TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Dear Eric, the proper response is I'm sorry

75 点作者 mattjung大约 15 年前

8 条评论

Silhouette大约 15 年前
Whenever privacy as a topic comes up in discussions on the forums I follow, a lot of people chime in with a fairly dismissive "no harm, no foul" kind of attitude. They don't mind the Eric Schmidts and Jonathan Schwartzes and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world proclaiming the death of privacy, because apparently no-one in the Facebook generation cares.<p>It's odd how when something like this becomes public, when everyday, non-geek people actually appreciate the implications of what is going on, there never seems to be a shortage of people who care, and whatever Schmidt says there obviously are examples of real harm being done.<p>I have been saying for a while that I think privacy and data protection will have to get worse before they get better. Right now, our societies are drifting into a situation where governments and megacorps can build databases for whatever purpose they want, because as long as that is all they are doing, the average guy in the street doesn't know or care.<p>But as we are seeing increasingly frequently now, those databases are subject to both deliberate abuse and accidental compromise. There can be consequences for very large numbers of people and/or very serious consequences for some of those people.<p>We need serious laws, with company-destroying penalties attached, to protect the privacy of individuals and regulate the collection of any kind of potentially sensitive, personally identifiable data in any database, and we need them <i>before</i> the frog is dead.
评论 #1137068 未加载
评论 #1136993 未加载
评论 #1136807 未加载
评论 #1137082 未加载
andybak大约 15 年前
He's not very good as the public face of Google, is he?<p>Especially as his privacy blind spot corresponds to the one PR topic that has the ability to genuinely harm Google.<p>I wonder why the geek-friendly faces of Sergey and Larry don't appear more often and why someone doesn't persuade Eric to stay in his lair, errr, office a bit more.
评论 #1136750 未加载
philk大约 15 年前
I get the feeling that Eric doesn't always remember he's in PR and that no prizes are awarded for arguing with the company's critics.<p>He should really stick to simple, upbeat, sympathetic messages. To be honest I'm surprised he didn't learn that after his last privacy debacle.
评论 #1136900 未加载
rabidgnat大约 15 年前
If I had to guess, Eric Schmidt thinks he can't apologize. At this point, they've set a big precedent: they're willing to automatically network you based on information that you've given them. If they apologized, they'd have to neuter future roll-outs and remove this automatic user base, removing a major competitive advantage. How many other businesses have products that are popular enough to piggyback a social network? Not many. Google can, and they want to keep it that way.
dc2k08大约 15 年前
The level of outrage being directed at google over this seems to be far greater than that directed at facebook when they made a lot of their users' information public by default.
评论 #1136872 未加载
评论 #1136754 未加载
评论 #1136806 未加载
评论 #1136745 未加载
amix大约 15 年前
Eric Schmidt is painting a pretty grim picture, especially when considering his other views on privacy:<p>"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." - Eric Schmidt
评论 #1136909 未加载
评论 #1136928 未加载
protomyth大约 15 年前
At some point the extreme conclusion of what happened to the lady with the violent ex will happen. Once you pass a certain number of users you need to expect people using your service aren't that computer savvy and really aren't going to spend the time doing more than the bare minimum to use your service (e.g. check e-mail, post a picture for friends). After all, a lot of people are put on these services by their tech savvy children or siblings who spend the bare minimum of time setting up a todo list or basic tutoring on how to use this service for its basic purpose. It seems pretty much a bad idea to change the rules and not think of the implications to a more public revealing of data to world for these people. Particularly when you take what is generally regarded as a private service (e-mail) and turn it into a public service.
Create大约 15 年前
bs. GOOG is business, not personal -- inherently no privacy.<p>Along with the running-up fanfare of "privacy settings", GOOG knows exactly what it is doing.<p>And the title just emphasizes cynicism: It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.