What is wrong with this statement by ex Alphabet Inc CEO Eric Schmidt?

What is wrong with this statement by ex Alphabet Inc CEO Eric Schmidt?

Does it "feel wrong"? I'm trying to figure out some kind of logical ARGUMENT against it, but I cannot find it. Can you?

Well first of all it's not anyone's business what you do in secret unless it's illegal. Least of all an information junkie like Schmidt

But it's still true that if you do something you want NOBODY to know about, you shouldn't be doing it.

Nice ``refutation''.

Buying an anniversary present for your wife?

There's no argument to refute. It's an opinion

I don't want anyone watching me while I'm taking a shit. Does that mean I should stop doing it at all?

Yeah because society is never wrong about anything, and you'll definitely not be lynched for wrongthink.

this is your motivation for being against the google botnets and NSA and whatnot?

You only don't want your wife and maybe her friends to not know...

You wouldn't really mind if your mother knows.

you sure as hell don't want to be putting your secrets in public space or private clouds.

Gtfo, Eric, go spread your fantasies of watching everyone doing everything to somebody inside a mental institution, I'm sure they'll be able to provide help.

Yes I would mind if my mother is elderly and can't keep a secret

He didn't say "watching". He said knowing. EVERYONE KNOWS you take shits because all humans take shits.

Who's talking about botnets or the NSA?

see:

>If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Right and I gave an example against that

>if you don't want government agents in your home 24/7, maybe you shouldn't be unsupervised

just use the Incognito mode provided by your Google Chrome(tm) dude.
You really think shit like that is why people are having this argument anyway? Schmidt said that in response to worries about botnet surveillance dude.

Silly user girls don't want you to know they itch the ditch too.

I don't want that anybody knows what kind of porn I masturbate to.
I don't want that anybody knows how much beer I drink in week.
I don't want that anybody knows my political opinion because you can get in trouble if majority have different view.

Why doesn't Eric Schmidt publish monthly urine tests? Surely there wouldn't be any cocaine in there, would it?

The vast majority of botnet surveillance concerns mundane shit that Google wants to know to sell you targeted advertising - mundane shit like buying presents.

>I don't want that anybody knows how much beer I drink in week.
maybe you shouldn't be drinking that much

/thread

im sure anne frank would agree

It feels wrong because he is pot calling kettle black, and also that the first half of the sentence describes a characteristic or an entity rather than an action that you have performed, which makes the sentence incongruous. For example, if the something is a illegitimate child, do you even want to /do/ him/her?

A more coherent sentence would be: If you want to do something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

>I don't want that anybody knows what kind of porn I masturbate to.
Maybe you shouldn't watch porn? Why do you think it's good to do that?

>I don't want that anybody knows how much beer I drink in week.
Probably because you drink excessive amounts. If people knew, maybe they could advise you and tell you how dangerous it is for your health

>I don't want that anybody knows my political opinion because you can get in trouble if majority have different view.
Maybe your political opinion is extremist and you'd need to rethink it?

All you said proved Schmidt right: if you don't want others to know something, it's because you're doing something wrong (perverted, extremist or unhealthy).

My political views are the only things I mind and would not have people knowing, since I am not a degenerate/sexual deviant.

Okay, then let's publish every single person's vote in every election they ever participated in, and jerk off to the ensuing shitstorm.

i don't want ANYBODY to know about my really painful shit last week. that's not because it's super dooper secret, that's because it's fucking personal. Get some common sense.

This.

Some other examples:
>The high-powered businesswoman who relaxes with MMO's when not working.
>The college student who wanted a fresh start but comes from a troubled family.
>The coworker who doesn't want it known she still lives at home.
>etc.

There are plenty of things that are legal but that could impact us negatively if known by everyone.

I hate that many people can't understand this.

>My political views are the only things I mind and would not have people knowing
If you have extremist views, maybe it would be good if others knew about them.
Discussing with people who think differently can be good and can lead to moderating one's views.

Or it could turn the entirety of Freedomistan into a huge Trump/anti-Trump shitfest in a single day.

People firing others for their political views, people assaulting others for their political views etc.
And let's not fucking pretend that it is only one side that can get petty, vindictive and aggressive.

> Maybe your political opinion is extremist and you'd need to rethink it?
It's actually not - but everyone else these days has opinions very close to extremist, except on the wrong end of the political spectrum, hence my rather moderate opinions might end up with me suffering social repercussions anyway if they became widely known.

>But it's still true that if you do something you want NOBODY to know about, you shouldn't be doing it.
No it isn't.

He was never the CEO of alphabet.

Maybe you and Schmidt are wrong in every point?

>Maybe your political opinion is extremist and you'd need to rethink it?
So you're saying that Nazis and Communists weren't/aren't extremist?

> If you have extremist views, maybe it would be good if others knew about them.
> Discussing with people who think differently can be good and can lead to moderating one's views.
This is an excellent argument, which unfortunately has zero grounding in reality. Even with non-extremist views, discussing them with people of opposing opinions is more likely to lead to damaged relationships, broken friendships, or firing from work, than a civil understanding.

All in all pretty good bait though, keep it up

My views aren't extremist, but the do run counter too the views of the Jews that run society. Until their stranglehold can be broken their glow in the darks could watch list me.

I don't want anyone to know I'm a cuck but the only way to got what I want is to let others know

Tell that to the Glow-in-the-darks.

So why didn't he reveal the reason his wife left him?

>shouldn't be doing it eh?

To me it seems like you need to be living a very boring life to not have anything to hide.

Got a kink you googled because you wanted to explore it with your partner? Doesn't mean you'd like your friends/family/coworkers knowing about it...

I don't mind people knowing. But it's not acceptable for corporations to profit from this information. It is my information, and it is mine to buy and sell. When they take it without my consent, and sell it on, they are trafficking in stolen goods. I'm happy to tell you boys what I fap to (omorashi), but when a business that is more powerful than most governments wants to harvest this information to further consolidate their monopoly, then no way.

So the initial promise that I don't want ANYONE to know what I'm doing is wrong. I just don't want Google to know.

>initial promise
FUCK
PREMISE
FUCK
P-please don't call me a brainlet ;_;

>If you're writing a diary that you wouldn't want anyone to know... maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

He's just a piece of shit.

There is a sense of ambiguity as to what he means. Is it that the person has something to hide, or are some things truly no one else's business?

Google for instance is one of those companies that don't share interview feedback with candidates, presumably because they are discriminating. If they don't want others to know then why are they doing it in the first place?

If you agree with the statement "You should be in total control with whom you share your information" that naturally includes nobody.

Human society so far was set up in a way so that you had privacy. It doesn't matter how objectively wrong the things people do in private are, if you remove privacy, you're gonna affect society in negative ways. It's also retarded to assume that how much we want to hide something is a 1:1 metric of how objectively wrong it is.
If you wanted to BTFO Eric Schmidt or some other anti-privacy retard in an argument, you could just bring up some PC example, like a gay man hiding his gayness from his homophobic Christian family or whatever, they obviously can't say that "no, gays don't deserve privacy either", because that would very negatively affect their reputation.

yeah it's not like mass surveillance has ever been abused
this fuckface deserves to hang

Everyone has a natural desire and right to privacy. Eric is a ((Jew)), and they have been encouraging humans to live out of step with nature for ages.

Such as Freud sexualizing children.

Another reason is obviously in relation to the insane amounts of monitoring and spying google does, often times together with their federal buddies.

His argument relies on the assumption that everything that's done in secret is a wrongdoing.

Coming from a Googler it's creepy
But as a code of life to live by it's pretty good imo
"Be proud for whatever you do and don't feel bad for revealing it or having it revealed unwillingly"

First of all let me state that I believe that I can solve why his statement is illogical. I studied logic at university in philosophy lectures at university, since it helped me in CS. I studied modal logic, formal, informal, and some mathematical logic. If I were to find a logical inconsistency it would go like this:
Not everything you do in secret is something that you would want others to know about and wanting to keep things secret is not necessary to pro proving something is illegal or morally suspec t.
So he is stating that
If something you do is something you want to keep secret you should not be doing it
He does not qualify that with any kind of qualifying second premise
His statement amounts to this
Doing something in secret = something to be ashamed of
We can summarise this by stating
If A does something(lets call it X)--- that he does not want B to know about(lets call that Z) then A should not do X (lets call that Y)
he does not state If A does X and Z then Y because ?
His statement is therefore illogical since there are many examples where doing something I want kept secret is neither illegal nor something to feel bad about
If, for example, I have sex with my wife I do not want to discuss that with my grandparents because it would be embarrassing. It doesnt mean I should stop doing it

If I create a password for my home banking facility I dont want anyone to know the password
His statement is illogical because it is unqualified by real world examples

Your examples are not valid: If you have sex with your wife she either knows about it or you are doing something wrong. If you create a password for your bank account the bank will receive that password and store at least partial information about it (e.g. some hash). In both examples your information is not private in the sense that only you know about it.

Anything can look wrong out of context or to misinformed people, so it's reasonable not to disclose everything you do.

>If you think something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be thinking it in the first place.

It's going to take more math than that to sort it out my retarded friend

Your logic formalism delivers nothing more than a rephrase of his statement as "(X and Z) implies Z" but does not prove any inherent contradiction within the aforementioned statement

(X and Z) implies Y

Because the consensus (and acceptance) of the general public towards something does not mean that it's objectively good or better than something else (see Socrates).
Therefore, if I do something that's stigmatized by society (i.e. "don't want anyone to know"), it does not mean that it's bad.
For example, I live in a very Christian neighbourhood and want to remarry for tax benefits. It's good for me, but I don't want to let my neighbours know, because remarriage is not allowed in most confessions and I'd be ostracized from the community.

Can I put a camera in Eric Schmidt's bathroom?

Same argument as in applies to your example: If you remarry at least your new wife should know about it or something is wrong.

In my opinion its hard to contradict Eric Schmidt by example. However if you assume you get your contradiction and a much clearer light on these examples: You want to control with whom you share your information.

>In my opinion its hard to contradict Eric Schmidt by example.
Can I put a camera in Eric Schmidt's bathroom?
Can I have Eric Schmidt's emails and passwords?
Can I have Eric Schmidt's banking details?

These are open questions my good Sir. Can you?

The question is the wrong way around. Why should anyone else have a right to know what I'm doing unless I choose to tell them?

These days thinking free speech is important and that human beings have a right to defend themselves is considered "extremist" by many delusional people.

Even if 99% of people think X is right that does not make it true nor mean you deserve to be fired or publicly shamed for thinking Y instead.

That was just a general example. You can apply the same concept to something you can do by yourself, for example worship Satan in private or crossdress in secret in a 60s white suburb, dunno.
In any case it comes down to a dissonance between your personal morals and society's morals. And, in my opinion, being true to yourself is more important than anything.

everybody has something to hide. no human is perfect

Eric Schmidt _says_ that he is doing anything wrong in his bathroom, and so I _should_ be able to put a camera there. After all, he has nothing to hide, right?

If I tried, he would probably call the police. Either he does have something to hide, or he does not truly believe in his own statement.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu

Yeah like for example applying hemorrhoid cream. I should be legally required to show my friends and extended family every time I do it. Also disclose my credit card PIns.

Yeah like purchasing anime figurines, everyone must know what you're up to.

If you have something you don't want anyone to know maybe u should do a better job of hiding it. Today from google, last century from mobs who would lunch you

I could go for some lunch right now tbҺ fαm

>Maybe your political opinion is extremist and you'd need to rethink it?
what the fuck am i reading

Some opinions are now illegal.

>Are you thinking [x]? Unless you can prove, right now, that [x] has never been on your mind, you are going to jail!

The problem is you might be doing something perfectly legal like being gay but in 5 years some extreme right wing literally Nazis party gets into power and criminalizes the formerly legal activity and then uses all that past data to go after you.

Or, "You can not have this opinion without having considered X and considering X is punishable by death"

Thanks for excersising. However there is one last subtility I keep thinking about: In the moment you install the webcam, you destroy the premise since the information created in the bathroom is now no longer private which then allows one to argue that the webcam is no longer necessary.

Nevertheless I think gives a nice answer here: Eric Schmidt should be able to decide whether he wants the bathroom can or not.

Even a dog dislikes being watched when it's eating.

I can't find a logical ARGUMENT for it, can you?

Anyone in Eric Schmidt's statement refers to google. Furthermore willing co-participants of an activity are by nature complicit, the argument would fall apart.

not that you shouldn't do that. you shouldn't cry about it when you get caught.

I’m not saying it, but guess what I’m thinking.

>googe

This is the single best argument on this topic

>Anyone in Eric Schmidt's statement refers to google.
>Furthermore willing co-participants of an activity are by nature complicit
I don't see how to deduce these sentences from the statement. If not shown otherwise I will consider them as added assumptions.

Yes, and those who dismiss it have probably never heard of stalinism.

You're actually wrong.

Human society was setup as a tribe where your business was everyone's business and you had no privacy. Everyone was constantly interacting, assigned to work, and doing things. When the idea of Privacy first emerges, it is still in the context of community. Polis, the public life, and Oikos, the domestic life (what goes on at your home within your family). It was not an individualistic idea for a long time after that.

You make a baseless assumption that removing privacy is going to be negative. Actually here's the thing:

Most people do not matter enough so that privacy matters for them.

The real people who would be destroyed by a lack of privacy are people at the top, not the bottom. When it comes out just how much influence certain families have, how unfairly they profit, how many laws they break, how little taxes they pay-- that would lead to a societal upheaval.

Unless you have millions in assets, you don't really have far to fall. In the case of your example, the gay man should probably recognize that he is going to need to leave that environment or change his family's mind and should take steps to do so. All privacy does is enable non-resolution of the problem.

In the case of hiding an affair, a murder, an inappropriate relationship-- all of these are things you should not be doing.

The only danger to transparency is if the rich can buy privacy while others cannot. Which is the case. So that's the issue with Schmidt's statement.

The problem is that he says "anyone" but he means "a private company hellbent on the destruction of the human race" or the shorter form, named after how many people he wants to kill, google.

What things would be appropriate to share with such a company in order to not be a traitor to the human race and why not limit the scope of what is shared to these things.

The logical argument is easy to undermine.

Let's say I saved thirty orphans from a burning building. But, I absolutely didn't want to be part of a media circus or to be treated differently. So I hid the fact.


Does the statement: "I don't want anyone to know that I saved orphans, maybe I shouldn't have done it in the first place."

Sound remotely sane? The only way it works is if you entirely disregard ethics. It's a system of personal convenience.

However, the idea that you should live your life in a way where everyone could look at every action of yours and find no fault-- that's actually pretty good. It's actually necessary if you want to run for politics it is what you have to do these days.

It's how I want to live my life as well. If all of my actions and deeds were exposed to the world, I would like people to say "Wow. Good job" rather than "You're disgusting."

But, to each their own. I don't care enough about the issue.

What if society is stupid and forbids something that's irrelevant to others, or worse, necessary. This also hinders discussion, because you won't voice an idea if voicing it could have a negative effect on you.

Two things. One, just because society used to have no individual privacy, doesn't mean it'd be good or harmless to go back to that, any more than it'd be a good idea to return to feudalism or absolute monarchies. Two, the "You're not very important, nobody cares about you anyway, so why care about privacy?" argument may have once held some water back in an era before modern telecoms, when tracking what someone did, who they talked to, and so on was difficult and expensive, and so something that was only done to a small number of people. That's not true anymore, tech companies and intelligence agencies both have a mentality of "collect it all, on everyone, just in case we might want it", because they have vast economies of scale in doing so.

>botnet can help you pick out the gift with targeted ads

>he thinks women take shits

If you cannot think of a reason to have privacy in this digital age, then you need to kill yourself. Go away Reddit, and take your terrible opinions with you.