Google CEO Retracts Street View Privacy Joke
Uh oh, Eric Schmidt has put his foot in it again.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt was yesterday forced to apologize for remarks made during an interview with CNN. While discussing how much information Google stores about its users, Kathleen Parker asked Schmidt about Street View and was taken aback by his response.
"Google can do Street Views. You can see where I live, you can come straight to my house if you want to. You could show the street I live on. You can know a lot about me if you want to," Parker said.
Schmidt's reply to this statement is what's caused so much controversy. The Google CEO told Parker that if she didn't want to be on Street View, she could just move.
"So, for example, Street View, we drive by exactly once. So, you can just move, right?" the CEO said, appearing completely serious about his sentiments.
"I can move? Well, that's a lot of trouble! [Laughs]"
"I know, I know" Schmidt conceded. "The important thing is, we only do it once. This is not a monitoring situation. And with satellites, what happens is, we actually have a delay, so we're very careful not to have real time information."
Now Schmidt has issued a retraction, claiming he misspoke:
"As you can see from the unedited interview, my comments were made during a fairly long back and forth on privacy. I clearly misspoke. If you are worried about Street View and want your house removed please contact Google and we will remove it."
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Eric has had to explain comments made during interviews. He recently suggested that in the future children may be able to change their names to escape embarrassing online activity associated with their real name. Before that, in yet another discussion about privacy, Schmidt was slated for telling NBC:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Yes, Eric Schmidt has proven on numerous occasions that his loose lips are a PR person's nightmare. He's not the only CEO to make stupid comments about user privacy, but he's probably the worst person who could make such statements. While Mark Zuckerberg has made dubious comments about Facebook user privacy in the past, it's important to remember his remarks were made in private when Facebook was just for Harvard students. Not only is Google exponentially bigger than Facebook was back in the day, but Schmidt is making these remarks to journalists from big publications, and on television. Is it really that hard for him to stick to something along the lines of, "The privacy of our users is of paramount importance"?
[Update] Updated to include the actual video clip of the interview.
- Robot Almost Fools You Into Calling "Her" Real
- Computer Powered by Water and Pencil Lead
- Wi-Fi Alliance Certifying Wi-Fi Direct Products
- Steve Jobs Got Mad After Microsoft Bought Bungie
- Model Suing Apple Over Stolen iPhoto Pictures
- Android Market Surpasses 100,000 Apps In Stock
- Beijing Apple Store Ups Security to Fight Scalpers
- This Is The PlayStation Phone
- White iPhone 4 Delayed Again; Possibly Canned
- U.S. Cellular Getting Samsung Galaxy Tab Too
- Canada's Super-Green Car Made of Hemp
- The Watch That Gets You High
- Desk Lamp Fashioned from Old Pipes
- LumiNet: the Jacket Computer
- PlayStation Phone, PSP2 Could Be Same Device
- MySpace Gets Facelift, New Focus
- GeoCities Archived, To Be Released via Torrent
- Report: Apple To Cut Carriers, Sell Direct to Users
- Original Darth Vader Costume is Up for Auction
Sounds to me like he was obviously having a little fun, which everyone should be allowed to do. I don't know how long the interview was, or the rapport he had with the interviewer. Sounds kinda like he said a joke, then said no seriously, it's not really that big of an issue.
I'm a PC, and windows ME was my idea. In retrospect, I probably should have kept it to myself.
I agree, he's just showing off his state of the art technology, Google is in the business of keeping trust, so they don't actually want to piss off their customers, unlike some companies, who I will not name.
People should ACCEPT that once they are on the internet, there is no classical privacy
Nothing new in an opinion coming from him, he has a loose tongue, but for the position he holds, he should be more careful with his comments, he is the CEO of GOOGLE, not a random person.
Still, when you're on internet, you also have to be careful on what do you publish about yourself, though in these cases, that can't be really controlled, specially because how many people will know about the "contact Google to remove the house" and in that group, how many will actually will do it.
yes lets not name companies that piss people off... but google is no where near that list.
ridiculous that he HAD to apologize for the latter comment...
While Street View is certainly great, I'm still interested in hearing his defence regarding Google's interception of people's networks.
so, if people are mad that there house is on street view, meaning people can see it. Does that mean they get mad when I drive by? will I need to wear a blindfold when I go down their street?
I'm so tired of Google hiding under the fake "Do not evil" slogan...at least Microsoft and Apple are not trying to deceive anyone.
I'm so tired of Google hiding under the fake "Do not evil" slogan...at least Microsoft and Apple are not trying to deceive anyone.
Are you kidding? Apple's first computer costed $666. Talk about not making any attempt to deceive anyone. That might be a bit too honest.
I agree, he's just showing off his state of the art technology, Google is in the business of keeping trust, so they don't actually want to piss off their customers, unlike some companies, who I will not name.
Oh, naming companies that lost our trust? How about AT&T? They finally got their customer service act together though. If they'd always answered the phone when I called, I'd have probably kept their service. Google on the other hand, I'd trust them with anything...they've got a perfect rep in my book. It's really shocking how a big (and, inherently, evil) corporation like Google can manage to consistently seem like the good guys. I guess their name sounds innocent though--unlike Raytheon, which just sounds like it's planning on holding Europe for ransom.
I'm so tired of Google hiding under the fake "Do not evil" slogan...at least Microsoft and Apple are not trying to deceive anyone.
Right...cuz MS is open about mistakes and Apple atones for what they do and doesn't blames it's users or say they're using it wrong?
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Should I really have to worry about big brother in the first place?
The next quote will be "If you don't want your privacy violated, you can just die."
Are you kidding? Apple's first computer costed $666. Talk about not making any attempt to deceive anyone. That might be a bit too honest.
And their latest Mac Pro costs £4K for the baseline 12 core model.
As soon as you're on the net, there is no such thing as privacy, i'd much prefer my details in the hands of Google rather than some hacker who fancies stealing my money or identity.
While Street View is certainly great, I'm still interested in hearing his defence regarding Google's interception of people's networks.
You mean the non-passworded wireless networks they inadvertently connected to while mapping streets?
Rule 1: You don't want people getting on your wireless network? PASSWORD IT.
Just because something is on the ground in my yard, it doesn't give you right to pick it up.
They can't just connect and snoop packets by mistake, so stop being ignorant about it.
I do agree that people should protect themselves however.
Just because something is on the ground in my yard, it doesn't give you right to pick it up.They can't just connect and snoop packets by mistake, so stop being ignorant about it.I do agree that people should protect themselves however.
It would be illegal if they picked something up off the front of your yard.. But if its lying in the middle of the street in front of your house, its fair game.
And their latest Mac Pro costs £4K for the baseline 12 core model.As soon as you're on the net, there is no such thing as privacy, i'd much prefer my details in the hands of Google rather than some hacker who fancies stealing my money or identity.
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. 666 = Sign of the Devil.
Really weird price, don't you think?
it's obvious he was making a joke.
I understand people's concerns, but as we've been saying again and again : there's no information on Street View that you can't get yourself. They are NOT taking pictures of you, your family or the inside of your house. If I want to go in your town, on your street, I will be able to do so and see the same thing I can see on Street View. Even worse, It will be in real-time while Google have got their pictures like 2 years ago.
If you're really really paranoïd, email Google and ask them to remove your house. But keep in mind that no one cares where you live, John Blake of 398 Elm Street, Deerfield Illinois.
I hate Google Streetview! Google knowingly drives down private roads even if they are labeled and photographs them. Do you know the only way you can get a private road removed? You have to send in a written letter to Google with photocopies of your drivers license and sworn statements to remove the data! And this is for your own property that they trespassed on! Google Street view should be banned in the US, who needs to see the pictures anyways? Just as long as you have the map. Also, they make it sound so easy, just go to our site and you can remove the picture, do you know how many pictures they take that include photos of just your house? A whole lot, you can spend hours just trying to report one at a time for them to remove a photo, you can't just outright say, remove all pictures that have my house in it, you have to specify the pictures one by one, they make it so that you want to just give up so they can continue to take control.
Eric Schmidt is a toad.
I'm still waiting for the day that Google is completely exposed as an unethical, greedy company that knows no boundaries when it comes to making a quick buck. Then I can laugh gleefully at all of the tools that put their misguided trust in Google. I'm thinking I've got about 2-5 years of waiting, but it will be worth it.
Google Street View: All your base are belong to us.
As a matter of fact, it goes for all of Google services!
.I'm a PC, and windows ME was my idea. In retrospect, I probably should have kept it to myself.
LOL! +1
The biggest issue with this is that there are people who do need to keep their location a secret. It doesn't apply to most of us, but there are people hiding from people who wish to harm them. The posting of the unfiltered information without first soliciting for removals due to witness protection, battered spouses, etc. is where the problem lies. This will be far more of an issue when facial recognition searches become more viable online.
Eric Schmidt is a toad.I'm still waiting for the day that Google is completely exposed as an unethical, greedy company that knows no boundaries when it comes to making a quick buck. Then I can laugh gleefully at all of the tools that put their misguided trust in Google. I'm thinking I've got about 2-5 years of waiting, but it will be worth it.
Right, they would never do something like say, once they discovered they were collecting the data, they actually owned up and said "Um, sorry, our bad." they were the company that discovered and reported what happened.
A less ethical company would not even mention it, and profit from all those emails and data from users. Instead they brought attention to it.
ok, Google is a very big company and has a lot of money, therefore he does not give a shit
Right, they would never do something like say, once they discovered they were collecting the data, they actually owned up and said "Um, sorry, our bad." they were the company that discovered and reported what happened.A less ethical company would not even mention it, and profit from all those emails and data from users. Instead they brought attention to it.
Google didn't bring attention to it. If they hadn't gotten busted doing it, they would have continued doing it until they got caught doing it by another outside party. Seriously, do you Google fanboiz not pay attention to the news?
And it's not about the legality, it's about the ethics.
Oh who cares. It was a joke, big deal. Try smiling.