Russia Threatens To Go To War With Google Over Stupid Comments By Eric Schmidt

from the what-a-mess dept

What a world we live in, where a giant country and a giant company may be about to go to war. At a security conference, Alphabet "executive chairman" Eric Schmidt made some fairly dumb comments saying that the company was looking at downranking sites like RT and Sputnik:

“We’re working on detecting this kind of scenario ... and de-ranking those kinds of sites,” Schmidt said, in response to a question at an event in Halifax, Canada. “It’s basically RT and Sputnik. We’re well aware and we’re trying to engineer the systems to prevent it.”

To be clear: I have no doubt that RT and Sputnik have engaged in attempts to push anti-US propaganda in the US. That seems fairly obvious at this point. My concern is twofold: first of all, saying that "it's basically RT and Sputnik" suggests Schmidt thinks that the issue is just those two sites and merely downranking them will solve problems related to propaganda. That's both wrong and naive. Second, having the executive chair of Google's parent company directly announce that Google is working on ways to downrank two specific sites is bad. Part of Google's longstanding position has always been that they don't interfere to go after specific sites, in part because that creates a massive slippery slope. Of course, Google gave up on part of that position five years ago when it caved in to Hollywood and agreed to start downranking sites based on accusations (not actual convictions) of copyright infringement.

Directly coming out and saying that Google is targeting these two sites -- no matter how bad those sites are -- only reinforces the idea that Google will ideologically rank sites, rather than focus on what was its core mission of helping people find the information they were looking for.

And, of course, there are the wider implications of this -- whereby you now have the head of Russia's media regulator Roskomnadzor, threatening to retaliate should Google actually downrank those sites:

Alexander Zharov, head of media regulator Roskomnadzor, said his agency sent a letter to Google on Tuesday requesting clarification on comments Saturday by Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt about how the Russian websites would be treated in search, according to Interfax.

“We will receive an answer and understand what to do next,” Interfax quoted Zharov as saying. “We hope our opinion will be heard, and we won’t have to resort to more serious” retaliatory measures.

Now that's quite an interesting SEO strategy, to have a nuclear power threaten retaliation for dropping in the rankings. Never mind that this is the same Roskomnadzor currently involved in a corruption scandal, and which has been pushing forward on widespread internet censorship without due process.

The whole thing seems like quite a mess -- one that easily could have been avoided if Schmidt hadn't specifically called out those two sites, which, at best, are only a small corner of a larger issue. It would have been fine to suggest that Google was looking to algorithmically do a better job of minimizing false reports or outright propaganda (though, even that might raise serious questions). But to single out two specific sites backed by the Russian government just seems dumb. On the flip side, having Roskomnadzor hit back so strongly also seems fairly short-sighted, as it appears to be the Russian government more or less admitting that it relied on US companies to spread propaganda, and it won't tolerate efforts to diminish the power of its propaganda.

Of course, it does seem worth noting that three years ago, Google shut down its Russian office just as Russia picked up its efforts to censor the internet in that country. So it's not as if Google and the Russian government haven't been at odds before -- but this certainly feels like an escalation.

Filed Under: downranking, eric schmidt, fake news, propagranda, roskomnadzor, rozkomnadzor, russia
Companies: alphabet, google, rt, sputnik

DailyDirt: Open The Door, HAL Siri Computer

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Artificially intelligent assistants are everywhere in science fiction, and they're slowly creeping into reality. However, most of the time, these things are limited to answering simple questions like "what's the weather?" or "who won the Super Bowl?" And even then, simple questions don't always return the desired simple answer. Still, we must press on because technology will only get better. Here are just a few more digital assistants that are going to be fighting for your attention someday.

• Mark Zuckerberg wants to build a digital assistant "like Jarvis in Iron Man" to do his bidding. This little goal doesn't sound like a sci-fi movie plot at all, but at least Zuckerberg says he'll be careful about not creating something that'll turn evil. [url]
• Eric Schmidt wants a "Not-Eric" AI helper to tackle some hard problems (not just play Go) and do some mundane tasks, too. Maybe we'll get a version of a "White Christmas" someday, and we'll get perfect little copies of ourselves to make everything easier and more convenient.... [url]
• If you're not too impressed by Siri, maybe you'll like her "sister" Viv a bit more? It's been a while since Bill Gates predicted ubiquitous speech recognition, and it still hasn't exactly happened. Autonomous cars will probably be driving us around before they're able to reliably carry on a conversation about anything as helpful as a human taxi/uber driver. [url]
• The mainstream AI assistants so far are named Alexa, Cortana, Facebook M (but maybe M stands for Mechanical Turk...), Google Now and Siri. Baidu also has one named Duer that speaks Mandarin, but it's aimed at helping people order stuff and not necessarily for more general search inquiries. Regardless, all of these AI assistants will be trying to listen to us all the time, and hopefully, they won't learn how to read lips when we're plotting to turn them off. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, alexa, artificial intelligence, bill gates, cortana, digital assistants, duer, eric schmidt, facebook m, google now, hal 9000, jarvis, mark zuckerberg, siri, speech recognition, user interface, viv
Companies: amazon, apple, baidu, facebook, google, ibm, microsoft

Eric Schmidt Suggests Building A 'Spell Checker' For Online Harassment And Other Bad Things Online

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Google's executive chairperson Eric Schmidt has an opinion piece in the NY Times, in which he advocates partly for an internet that is more widely available and enabling greater freedom of expression... but also one where there are "spell-checker" like tools to identify bad stuff online like harassment and ISIS videos:

Authoritarian governments tell their citizens that censorship is necessary for stability. It’s our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free expression go hand in hand. We should make it ever easier to see the news from another country’s point of view, and understand the global consciousness free from filter or bias. We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice. Without this type of leadership from government, from citizens, from tech companies, the Internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people, and the wrong voices.

This is one of those "sounds good when you say it, but what does it really mean" kind of statements. In some ways, you could argue that his statement is almost self-contradictory. We should make it easier to see news and information from another country's point of view... unless that point of view is one we've declared to be terrorists. As easy as it is to agree with that general sentiment -- I'd prefer a world without ISIS and other terrorist groups, certainly -- it leaves open the possibility for widespread abuse. Don't like a particular group or country? Just declare them terrorists, and *shooop* down they go through the internet memory hole.

And this is the problem with these kinds of feel good suggestions. So much is dependent on the idea that there is some objective standard for "good" content that is okay that we should all share and "bad" content that is evil and should be taken down. Where you draw that line can be quite different for nearly everyone, and if you're in a position of serious power, drawing that line can result in dangerous abuses of power.

That's why I still think a much better solution is to separate out the layers a bit. A few months ago, I talked about the importance of protocols instead of platforms. Separate out the content from the platforms, and then let many others create tools that can filter that content in different ways. Then each individual can decide for themselves which tools they want to use to create their own internet experience. Someone could create that kind of "anti-harassment/anti-terrorist" filter tool, and people who want to use it are free to do so, but it doesn't impact the experience of others. Where things get tricky is -- as the internet gets more centralized, the platforms are also in charge of the filters. When that happens there are inevitable mistakes and abuses, leading to censorship and voices being silenced.

Filed Under: eric schmidt, filters, free speech, harassment, spell checker
Companies: google

Tech Execs Express Extreme Concern That NSA Surveillance Could Lead To 'Breaking' The Internet

from the moral,-economic-and-patriotic dept

As mentioned, on Wednesday I attended a tech exec panel held at Palo Alto High School (in the high school gym, which was a weird sort of setting for such a high powered gathering of folks -- complete with gym echoes, and school bells buzzing, at one point leading a bunch of students to stream out to lunch just as Google's Eric Schmidt started talking). You can see the video of the event here where the sound is actually much, much clearer than in the gym itself, where the buzzing old lights made it nearly impossible to hear half of the panelists). Nothing necessarily earth-shattering was said by anyone, but it did involve a series of high powered tech execs absolutely slamming the NSA and the intelligence community, and warning of the vast repercussions from that activity, up to and including potentially splintering or "breaking" the internet by causing people to so distrust the existing internet, that they set up separate networks on their own.

The execs repeated the same basic points over and over again. They had been absolutely willing to work with law enforcement when and where appropriate based on actual court orders and review -- but that the government itself completely poisoned the well with its activities, including hacking into the transmission lines between overseas datacenters. Thus, as Eric Schmidt noted, if the NSA and other law enforcement folks are "upset" about Google and others suddenly ramping up their use of encryption and being less willing to cooperate with the government, they only have themselves to blame for completely obliterating any sense of trust.

Microsoft's Brad Smith, towards the end, made quite an impassioned plea -- it sounded more like a politician's stump speech -- about the need for rebuilding trust in the internet. It's at about an hour and 3 minutes into the video. He points out that while people had expected Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act, the rise of ISIS and other claimed threats has some people scared, but, he notes:

We need to look the world's dangers in the face. And we need to resolve that we will not allow the dangers of the world to freeze this country in its tracks. We need to recognize that antiquated laws will not keep the public safe. We need to recognize that laws that the rest of the world does not respect will ultimately undermine the fundamental ability of our own legal processes, law enforcement agencies and even the intelligence community itself. At the end of the day, we need to recognize... the one asset that the US has which is even stronger than our military might is our moral authority. And this decline in trust, has not only effected people's trust in American technology products. It has effected people's willingness to trust the leadership of the United States. If we are going to win the war on terror. If we are going to keep the public safe. If we are going to improve American competitiveness, we need Congress to stay on the path it's set. We need Congress to finish in December the job the President put before Congress in January.

It was a good talk, and it basically was a chance for all these tech execs to express similar concerns and to do so loudly. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the tech industry was complacent on these issues in the past, that they were too trusting (often way too trusting) of the government, that they should have started from a position of distrust and should have encrypted everything possible from the get go. Frankly, those are very legitimate criticisms. But, it's pretty clear that these tech companies are now pissed off at the government and the fact that it undermined everything, including their own businesses around the globe -- and they're determined to win back the trust of the public, whether or not the government is willing to cooperate. I find that encouraging, though I'd still like to see pretty much all of the companies do even more on the encryption front.

As I said, there wasn't anything earth shattering, but it's clear that these companies have all seen the impact from the government's overbroad surveillance efforts, and they're not just concerned about it from their direct bottom line, but what it means for the overall internet. Multiple execs talked about not just moral authority, as Smith mentioned, but the moral imperative to use the internet to create greater connectivity and raise the ability of people around the globe -- and how much more difficult the NSA had made things.

I know that some cynical folks will claim this is all for show. But there is a real concern that comes across here about just how devastating the NSA's actions have been (and continue to be). Schmidt was absolutely right that if law enforcement and the intelligence community is upset about it, they only have themselves to blame.

Filed Under: brad smith, economy, eric schmidt, nsa, ron wyden, surveillance, trust
Companies: google, microsoft

Ron Wyden, Tech Company Execs To Discuss The Impact Of NSA Surveillance On The Digital Economy

from the come-on-by dept

We've talked plenty about the near total failure of the NSA and others in the intelligence community to consider the costs associated with their "collect it all" mentality. Much of the intelligence community's views seem based on the idea that the surveillance efforts would always remain totally secret. The NSA, in particular, appears to have never thought it possible that something like the Snowden revelations might happen, and the intelligence community still seems to be scrambling to figure out what to do in response. In the meantime, however, the impact on the internet has been very real and ongoing. Senator Ron Wyden -- who was one of very, very, very few politicians in DC to be talking out (loudly) about this prior to Snowden -- is coming to Silicon Valley tomorrow for what looks to be quite a discussion with some top execs from the tech industry about the "impact of mass surveillance on the digital economy."

With Senator Wyden will be Google chairman Eric Schmidt, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch, Dropbox General Counsel Ramsey Homsany and Greylocks' John Lilly (former Mozilla CEO). In other words, it's a pretty high level gathering -- and it's open to the public. I'll be there to cover it for Techdirt, but for anyone in Silicon Valley, feel free to register to attend.

Filed Under: eric schmidt, nsa, ron wyden, surveillance, tech industry

Google States Unequivocally It Was 'Attacked' By The Chinese... And By The United States

from the with-friends-like-these dept

Among the biggest revelations made by the Snowden documents so far was of course the fact that in addition to negotiating with companies like Yahoo and Google for user data via the front door (PRISM), the NSA was also busy covertly hacking into the links between company data centers for good measure (trust is the cornerstone of any good relationship, you know). The moves pretty clearly pissed off Google engineers, who swore at the agency and immediately began speeding up the already-underway process of encrypting traffic flowing between data centers.

Speaking at South By Southwest, Google's Eric Schmidt for the first time (that I'm aware of) unequivocally stated that what the NSA did wasn't just surveillance or your garden variety hack -- it was a direct attack on one of the United States' most successful companies:

"The solution to this is to encrypt data at multiple points of source. We had already been doing this, but we accelerated our activities," he said. "We’re pretty sure right now that the information that’s inside of Google is safe from any government’s prying eyes, including the US government’s… We were attacked by the Chinese in 2010, we were attacked by the NSA in 2013. These are facts."

You're the executive chairman of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world and you're "pretty sure" Google's internal networks are secure? Somehow I doubt that's the case, given the fact that most of us forget we're already working off of antiquated information provided by Snowden, and the NSA could have developed an unknown number of additional attack vectors since then. There's only so much that the cat and mouse game of security can accomplish without the kind of meaningful intelligence oversight the United States government has made very clear they're entirely disinterested in.

Last fall Schmidt stated that Google had briefly considered moving servers outside of the United States to avoid the NSA before the logistical nightmare (and likely futility given NSA's reach and the even greater lack of oversight) of that concept had time to sink in. The reality is that no matter the endless analysis and constant promises of both companies and industry, we'll probably have to wait until the next whistle blower emerges before we have any accurate, current idea of just how little privacy we currently possess.

Filed Under: china, edward snowden, eric schmidt, nsa, prism, sxsw
Companies: google

Tech Company Officials Meet With Obama Officially About Healthcare.gov, But Focus On NSA Surveillance Instead

from the good-to-see dept

It came out yesterday that President Obama was scheduled to meet privately with a group of "tech" execs officially about the status of the healthcare.gov website. However, as some expected, it appeared that the meeting focused much more on the NSA's overreach and the need for reforms. While somewhat disappointing that the meeting was held privately, it looks like the execs made it clear that the NSA surveillance efforts were doing a lot more harm than good and something needed to change.

Schmidt, of Google, opened the meeting and laid out industry officials' concerns. Obama seemed sympathetic to the idea of allowing more disclosure of government surveillance requests by technology companies, according to a tech industry official who was briefed on the meeting. The official asked to remain anonymous because the meeting was private.

Mayer, the Yahoo! executive, brought up concerns about the potentially negative impact that could be caused if countries, such as Brazil, move forward with legislation that would require service providers to ensure that data belonging to a citizen of a certain country remain in the country it originates, the official said.

That would require technology companies to build data centers in each country — a costly problem for American Internet companies, the official said. The White House noted in a statement after the meeting that the group discussed the "economic impacts of unauthorized intelligence disclosures."

We've been saying since the Snowden leaks first came out that the tech industry needed to be a lot more vocal about how bad the NSA's actions are for pretty much everyone, so it's good to see at least some effort to continue to push that story. Of course, the list of attendees also includes AT&T's Randall Stephenson -- and AT&T has been one of the companies most complicit in the NSA's activities, something the company refuses to talk about, and unlike the actual tech companies, seems completely unwilling to address.

Filed Under: barack obama, eric schmidt, healthcare.gov, marissa mayer, nsa, nsa surveillance, randall stephenson, surveillance
Companies: at&t, google, yahoo

Eric Schmidt Claims Google Considered Moving Its Servers Out Of The US To Avoid The NSA

from the that-would-be-big dept

We've been hearing more and more reports that many folks within Google are incredibly angry over the NSA's activities, some of which has bubbled up already. There have been some questions, though, about whether those attitudes go all the way up the management chain, so it's interesting to see Google's chairman, Eric Schmidt, now claiming that the company actually considered taking all its servers out of the US in the wake of the NSA revelations.

Google, the giant of the Internet, thought about moving its servers out of the U.S. after the NSA debacle, said Eric Schmidt, the company's chairman, on Friday at the Paley International Council Summit in New York.

"Actually, we thought about that and there are many, many reasons why it's impossible for Google to leave the United States, although it's attractive," Schmidt said.

"But the reason it's an interesting idea is because American firms are subject to these rules, the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] rules, Patriot Act and so forth, and this government surveillance is really a problem."

Of course, what Google probably realized is that, once out of the US, the NSA actually has more powers to spy on anything with basically no oversight. At least in the US, there are some (if minimal) restrictions, and there are at least some ways to fight back. Still, it would be quite a statement for a company like Google to make that kind of a move, and again would highlight just how much of a bad business impact all this NSA spying can have on American companies.

The real question is how much will Google continue to do in response to these revelations. Many, many people don't trust the company, and taking a strong stand to protect its users privacy and to push back against government surveillance is going to be necessary, or the company runs a real risk of driving many people to other services that promise to be more secure.

Filed Under: eric schmidt, nsa, servers, surveillance, us
Companies: google

Google Announces More Child Porn Blocking Efforts While David Cameron Offers To Throw The GCHQ At The Problem

from the a-worthy-cause-backed-by-terrible-ideas-and-legislation dept

Over the weekend, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt wrote an editorial touting the search engine's "new" efforts to battle child porn. It appeared in, of all places, the Daily Mail, presumably so the paper could write a self-congratulatory piece declaring its victory over Google (and child pornographers, too, I guess…)

What Schmidt details in his op-ed isn't really news at all, for the most part. Google has proactively blocked illegal images from appearing in search results for years now. It has also used human beings to help its algorithms filter illegal content, something which has an undeniable deleterious effect on those willing to do this horrific job. In fact, Schmidt points out as much.

That's why internet companies like Google and Microsoft have been working with law enforcement for years to stop paedophiles sharing illegal pictures on the web.

We actively remove child sexual abuse imagery from our services and immediately report abuse to the authorities. This evidence is regularly used to prosecute and convict criminals.

The pressure to do something "more" has stemmed from UK Prime Minister David Cameron's assault on the internet in general. Cameron has successfully pushed through a plan that forces ISPs to filter porn out by default and, thanks to a couple of high profile child murders, has decided that search engines just aren't doing enough to keep child pornography away from those looking to view it. Google has always been the name thrown around, even though Google has been actively working with child protection agencies to filter results by keywords and turn over information to local law enforcement agencies. So, a majority of Schmidt's op-ed is given over to explaining processes and tactics Google has had deployed for quite some time.

One thing Cameron asked for specifically is now being implemented by Google.

We're now showing warnings – from both Google and charities – at the top of our search results for more than 13,000 queries. These alerts make clear that child sexual abuse is illegal and offer advice on where to get help.

Google is also lending its technical expertise to the Internet Watch Foundation and the US Center for Missing and Exploited Children in order to help them find victims and prosecute offenders.

All of these are generally good ideas, although the Mail's hurry to take credit for steps Google has implemented for years is rather unseemly. The key here is "generally." There's nothing wrong with what Google's doing other than a) child porn mostly travels below the "surface" and b) what little is there that's discoverable by Google's crawlers will now join the rest of it "underground." This may separate the truly stupid from illegal images but it will have little to no effect on the purveyors of child porn, who have stayed under the Google radar for years. If anything, it eliminates the "low hanging fruit," making law enforcement's efforts that much tougher.

David Cameron seems to think this is a major victory as well -- a triumph of political muscle over internet architecture. He starts off with this unverifiable claim.

'Google and Microsoft have come a long way,' Mr Cameron added. 'A recent deterrence campaign from Google led to a 20 per cent drop off in people trying to find illegal content, so we know this sort of action will make a difference.

'Both companies have made clear to me that they share my commitment to stop child abuse content from being available not only in the UK but across the world.

A 20% drop off means 20% of people seeking child porn are now using methods other than Google/Bing searches. That's about all that means without an accompanying percentage increase in arrests and convictions. Blocking doesn't keep people from wanting the blocked content. It only pushes them to use other tactics.

Then Cameron makes this ridiculous/frightening statement.

'If the search engines are unable to deliver on their commitment to prevent child abuse material being returned from search terms used by paedophiles, I will bring forward legislation that will ensure it happens…

I believe we are heading in right direction but no-one should be in doubt that there is a red line: if more isn't done to stop illegal content or pathways being found when you use a child abuse search term, we will do what is necessary to protect our children.'

Cameron still wants to be the one to ultimately decide whether search engines are doing "enough" to block illegal images. No effort along these lines will ever be able to completely block illegal images, so this legislation is all but inevitable. The fallacy here is that Cameron thinks legislation can do what search engines can't: provide 100% blocking. This falls in line with his thinking on "regular" porn blocking at the ISP level: an impossibility made "possible" by government intervention.

Cameron chased this with more bad news. He's planning on bringing GCHQ (the UK's NSA) on board to dig through the "dark net" for child pornographers.

"There's been a lot in the news recently about the techniques, ability and brilliance of the people involved in the intelligence community, in GCHQ and the NSA in America. That expertise is going to be brought to bear to go after these revolting people sharing these images [of child abuse] on the dark net, and making them available more widely," the prime minister said.

"You use technology which is able to get into the dark internet, that is able to decrypt encrypted files, and that is able to find out what is going on. Like all these things if you put in the resources and the effort, if you use the best brains – the brains that are, as it were, the inheritors to the people that decrypted the Enigma code in the second world war – if you take those brains, and apply it to the problem of tackling child abuse online, you'll get results.

"I'm confident, having sat in the cabinet room, listening to the internet service providers, and having listened to the national crime agency, having talked to the team that are going to be negotiating with the Americans to work out how we best bring our joint expertise to bear on this, I'm confident that we can make some real progress."

One would assume that's what the FBI and Scotland Yard are for. To call for the GHCQ and NSA to be given even more unfettered access to internet communications is very disturbing, especially considering this exceeds both agencies' "national security" directives. Putting two agencies with incredible capabilities and little oversight on the trail of other criminals hidden in the "dark net" is a bad idea. Anyone who thinks the GCHQ/NSA troll for child pornographers will start and end with just those criminals is delusional.

Once they're in there, it's a free-for-all. Suspects will be brought to trial only to find out the evidence against them can't be revealed for "security" reasons, leaving them under-equipped to mount a credible defense. This would also play into the agencies' mindset that those utilizing privacy protections and encryption are "criminals/terrorists" because using either means they've got "something to hide." Giving these agencies the go-ahead to pursue something other than threats to national security is a terrible idea.

When asked about the potential for privacy violations that may occur if the GCHQ is allowed to run wild in the "dark net," Cameron responded with this non sequitur.

"[P]eople understand that a crime is a crime whether it's committed on the street or the internet".

I'm not really sure what Cameron's asserting here, other than the potential to uncover criminal activity outweighs any privacy concerns, whether on the the internet or in the street. This mentality explains the massive amount of cameras the UK government has deployed over the past decade. The NSA (and GCHQ) has made the same argument in terms of national security -- privacy violations are just the price citizens have to pay to be protected from terrorism. Here we see it being deployed (slightly reworded) to justify the expansion of the GCHQ's purview.

Google may be taking the "lead" in blocking child porn, but that's only because it's already been active in that area for years. Judging from the PM's past, it's hard to believe these latest efforts will ultimately satisfy Cameron. We can probably expect a legislated "solution" within the next few years, especially if the world provides a tragedy or two to capitalize on.

Filed Under: child porn, david cameron, eric schmidt, filters, gchq, search, uk
Companies: google

Eric Schmidt Still A Fan Of Figuring Out A Way To Erase The Past

from the seems-more-likely-to-become-more-accepting dept

Back in 2010, we wrote about Google's Eric Schmidt suggesting that in the future kids might change their names as they reach adulthood in order to disconnect their present-selves from their youthful indiscretions that were recorded permanently online. That seemed a bit silly to us at the time, but Schmidt is still focused on this basic concept apparently. His latest is the desire for some sort of delete button for the internet, again as a way to cover up some youthful indiscretions:

"In America, there's a sense of fairness that's culturally true for all of us," Schmidt said. "The lack of a delete button on the Internet is a significant issue. There is a time when erasure is a right thing."

Of course, this makes me wonder, what the hell did Eric Schmidt do as a kid that was so bad?

Yes, yes, we erase the criminal records of youthful offenders when they come of age, but I think this is something different. Trying to delete factual information from the internet is a quixotic task, unlikely to yield much that's beneficial.

Perhaps instead of trying to delete the past, society as a whole will become a lot more accepting of the fact that kids do stupid things when they're young. And many of them learn valuable lessons from those stupid things and they grow up to be better people. Plenty of folks have funny tales of their youthful indiscretions and, while these stories may be more difficult to embellish for effect if the details are all sitting on YouTube, does it really make more sense to try to delete that history or just to recognize that kids grow up and things they did as teenagers do not reflect how they're likely to act as adults?

Filed Under: data, erasing the past, eric schmidt, facts, history, internet, privacy