Google CEO Eric Schmidt Responds to Consumer Watchdog

[socraticnyc]

This video is called "Eric Schmidt Responds..." yet more than half the video is the leading and loaded question... (posted using google chrome)

[TechShin]

Larry Page at the helm is better!

[evilsqurrel420]

This goes to show the disposition of human rights via conglomerate power. Its a shame that someday we are going to eventually boil over and rip the aristocrats and nobles a new one, but they only brought it on themselves. They should feel privileged to have power, not entitled.

[dzinehaus]

Eric Schmidt, you are a jackass.

Why not implement the security measures talked about. And, wait for it, work on the speed issue as a result of the security measure being set in place? Would that not make the most sense?

again, JACKASS

[CreationPhotography]

got Jesus ?

[bowlview]

these assholes must be brought down, FUCK GOOGLE IN THE ASS

[TheBigThoughful]

@bowlview you're on youtube

[insectboy0]

speed or privacy, pathetic reply. What about transparancy.

I want total discloser of all ways you track and spy on me - and an easy method to opt out of them all, this is basic

Google does not act in the spirt of its stated privacy policys

[insectboy0]

@njdeputter who judges and inteprates my private life now and later matters to me and those concerned with freedom from abuse. Becuse your happy does not mean teenagers and others are happy, googles lack of clarity and unwillingness to allow simple total opts is unfair. Do basic searches to explore how google is snooping on you, its underhand and disgusting

[njdeputter]

@insectboy0 lol, "underhanded and disgusting" OK, don't let the wind blow your tinfoil chapeau off ;)

[insectboy0]

@njdeputter if you think my experience and research into what they record about me - wanting clarity with simple optouts is a mad, then enjoy your freedom. Maybe you should just test and search for your self. Try firefox with addon ghost re tracking, Consumerwatchdog org video How Google's 'Chrome' Doesn't Protect Your Privacy as a start. Underhand and disgusting

[captpineapplee]

What gives Goggle the right to poke their nose in to where we all live! DOWN WITH GOOGLE!!! SCUM

[heldersuzuki]

Google has strong economic reasons to not violate privacy. That guy's questioning is just nonsense, you can have a SSL connection, other people can as well, what you're complaining about again?

The biggest threat is not one big company, it's thousands of other companies with smaller market share that has nothing to lose if they exploit user's privacy.

If you're worried that Google will became too big and powerful, don't worry, soon enough there'll be another one. Look at IBM, Microsoft, ...

[insectboy0]

@heldersuzuki and yet I discover it does spy on me personally, with many methods, never mentioned,with no simple optout. the delibrate lach of clarity is abusive. You are right that others do the same - but that does not make it right

[rightgonewrong]

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson

[daodeltaforce]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt's snotty responce to Mr. John Simpson's inquiry is really the model illustration of Google's dominance and arrogance on the issue of protecting Internet consumer's privacy rights.

[sunthief79]

And do you think every other Email service out there is protecting your privacy. LOL Get real this guy is probably hired by Microsoft or some other 3rd party who has an agenda with Google. Out of all the corporate giants out there Google is one of the more respectable. They don't force signature ads on every email you send, they don't have annoying flashy popups or ads on their site. You are an idiot if you think your emails are more secure with another company.

[Diffie64]

Your response shows what little you know about Consumer Watchdog. They are offering to help Google make their services more secure. They not trashing the company. Google is deliberately avoiding meeting with them, which says to me - as a Google user - that Google does not care about my security. By the way, the SSL option is placed at the clear bottom of all the options in the Google settings - another sign that Google does not want you to use it.

[sunthief79]

LMAO, so since the ssl option isn't cleary in front of you on every page that makes them not concerned with your privacy. LOL Your response shows how little you know about the internet and how much more resources that SSL uses. You want secure email the whole system needs to be changed. Even with ssl it doesn't make the actual server to server communication secure. This is still such a bunch of crap. Google rocks, I'm just sorry to see idiots blowing crap like this way out of perspective

[TheBigThoughful]

@Diffie64 wouldn't the SSL option be in the middle of the settings rather than at the end where you have to click "apply changes" if they wanted to hide it

[insectboy0]

@sunthief79 don't make it right though. Do more searching and testing yourself to see how underhand and misleading you google is. I found they are spying on me personally with so many ways, various trackers, key logging, permanent records etc. they disgust me with underhand tactics. They provide no simple way to opt out of everthing.

[daodeltaforce]

Google was founded by hypocrites who hold in one hand the olive branch of freedom, and on the other the anvil of communism. Google has committed atrocities on the free enterprise system by cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party to ensure that such words as "democracy" and "freedom" are censored from access by Chinese citizens.

[daodeltaforce]

Google is becoming the proverbial "Big Brother" as was portrayed in George Orwell's novel entitled, "1984." Google is motivated by revenues at the expense of all Internet privacy rights.

[sunthief79]

consumerwatchdog, you have lost all my respect. This was such a blatant marketing ploy I can't even stand it. You are advertising during a public discussion. At least google is tastefull in their advertising. SSL is more of a resource hog, and in fact causes a lot of issues with less educated people. Of course any company wouldn't want it to be the default. Just turn it on if you want SSl??? Just turn off the text ads if you don't want to see them. What is your agenda with google??

[mahknones]

Confronting billionaire high tech execs is always a good thing, even when the organization doing it is marketing their valid concern about privacy. That's how you get the billionaire's attention. Keep it up!

[mnoe817]

Unless Schmidt has followed through with a substantive meeting or schedule of meetings, I would characterize this exchange as one guy blowing off the questions of another guy without providing any meaningful answers.

[halcombr]

They have had no meeting as of yet and Schmidt has not returned any follow ups to meet him. He tried to set up a meeting after this, but was denied access to meet with Schmidt.

[kentatm]

so having a slightly faster web search engine is more important than my privacy?

his argument reminds me of when the auto industry fought making seat belts standard b/c it was not cost effective.

[nightatnight]

Wow, now I'm starting to miss my Sirlanken mail account.

[deadlypotatoes]

We do need some form of speed for communication. " We do things in the combination of SPEED & PRIVACY " so he said. If it's true that's another question.

More questions need to be asked? Like

" Who's your Daddy? " "ME"

LoL I like Google

[CosmosPrivateer]

So what internet communities are safe if any.

[friele80]

What does performance have to do with running more information strings back to a server, to then again Loop back information that is coherent with the content you are typing about in your email?

Awnser: It's slowing the whole thing down.

[omalansky]

So basically he's saying the Google will not address these privacy concerns if doing so would compromise performance. So performance is more important than privacy? HELLO??? Could you run that one by me again, chief?