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
In this case the man is Schmidt, not Bruce :-).
Posted by: JohnJS at December 9, 2009 1:55 PM
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin, 1775
Posted by: John B at December 9, 2009 2:10 PM
One consistently glaring meme is that...
"respectability is inversely proportional to sexuality"
Which means that exposure of this particular biological drive can be used to diminish someone in public life.
(I was tempted to mis-spell "public" in the sentence above but managed to resist doing so but am remarking on it so some folks can smile.)
Posted by: John Campbell at December 9, 2009 2:12 PM
Also see Daniel Solove's paper:
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of PrivacyAvailable here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...Posted by: AlanS at December 9, 2009 2:16 PM
@Jared Lessl:
To outward appearance, this is in fact what he's saying --- no defense against subpoenas, warrants, etc.
Note, however, that this is utterly disingenuous, because it glosses over the fact that nobody forces Google to _keep_ that data. They could delete it immediately, or within a few days. If they did so, the "Law Enforcement Can Make Us Screw You" argument evaporates.
The reason they don't delete the data is, of course, that mining that data for ad targeting is the central core of their business model. That is, Google deliberately creates this privacy vulnerability, because it's how they make money.
Schmidt, who ostensibly believes in "Don't Be Evil", evidently does not regard this fundamentally sociopathic choice as constituting "evil", presumably for the reason encapsulated by the bit of Sinclair quoted above by JohnJS.
It should be noted that it is a mistake to conflate the threat to privacy and liberty from private companies like Google with that from government. In a real sense, the threat from corporations is much more difficult to control: government is ultimately accountable to us, whereas Google is only accountable to its shareholders, who only judge it by whether it makes money.
Posted by: Carlo Graziani at December 9, 2009 2:20 PM
Being self-referential doesn't help your point, Bruce.
Posted by: Marcus Twain at December 9, 2009 2:48 PM
I whole heartedly agree. Those who collect information about us should always make it clear they are doing so, what they are collecting, and why. They should also give an opt-out option if using the services they provide don't require collecting that information. And they should always give an opt-out from the service altogether (or, more appropriately, be opt-in so you are always opting out unless you subscribe). I like google collecting information on my because it gives me far better search results. Some people don't, but they should still be able to get the less accurate results that google can provide. I don't like advertisers collecting that information because they use it to abuse me.
Posted by: Brian at December 9, 2009 2:56 PM
There are a lot of pithy quotes available for intelligent retort. Many of them have been posted here. And the reason there are so many good quotes is most certainly because of the popularity of such an obvious fallacy.
Eric Schmidt is terribly intelligent, and I can't believe he's so foolish as to believe that if you don't want people knowing about your sex life that you shouldn't be having sex. Otherwise, I think we would all invite him to twitter or maintain a live video feed on all his personal and private matters for public consumption and scrutiny. Can we get Tiger to debate this privacy thing? I’m sure he’d be pretty passionate about it.
On a more serious note, as Jared Lessl comments above, I'd like to think that Schmidt's comment governs posting or searching for things on the Internet rather than the actions themselves. That is, don't search for ‘vd’ on google if you don't want people to know or think you have vd. This argument is still full of holes, because it suggests that the very value of the Internet is immediately degraded in relation to the importance of privacy relative to it. Thus, if I believe I may have hemorrhoids, you ought not to search for information about it on the Internet unless you are willing to post a big sign on your home or add the line to your E-mail signature, “I think I might be suffering from hemorrhoids at this time.”
Furthermore, I’d like to note: have you ever met someone who lived under a no-privacy regime before? A lot of them would be considered suffers of delusional paranoia by American standards. They don’t tell anything about themselves and get really nervous if you ask them questions. Growing up in the US, I never would’ve thought that we’d come to a point where unrestricted secret government wiretaps(FISA), torture, and privacy invasion would become hallmarks of American society.
I’m tempted to use the Google Toolkit to write a random search engine that runs in the background, like SETI@Home that runs Google searches with meaningless strings, which in turn pollutes the databases making them so full of junk that they’re useless (yes I understand the limitations here).
Posted by: Robert at December 9, 2009 3:05 PM
Four components of data tracking controls:
Notice - notify people what is being collected and how it will be used.
Choice - people should have the option to not have the data collected, even if it means they are not going to use the site.
Access - people should have a mechanism to correct errant data, and even have data deleted, where appropriate.
Security - data should be secured, where appropriate.
Not perfect, but in a nutshell that would improve a lot of it.
Posted by: HJohn at December 9, 2009 3:07 PM
A great response Bruce.
Quantum Mechanics says when you observe a thing, it changes. People are the same way.The simple act of observation changes people's behavior. Political parties/groups recently have been taking pictures of people protesting and even our government is guilty of this behavior in the past.
I saw video of a protest and an activist was shoving a camera literally inches from someone's face and taking pictures of everybody. I am not sure how I would have reacted. As far as I'm concerned, it's intimidation.
I genuinely wonder where privacy and discourse are headed in this country. Everything that is done to protect us from pedos, terrorists, etc. I'm far more likely to be hit by lightning from my PC than be hurt in attack. If you have nothing to hide? Everyone who makes that statement should be issued a camera and made to walk everywhere broadcasting the live feed. Hey, John sounds like you need to eat more fiber....
Posted by: jacob at December 9, 2009 3:09 PM
I bet I'm not the only person who's seen a term (like "420") on the net and looked up the meaning on google.
Posted by: extra helping of 419 at December 9, 2009 3:49 PM
If Eric Schmidt thinks so little of privacy, then he wouldn't mind if someone stalked him with a camera and posted pics to the internet of his bathroom and/or bedroom ventures, right?
From a search engine perspective, so what if I search for VD. Maybe my kid is doing a book report for the GLSEN fisting class. Maybe I had a keyboard malfunction or mistyped.
God love her, but my wife was screaming in terror a few months ago - she went to "dicks.com" looking for Dick's Sporting Goods and didn't like the results. Should that make her a sex offender? Searching for "dicks" doesn't mean I'm gay or some kind of pervert - I could be innocently looking for Dick's Sporting Goods.
Posted by: derf at December 9, 2009 3:58 PM
"f you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. " - that can be an interesting criteria when you look at your own actions, but it only works under the assumption that those who will know what you do won't do anything *they* shouldn't do, like abuse their power. Which brings me exactly to your first sentence.
Posted by: Anna at December 9, 2009 4:03 PM
Things can always be taken out of context as well. Any off handed comments out of anger can be called motive, for example. (A text reads "Ugh, he makes me so mad I could kill him!" Next, you have Gil Grisson saying "was it really an accident, or were the brakes tampered with.")
There is also the very real issue of mistakes. Just last night, I went to book a hotel and instead of typing HotWire.com, I typed HotWife.com.
Posted by: HJohn at December 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Didn't Google blacklist all CNET reporters for a year, after it published personal information about Eric Schmidt?
Posted by: Stephen at December 9, 2009 4:22 PM
iGoogle personalizes your Google homepage! What users fail to realize is it links your username to your search history providing a complete search record mapped to your email address. Know what your signing up for as even legit technologies have privacy pitfalls.
Posted by: Anonymous Dude at December 9, 2009 4:39 PM
Just want to say one thing to your blog - amen, brother!
Posted by: spaceman spiff at December 9, 2009 4:52 PM
Did you ever notice, many will say or act as if privacy is not an issue. Of course, this only true until it comes to their or their family's own privacy. Then you here, "But that's different! My response, "Bravo Sierra"
Posted by: Grumpy at December 9, 2009 4:56 PM
Robert : Can we get Tiger to debate this privacy thing? I’m sure he’d be pretty passionate about it.
The fact that are jokes doing the rounds that call him
Tiger "10 Woodie" Wood
I think answers the question...
Posted by: Hey Nony Mouse at December 9, 2009 5:02 PM
We were all brought up in fear of the ever present Eye. 1984's television's with built in cameras that allowed the state to see all, and control all.
The truth turned out to be a little different. Yes, there are cameras everywhere, there is one in my laptop's casing, there is one in my phone. I expect there to be cameras every where, turned on all the time.
And I expect we will find out that a lot of people who have not been practicing what they preach.
Posted by: Brett Morgan at December 9, 2009 5:09 PM
In reality it is not about privacy or security or even freedom.
It is about the contempt those with significant money hold the rest of the population.
I'm told that in the US "personal data" belongs to whom ever collects it.
You then find that to get any type of good or service you "have" to hand over "personal data".
It has reached the point where it is not possible to exist in modern society without being "held to ransom" by those wishing to profit from your "personal data".
The various 1st world governments are just climbing on the band waggon.
We already see "Police Interviews" being put out on TV and "snippits of CCTV" footage being used to make programs.
As I said it is "contempt of the fellow man" anybody with any kind of morals would realise that this is wrong.
However you try to fight by treating these people with the same level of contempt and you will find they can afford to buy their privacy through lawyers etc.
Posted by: Clive Robinson at December 9, 2009 5:16 PM
I'm with Jared Lessl on this one.
Sorry Bruce: I'm positive you know far more then I do about internet security, but this is about assuming someone is self-contradicting. I can't agree with you on that one. Eric Schmidt knows this way too well to have said that in the way you interpret it. If anyone in power has secrets he'd like to keep safe, it's him: I've heard about (former) mistresses, Burning Man, etc. He's been a victim of that.
He cannot publicly oppose the Patriot Act, but he certainly would rather avoid what he describes. He can be honest about it and explain that the services his company provide are dependant on a business model that demands that he keeps data a long time, and that the laws in most countries can force him to share that data. He's asking people to be reasonable because otherwise, he'd be the one getting the blame for an absurd law, set up by an Administration he disapproved of.
He's not wrong, simply an adult talking to adults: he doesn't control the law, so you should behave accordingly, instead of blaming him whatever he does, says or keeps silent. If you have issues with that, write to the person who can take a decision; that would be your MP or congressman.
Posted by: Bertil Hatt at December 9, 2009 5:50 PM
Privacy is also about shielding yourself from those that might not show proper respect.
Ironically, the perpetrators of the western capitalistic system (those in power) are the ones who build the biggest walls and keep the longest passwords because they have most to loose.
Posted by: Anton at December 9, 2009 6:02 PM
great post, thanks for writing out what I'm sure many people feel
Posted by: neal at December 9, 2009 6:05 PM
That's a big heads up for any Google users in Iran and China: "maybe you shouldn't be [demanding liberty] in the first place".
Or closer to home: If you insist on keeping santas gifts a secret all the way to Christmas you're probably a bad boy! No pudding for you!
Posted by: Sven at December 9, 2009 6:06 PM
There have to be studies on animal behavior and what happens when you remove privacy from an animal's living condition. I'm specifically thinking about research involving primates in zoos. My hypothesis is that privacy is an inherent need in all primates, and that, without privacy, a primate will develop psychological disorders. There must be some research on this topic that could be very persuasive.
Posted by: D at December 9, 2009 6:09 PM
Go live in a university apartment in China for a while, teaching english or something. You'll certainly get to value the idea of privacy. Some examples: The guards at the school gates phone someone whenever they see you leaving. People follow you around (without approaching to try and practise English with you). The phones in your apartment can listen while they're on the hook. You know when a student in your class has been told to phone someone if you don't turn up or leave early: the other students hear about it and suddenly lose respect for you, and when you get home, your apartment's been walked thru. One time I left some money hidden in my apartment: it didn't take long for my only break-in to occur.
As you say, privacy laws protect us from abuses by those in power.Posted by: Mr Dreng at December 9, 2009 6:14 PM
@Bertil Hatt:
Again, that's a disingenuous excuse. Yes, the Feds can compel disclosures. But no, the Feds don't mandate that that data be retained in the first place. Google's business plan mandates that.
Google mines that data and turns it into revenue. In essence, they deliberately choose to place the privacy of people who use their service in potential legal jeopardy, because they make money that way.
Google could easily Fed-proof everybody's personal data, by deleting it after a day or two, or at least by anonymizing it beyond reconstruction. They _choose_ not to do so.
The business about the authorities having power of compulsion is a red herring. I'm sure Schmidt would prefer the discussion to remain on the subject of government authority rather than on the subject of Google's privacy-hostile business model
Posted by: Carlo Graziani at December 9, 2009 6:14 PM
How much personal information about Eric Schmidt is available
via Google? Can you see his house on StreetView, etc.?
That should be a good indication if he walks the walk, or
if he just talks the talk.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mouse at December 9, 2009 6:36 PM
Right on, Bruce.
Foolish comments like that of Mr. Schmidt indicate the danger that could occur if the world becomes a hydraulic empire. The Internet has become necessary to us all. What will happen if attitudes like this allow it to come under the control of the would-be Big Brothers who administer the mediacracies we find ourselves in?
Posted by: Arthur Klassen at December 9, 2009 6:39 PM
Amen, amen, and amen.
It is totally frightening to see the influence that Google has at the White House.
Posted by: Dierdre58 at December 9, 2009 7:17 PM
Everyone knows what Google's business model is and how it generates revenue. If you don't like that Google collects information on you, stop using it. It's pretty simple. Good luck finding another search engine, email provider, etc that doesn't keep records on you, logs your traffic, etc. Privacy on the internet is a myth
Posted by: Casey01 at December 9, 2009 8:30 PM
I'm not a philosopher, so maybe I don't understand "freedom". I live a rather declarative live; I have a Nexus card so I can cross the border faster, which means the government(s) have my fingerprints and know when I cross. I book airfare on Expedia, and I usually blog about my travel plans. But it seems pretty likely to me that the idea of privacy of information is the basic principle for the Fourth Amendment and that people who are philosophers consider this necessary to a free society.
However I think the problem is understood. It's not about whether or not the government should have access to personal information, it's that the government, and corporations and even individuals, can obtain a lot of information to wield power over others. As consumers and citizens, we need to demand that corporations and governments be prevented from using technology that infringes on our core elements of privacy. Among other things, privacy is an essential component of freedom of religion and freedom of association. That's only going to work when we vote with our ballots and our wallets. When politicians' jobs depend on providing privacy, not just security, and when companies can make a profit by respecting people's privacy (or lose profit by not respecting it), then we'll start seeing solutions that work for us. I do have confidence in the ingenuity of the private sector. I have less confidence in the intelligence of consumers and voters to demand their freedom. That could mean a two-tier society where the elites get privacy and the masses don't.
If privacy becomes a commodity, I can probably make enough money to afford it, but I'd still prefer it to be considered an aspect of basic social infrastructure, not just a privilege of the rich.
Posted by: Alex von Thorn at December 9, 2009 9:16 PM
Some of you may be interested in the thread at webmasterworld: http://bit.ly/4GdXmK - GOOG has decided on an opt-in-by-default policy, for tracking your searches, even when you're NOT logged on to a GOOG account.
Thus, when you search on GOOG, you're agreeing to their Terms Of Service upon the first click! (Have you seen their Terms Of Service, and what the TOS say about what information is being stored about you, for how long?)
You might well want to consider a different search engine.
Posted by: fjpoblam at December 9, 2009 9:56 PM
Here is my object lesson in privacy. Take heed.
I have had an unlisted phone number since 1983. In 1989 I was on an e-mail list and I sent a fellow list member my home phone number. Remember, 1989: no Web, not even Gopher yet. Just e-mail.
Somebody archived that mailing list, and sometime during the 1990's Google snarfed it up.
Despite being unlisted for over a quarter of a century, it is possible to search Google and find my current home phone number.
When somebody tells you your privacy is safe, keep in mind it is only safe from threats that presently exist. In 1989 I could not imagine that Google posed a threat to the privacy of my phone number. But it did!
Posted by: Albatross at December 9, 2009 10:21 PM
"Go live in a university apartment in China for a while"
One would have to be BATSHIT INSANE to want to go somewhere like CHINA!
Posted by: flapping arms not lips at December 9, 2009 10:37 PM
here here! well said.
keep up the good fight, we are still owed the right to privacy our forefathers saw as a basic tenet of american democracy.Posted by: mike davis at December 9, 2009 11:10 PM
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT.
via schneier.com
