Esta entrada é curtinha e serve apenas para colocar alguns links sobre algumas palavras que o CEO da Google proferiu relativamente à privacidade online.
Não me adianto no comentário, pelo menos para já, porque vai na linha do que por aqui tenho escrito, nomeadamente no conjunto de entradas sobre ‘Segurança e Privacidade’ online.
Schmidt disse: 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.
A resposta de um dos maiores gurus da área da Segurança informática, Bruce Schneier: 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.
[via Bruce Schneier blog]
Gawker was quick to point out the personal hypocrisy of Schmidt’s dismissive stance, noting that for about a year, Schmidt blacklisted CNET reporters from Google after the tech news company published an article with information about his salary, neighborhood, hobbies, and political donations — all obtained from Google searches. Techdirt noted additionally that Schmidt’s statement is painfully similar to the tired adage of pro-surveillance advocates that incorrectly presume that privacy’s only function is to obscure lawbreaking: “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” [via EFF]
Os restantes links, no TheRegister, EFF, Gawker e a malta da arstechnica dá uma notícia que me fez rir, porque indicam que no seu blog, Asa Dotzler, ‘Mozilla’s director of community development’, resolveu em virtude das palavras do CEO da Google, aconselhar o uso do motor de busca da microsoft.
Das duas uma, ou o senhor fumou qualquer coisinha antes de escrever aquelas asneiras ou então não conhece o historial da microsoft e da fundação do seu criador, Bill e Melinda Gates, é que se a google está na cama com os poderes instituídos, a microsoft é a amante deles.
Sobre este mesmo tema aconselho estes dois artigos, The Eternal Value of Privacy e ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
Powered by Bilbo Blogger