Google CEO Eric Schmidt: Only miscreants worry about net privacy

[Uncle Spellbinder]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)

This is exactly why I do my best not to use anything Google related. No Google search, I've long since gotten rid of the Customize Google add-on for SeaMonkey and Firefox (though I rarely even use Firefox anymore), and I sure won't ever touch that horrid Google Chrome.

[spongypants23]

"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."

I wonder if that applies to EU residents as well.

[marco123]

Not all search engines retain this information:

http://www.ixquick.com/uk/

http://www.ixquick.com/uk/protect-privacy.html

Marco.

[pricetech]

Not all search engines retain this information:

http://www.ixquick.com/uk/

http://www.ixquick.com/uk/protect-privacy.html

Marco.

In the US it's startpage dot com. I've just started using it so the jury is still out on how well I like it, but no complaints so far.

[mivo]

Well, whenever I mention that I think Google collects too much information, and all their services are somehow aimed at collecting personal data, there are people who are not at all concerned.

Even the forum here uses google-analytics.com that I have a skeptical view on, too (I blocked it - easy enough with NoScript).

[Uncle Spellbinder]

In the US it's startpage dot com. I've just started using it so the jury is still out on how well I like it, but no complaints so far.

I'm in the US, using http://www.ixquick.com

[LinuxFanBoi]

Wow, Google's CEO thinks that there is nothing people should be doing that they should keep private?

I can think of an endless list of legitimate things that need not be public.

[NoaHall]

Wow, Google's CEO thinks that there is nothing people should be doing that they should keep private?

I can think of an endless list of legitimate things that need not be public.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm just off to tell the world I killed that man, slept with that prostitute, and then sold nuclear weapons to North Korea - er, I mean watched porn. ;)

[LinuxFanBoi]

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm just off to tell the world I killed that man, slept with that prostitute, and then sold nuclear weapons to North Korea - er, I mean watched porn. ;)

It's a good thing you used strike through the Google spies will never know. I think now that I've actually gotten something from so high up in the ranks of Google being this cavalier about privacy, I'll just stop using their services all together. I already stopped using their e-mail services, but now I think I'll be done with their browser and search engine as well.

Bye Google, it was fun while it lasted. Enjoy being at the top. Just remember, everyone always roots for the underdog, until the day they are the favorite, then they just want them to get crushed.

[Xbehave]

What he said

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"
Is reflecting the reality, the fact is it doesn't matter what google does, your ISP has all your data anyway. All this not using google because their CEO is honest is stupid.

[nmccrina]

I'm doing the same thing. I have not done a search since yesterday. NoScript is in full effect, and Firefox is blocking Google cookies for me. The only thing left is to switch my email to my university email, which will be a gradual process.

[cascade9]

We are not at war with Eurasia

We being Oceania, of course.

[SLEEPER_V]

i dont really care. As long as I know they are doing it, then its fine. If they were being sneaky about it then I would have a problem with it. Its a matter of principle with me.

[toupeiro]

i dont really care. As long as I know they are doing it, then its fine. If they were being sneaky about it then I would have a problem with it. Its a matter of principle with me.

^ This.

[slakkie]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)


Nice quote, the same quote politicians use when they introduce new privacy invading laws. If you have nothing to hide than you have nothing to fear. Total bs.

[nmccrina]

What he said

Is reflecting the reality, the fact is it doesn't matter what google does, your ISP has all your data anyway. All this not using google because their CEO is honest is stupid.

On the other hand, letting many different organizations have your data just because one already has it is slightly irresponsible as well.

[wmcbrine]

It's a very unfortunate sentiment. Everyone is a miscreant in someone else's eyes. And some of those someones may do something about it.

But Google is in the business of making information available, so we can't look to them to be privacy advocates.

[saulgoode]

Does this mean Google will be opening the source to all the software they've written? If not, maybe they shouldn't be doing it.

[LinuxFanBoi]

It's a very unfortunate sentiment. Everyone is a miscreant in someone else's eyes. And some of those someones may do something about it.

But Google is in the business of making information available, so we can't look to them to be privacy advocates.

I find it's easier to just keep all your data under lock and key rather than pick and choose who you trust and who you don't. Google is in the data business. People will pay handsomely for the kind of raw data their search logs alone can provide. As for the government getting their hands on the data, they can come at Google with a subpoena or a check, oddly enough it's probably cheaper to buy the data they want rather than pry it from them with a court order. Not to mention, court orders are a matter of public record. If one was granted, people would know it, which could be counter productive depending on the nature of a government investigation. A private transaction between Google and a government agency can be kept a secret.

I wonder how the CEO of Google feels about is company's corporate secrets being available to anyone who wants them. Are people at Google allowed to use Gmail or Google docs for their day to day work? Are they required to encrypt sensitive business data and e-mail transactions? Or perhaps if they are concerned for the security of their business data they shouldn't be doing it.

[toupeiro]

You have the choice not to use googles products if you do not like their ethics. They are out in the open about it which is where I credit them, even if I disagree with what they do in practice.

[pwnst*r]

where did "miscreants" come from? i don't see that quoted anywhere. sensationalized.

[LinuxFanBoi]

where did "miscreants" come from? i don't see that quoted anywhere. sensationalized.

He didn't quote him saying that, so it looks to be an interpretation of what was actually said, but yeah interpretation is the backbone of sensationalism. Fox News Journalism 101.

[SLEEPER_V]

He didn't quote him saying that, so it looks to be an interpretation of what was actually said, but yeah interpretation is the backbone of sensationalism. Any News Company Journalism 101.

fixed

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

fixed
Seriously man, anybody that thinks it's just one news agency is deceiving himself into believing the garbage that the other guys spew.

[LinuxFanBoi]

fixed

If you're going to use the quote feature and then modify what I said, please remove my name from the quote.

But yeah I single out fox because they tend to be the most blatant offender and purveyor of FUD among the major News channels.

[wilee-nilee]

Google is the least of your problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_frz-ykQjI

[SLEEPER_V]

If you're going to use the quote feature and then modify what I said, please remove my name from the quote.

But yeah I single out fox because I tend to be the most asinine offender and purveyor of idiocy among the minor Ubuntuforums members.

whatever. Apparently you take yourself entirely too seriously.

[pwnst*r]

sleeper_V

[SLEEPER_V]

sleeper_V
yes?

[LinuxFanBoi]

whatever. Apparently you take yourself entirely too seriously.

I don't think my request was that unreasonable.

[pwnst*r]

yes?

hello.

[lisati]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)


I agree with this quote but with qualifications. I'm free to choose how much or how little I share about myself online. On the other hand, organizations who have the ability to collect information about what I get up to have a responsibility to use the information available to them wisely. Privacy laws (for example) exist for a reason.

I'm reminded of scenes on shows like COPS where the officer notices a car which has something relatively minor wrong with it - maybe the number plate light isn't working or something else relatively trivial to put right. The officer pulls the car over, but once they get talking, the driver panics and runs. Now why did the perp run?

[Uncle Spellbinder]

where did "miscreants" come from? i don't see that quoted anywhere. sensationalized.

I just used the title of The Register article.

[pwnst*r]

I just used the title of The Register article.

yep, i wasn't pointing at you. i had looked at the article and didn't see it mentioned anywhere other than their title.

[bonfire89]

As for the government getting their hands on the data, they can come at Google with a subpoena or a check, oddly enough it's probably cheaper to buy the data they want rather than pry it from them with a court order.


Court Order... Obama and his team renewed the patriot act... the gov't doesn't have to ask, they just write a letter to themselves and take whatever they want.

[cmat]

The whole nothing to hide argument is poor. If I'm reading in my living room and somebody is watching me through a window, sure I'm not doing anything incriminating but it's still a breach of privacy.

[wilee-nilee]

The whole nothing to hide argument is poor. If I'm reading in my living room and somebody is watching me through a window, sure I'm not doing anything incriminating but it's still a breach of privacy.

Your living room isn't a public domain.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Court Order... Obama the moron and his team renewed the patriot act... the gov't doesn't have to ask, they just write a letter to themselves and take whatever they want.

And get then have their case dismissed on constitutional grounds. The government cant ignore the constitution just because they said so.

[User3k]

I am not sure why people seemed angered at Google. This surprises people, why? If anyone thinks that privacy still exists then they are not living in the modern age.

Why? Ok for the US:

*Homeland security (How many offices, official or not, do they have that monitors the internet? AT&T ring a bell?)

*ISP's are forced by the government to monitor all internet activity for the safety of the children, for the safety of the citizens against terrorists, etc. They have to use something to get a hold on the internet and then slowly slip in more until that have complete control.

*Flash, java and so on are used by spammers as well as corporations. It is all about money.

The list goes on and on and on. But the bottom line is about control, power and money. If you use the internet then things like tor/privoxy might help but the internet is mainly a bunch of computers connected to other computers.

So unless people start speaking out rather then simply whining about it, it will not make a difference. These people, corporations, governments, etc have taken a hold of the internet no matter what one thinks or denies.

So in conclusion. Privacy does not exist, not even with cell phones or other such devices. It is the way of the modern age and we all get screwed.

[running_rabbit07]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)

This is exactly why I do my best not to use anything Google related. No Google search, I've long since gotten rid of the Customize Google add-on for SeaMonkey and Firefox (though I rarely even use Firefox anymore), and I sure won't ever touch that horrid Google Chrome.

If this were being reported by a credible news source, then I would think it may be true. Being that it is obviously a google trashing site, I find it hard to believe.

[jbrown96]

Wow, I can't believe how far people have blow this out of proportion.

What Eric Schmidt said was that if they are given a valid subpoena by a US court, they are legally required to turn over all information about it. If you don't want your criminal behavior to be in the hands of a US court, then don't give it to a US corporation.

Honestly, Google has a good track record of fighting subpoenas, and other search engines don't. He was simply telling the truth, and people are foaming at the mouth about it.

Google does a very good job (comparatively) with anonymizing data and protecting it from third parties.

I trust Google a lot more than my ISP. At least Google has specific privacy policies, and I have never heard of an instance where they violated it.

[handy]

Google have done an enormous amount of good for our internet experience over the years.

Google are one of the BIG guns that are fighting against the other BIG guns that are trying to take over the ownership of the internet with their corporations.

Even so, I still use Scroogle SSL, when I search, except when I want to buy something.

I block all cookies except for sites like forums & such that I use.

I run an IPCop headless firewall/router/proxy, that also runs Privoxy; & I also have Firefox deletes all of its cache when shut down.

All of my surfing user names/passwords are protected by a password.

My Xmarks data is both password protected & encrypted.

I also use the Firefox Add-on Ghostery (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9609), which allows me to monitor & block trackers that get through my other defences.

I just as likely do some other things to that I have forgotten; all in the interest of minimising the the invasion of my privacy, the result of which may be used to benefit other unknown organisations behind my back. Which imho should be against the law in all nations.

[Warpnow]

He seems rather ignorant to the fact that most people who work anywhere in the professional world have to worry at least a little about privacy issues.

[running_rabbit07]

That's what encrypted .zips are for. I really don't foresee true professionals sending info via gmail nor with Chrome.

[Warpnow]

That's what encrypted .zips are for. I really don't foresee true professionals sending info via gmail nor with Chrome.

Heh, I disagree. Most professions have no idea either one is not secure. Alot of lawyers nowadays communicate primarily via email.

[Gizenshya]

It's a good thing you used strike through the Google spies will never know. I think now that I've actually gotten something from so high up in the ranks of Google being this cavalier about privacy, I'll just stop using their services all together. I already stopped using their e-mail services, but now I think I'll be done with their browser and search engine as well.

Bye Google, it was fun while it lasted. Enjoy being at the top. Just remember, everyone always roots for the underdog, until the day they are the favorite, then they just want them to get crushed.


Imagine how I feel...

Just before I graduated, my university stopped maintaining its own mail server, and "migrated" ALL of our accounts, and ALL of our mail... to Google. It is now part of the "Google Apps" program, that is basically gmail. I called them and said not to transfer my stuff, because I don't liek google. I thought, well "I'll just go without an official university account. No biggie." ... but they still transferred it all. It wasn't even opt-out (which I think should be illegal in all forms)... it was basically "well, we officially claim all your private property (data) as our own, so go **** yourself."

encrypted zips? You could do that, but it is a lot of work. And use rar's, not zips. They encrypt much stronger. But google and many other webmail providers stopped allowing zip, rar, and related files to be transferred. You must remove the extension (to be added back by the recipient later), or replace it with another, accepted extension. GNUPG (GPG), or also PGP (proprietary) is software for encrypting messages the right way.

There was an article about privacy in the New York Times (or maybe USA Today?), and it suggested using The Tor Browser Bundle (https://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/). It is a software bundle that comes with a modified version of Mozilla's Firefox browser. The modifications maximize privacy and compatibility with Tor, which is also included. Tor, in a nutshell, encrypt's things you send and receive in such a way that whatever server you're talking to doesn't know your actual IP address (and other info) by use of an extensive network of proxies and encryption protocols. Sounds complicated, but all you do is run firefox from that folder and you're set. It does everything automatically-- it even tells you if it is working correctly at start.

The Tor Bundle isn't installed, either. So you have privacy on any computer connected to the internet, regardless of permissions of said computer. It comes in Win, Mac, and Linux versions. You can just put a folder of each on a flash drive and you're good anywhere.

Google used to be a trustworthy company... but they are getting just as greedy as every other one. Now they are using the taqctics all repressive governments have always used to make people obey (and be silent).

In several countries, like China (just one example of many), searching about any one of a number of things that the government doesn't want people to know (Freedom, Democracy, etc.) could get you tortured or killed (google the Yahoo! Chinese search results case). These companies cave all the time. But many Chinese citizens, using technologies like the ones I mentioned, can still have some freedoms in there repressive governments.

The first step is convincing people that freedoms aren't needed, and they must be sacrificed "for the greater good" (to quote Adolph Hitler).

[handy]

Too few people appreciate the fact that there does actually exist such a thing as "too late".

[User3k]

Imagine how I feel...

Just before I graduated, my university stopped maintaining its own mail server, and "migrated" ALL of our accounts, and ALL of our mail... to Google. It is now part of the "Google Apps" program, that is basically gmail. I called them and said not to transfer my stuff, because I don't liek google. I thought, well "I'll just go without an official university account. No biggie." ... but they still transferred it all. It wasn't even opt-out (which I think should be illegal in all forms)... it was basically "well, we officially claim all your private property (data) as our own, so go **** yourself."

encrypted zips? You could do that, but it is a lot of work. And use rar's, not zips. They encrypt much stronger. But google and many other webmail providers stopped allowing zip, rar, and related files to be transferred. You must remove the extension (to be added back by the recipient later), or replace it with another, accepted extension. GNUPG (GPG), or also PGP (proprietary) is software for encrypting messages the right way.

There was an article about privacy in the New York Times (or maybe USA Today?), and it suggested using The Tor Browser Bundle (https://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/). It is a software bundle that comes with a modified version of Mozilla's Firefox browser. The modifications maximize privacy and compatibility with Tor, which is also included. Tor, in a nutshell, encrypt's things you send and receive in such a way that whatever server you're talking to doesn't know your actual IP address (and other info) by use of an extensive network of proxies and encryption protocols. Sounds complicated, but all you do is run firefox from that folder and you're set. It does everything automatically-- it even tells you if it is working correctly at start.

The Tor Bundle isn't installed, either. So you have privacy on any computer connected to the internet, regardless of permissions of said computer. It comes in Win, Mac, and Linux versions. You can just put a folder of each on a flash drive and you're good anywhere.

Google used to be a trustworthy company... but they are getting just as greedy as every other one. Now they are using the taqctics all repressive governments have always used to make people obey (and be silent).

In several countries, like China (just one example of many), searching about any one of a number of things that the government doesn't want people to know (Freedom, Democracy, etc.) could get you tortured or killed (google the Yahoo! Chinese search results case). These companies cave all the time. But many Chinese citizens, using technologies like the ones I mentioned, can still have some freedoms in there repressive governments.

The first step is convincing people that freedoms aren't needed, and they must be sacrificed "for the greater good" (to quote Adolph Hitler).

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[chillicampari]

I wonder if Scott McNealy got a good laugh out of this.

Also, just because anyone may choose to not use Google apps doesn't mean their friends and family aren't, so you're probably not entirely off the grid. Look how fast well meaning friends drop personal data about others in social networking apps and quizzes.

[Methuselah]

And these people want to create and sell a cloud OS and devices?
This CEO is either an idiot or thinks we are all idiots.
He should be assuring people how committed they are to privacy.
Why would he say the exact opposite?
Anyone reading this should be wary of sending google a single bit of data
not to mention all their documents, settings, application usage stats, browing history and favourites.

[aysiu]

Anyone reading this should be wary of sending google a single bit of data
not to mention all their documents, settings, application usage stats, browing history and favourites. I think that's what Eric Schmidt's point was.

Search engines (Google is one of them, but all the major search engines do this) keep your search data for some period of time. So if you should be aware of what you are searching for and that it isn't private. Privacy on the internet does not exist (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/privacy-on-the-internet-doesnt-exist/). So, yes, be wary. Don't be doing anything you shouldn't be doing.

I watch a lot of true crime television, and I can tell you a lot of times what suspects search for on their computers can be used as evidence to convict them of murder. The police obtain a warrant to search the house and seize the computer, and then run some kind of forensics (I'd imagine something like photorec, but tailored to internet history instead of photos and documents) to see what people have been searching for.

Whether it's through a search engine's past 90 days of data, through your ISP's logs, through an untrustworthy proxy, or through your actual computer itself being confiscated, if the government wants to know what you're doing, the government will find out. Want to be anonymous? Stop using a computer. Want privacy, don't send emails, don't communicate online, don't write blog entries, don't check out books from the library, don't ever shop with a credit card or debit card... just live in a cave.

[JDShu]

I think that's what Eric Schmidt's point was.

Search engines (Google is one of them, but all the major search engines do this) keep your search data for some period of time. So if you should be aware of what you are searching for and that it isn't private. Privacy on the internet does not exist (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/privacy-on-the-internet-doesnt-exist/). So, yes, be wary. Don't be doing anything you shouldn't be doing.

I watch a lot of true crime television, and I can tell you a lot of times what suspects search for on their computers can be used as evidence to convict them of murder. The police obtain a warrant to search the house and seize the computer, and then run some kind of forensics (I'd imagine something like photorec, but tailored to internet history instead of photos and documents) to see what people have been searching for.

Whether it's through a search engine's past 90 days of data, through your ISP's logs, through an untrustworthy proxy, or through your actual computer itself being confiscated, if the government wants to know what you're doing, the government will find out. Want to be anonymous? Stop using a computer. Want privacy, don't send emails, don't communicate online, don't write blog entries, don't check out books from the library, don't ever shop with a credit card or debit card... just live in a cave.

Eloquently put. Nothing fundamentally wrong about what Google was doing. Just a lapse in charisma on part of their CEO.

[handy]

So therefore you recommend that we don't bother limiting the amount of personal information that is collected as we use the internet?

[Exodist]

What he said

Is reflecting the reality, the fact is it doesn't matter what google does, your ISP has all your data anyway. All this not using google because their CEO is honest is stupid.

Not all ISPs track everything you do. Its to resource consuming and cost more due to hardware.

[handy]

Not all ISPs track everything you do. Its to resource consuming and cost more due to hardware.

Mine does, they use info' from the logs to help them optimise their system.

[LowSky]

I watch a lot of true crime television, and I can tell you a lot of times what suspects search for on their computers can be used as evidence to convict them of murder. The police obtain a warrant to search the house and seize the computer, and then run some kind of forensics (I'd imagine something like photorec, but tailored to internet history instead of photos and documents) to see what people have been searching for.


I have a few friends that are cops, and from the beginning the first thing they say is CSI is a TV show, most crimes including murder are solved by simple police work rather than DNA evidence or scene recreation. Most crimes that are not solved in 24-48 hours will never be solved. Most towns don't have the resources we TV watchers think they do. The only time computers are seized is in the cases of fraud, illegal photos, or other computer related crimes. Very rarely do they seize equipment that might not be circumstantial to a case, infact many times they can't because of the limitations of the warrant. CSI type of investigation only gets done on high profile cases, usually supported by some federal government agency.

[mivo]

Honestly, Google has a good track record of fighting subpoenas, and other search engines don't.

Please provide links to credible sources for both of those statements.

[jwbrase]

If you're going to use the quote feature and then modify what I said, please remove my name from the quote.

The fact that he says "fixed" makes it apparent that it is not in fact what you originally said. So you don't need to get quite so up in arms about it. On the other hand...


whatever. Apparently you take yourself entirely too seriously.

...it is also a really insulting way of expressing disagreement, and doesn't say much to anybody else reading, except that you happen to disagree, so it is best avoided.

[pricetech]

I'm in the US, using http://www.ixquick.com

Same place, but "startpage" is easier for non technical folks to understand and remember.

Not suggesting anyone here is non technical, I just support a lot of non technical people,

[pricetech]

I don't like google myself, for my own reasons.

Privacy doesn't have to be about hiding your wrongdoing. I don't like nosy neighbors, not because I have a meth lab in my house (I don't by the way), It's just none of their business what I do.

There are legitimate reasons for tracking certain information. The forums set a cookie in my browser so that I don't have to manually log in every time I return. I"m OK with that. I don't even mind if a search engine retains information showing that someone in Middle Tennessee is shopping for MP3 players. As long as I can dump the cookie as I see fit and the search engine doesn't try to tie "someone in Middle Tennessee" to me personally and send MP3 player salesmen to my front door, I don't feel like my privacy has been invaded.

I can and will acknowledge that some people would consider the above scenario a gross invasion of their privacy. I"m OK with that too. It's not my place to call them paranoid or suggest they have something to hide. It's just their personal preference.

[pwnst*r]

I think that's what Eric Schmidt's point was.

Search engines (Google is one of them, but all the major search engines do this) keep your search data for some period of time. So if you should be aware of what you are searching for and that it isn't private. Privacy on the internet does not exist (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/privacy-on-the-internet-doesnt-exist/). So, yes, be wary. Don't be doing anything you shouldn't be doing.

I watch a lot of true crime television, and I can tell you a lot of times what suspects search for on their computers can be used as evidence to convict them of murder. The police obtain a warrant to search the house and seize the computer, and then run some kind of forensics (I'd imagine something like photorec, but tailored to internet history instead of photos and documents) to see what people have been searching for.

Whether it's through a search engine's past 90 days of data, through your ISP's logs, through an untrustworthy proxy, or through your actual computer itself being confiscated, if the government wants to know what you're doing, the government will find out. Want to be anonymous? Stop using a computer. Want privacy, don't send emails, don't communicate online, don't write blog entries, don't check out books from the library, don't ever shop with a credit card or debit card... just live in a cave.

that's what they get for committing crimes.

[SLEEPER_V]

The fact that he says "fixed" makes it apparent that it is not in fact what you originally said. So you don't need to get quite so up in arms about it. On the other hand...



...it is also a really insulting way of expressing disagreement, and doesn't say much to anybody else reading, except that you happen to disagree, so it is best avoided.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Zoot7]

Privacy on the internet does not exist (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/privacy-on-the-internet-doesnt-exist/)
Yes exactly.
I don't get why people complain about privacy but yet they use services such as Facebook/Myspace etc. (which have far more potential for invading privacy than Google IMO)

You want privacy? Stay off the internet. Done. :)

[aysiu]

So therefore you recommend that we don't bother limiting the amount of personal information that is collected as we use the internet? When did I say that?

I said technically what Eric Schmidt said is correct. If you are doing things you shouldn't be doing, then just be aware that all the major search engines keep user search data for some time.

My personal general approach is two-fold. On the one hand, when it comes to personal information, I give it out only when absolutely necessary and I don't spill my guts about everything onto my blog or on Facebook (frankly, when it comes to privacy and government subpoenas or server security breaches, Facebook probably has way more invasive information on people than Google does). On the other hand, I try as much as possible to make sure that anything I do online, if it were to be made public, would not be extremely embarrassing to me or my family.

The two practices aren't actually in opposition to one another. They go hand in hand. I don't do things I'm ashamed of online and then seek to hide them. If I'm ashamed of anything or would be upset if the world (or my government even) knew about it, I just wouldn't do it online at all. I don't decide to do it and then try to hide it... that makes no sense.

I don't imagine that I can ever get full privacy or even anything close to it while using the internet. At the same time, I know that, in all likelihood, the sites I use will not give out my information to anyone unless it's warranted.


I have a few friends that are cops, and from the beginning the first thing they say is CSI is a TV show, most crimes including murder are solved by simple police work rather than DNA evidence or scene recreation. Most crimes that are not solved in 24-48 hours will never be solved. Most towns don't have the resources we TV watchers think they do. The only time computers are seized is in the cases of fraud, illegal photos, or other computer related crimes. Very rarely do they seize equipment that might not be circumstantial to a case, infact many times they can't because of the limitations of the warrant. CSI type of investigation only gets done on high profile cases, usually supported by some federal government agency. And probably in even fewer cases (I know of only one) do the feds actually ask Google for its search data. I'm not trying to say the government and law enforcement regularly search people's computers. I'm saying that if you want privacy, don't use a computer. If you're afraid of what others might find, don't make it available to be found.


Please provide links to credible sources for both of those statements. Here's one: Google Resists U.S. Subpoena of Search Data (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html)

This is why I find it ridiculous that some people on the forums will criticize Google about privacy and then say "I use Yahoo!" Yahoo! will hand over your search data in a heartbeat. Asa Dotzler wants people to use Bing? MSN handed over search data in a heartbeat, too. Google was the only one of the major search engines that didn't.

I'm not saying Google can do no wrong. I'm just saying that as corporations go, it is more (and that's a relative term) trustworthy than other corporations.

Obviously, you cannot fully trust search engines, which is why Eric Schmidt's statement holds true. If you are doing something you shouldn't be doing, just keep in mind that there could be a record of it.

[gnomeuser]

This makes me feel just that little bit better about having just spend nearly 500$ on an Android phone, with GPS and all kinds of things that can invade my privacy. Now I am that much more confident that they will actually provide options and defaults that protect me.

Thank you Eric, I see that putting my trust in that whole do no evil thing really paid off for me.

[t0p]

Want to be anonymous? Stop using a computer. Want privacy, don't send emails, don't communicate online, don't write blog entries, don't check out books from the library, don't ever shop with a credit card or debit card... just live in a cave.

Don't be such a drama queen! There are a few simple steps you can take that protect your anonymity online. It's *easy* to use a VPN. GPG takes a little more effort - like putting a letter in an envelope. There's plenty more too. A google for something like "anonymous online" will turn up lots (using Google against itself. Heh).

This (from the Register story) made me chuckle:



Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet (http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/) for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google.


So it's okay to strip everyone else's anonymity; but Schmidt's a special case. Okaaay.

[handy]

When did I say that?

You didn't.

Your post seemed to be pointing out the futility of doing anything to protect our personal privacy, I thought, so with my question I was just checking. :)



I said technically what Eric Schmidt said is correct. If you are doing things you shouldn't be doing, then just be aware that all the major search engines keep user search data for some time.

There are other reasons which have nothing to do with the ethics of what we ourselves are doing. These are my primary concerns when it comes to data mining & the sophisticated processing of huge databases such as those owned by Google, for the benefit of whichever organisation is paying for the service.

I have fears for the future of the internet, as there are hugely powerful corporations working very hard to gain control of the internet. They are working at multiple levels, & Federal governments are most certainly one of those levels.



My personal general approach is two-fold. On the one hand, when it comes to personal information, I give it out only when absolutely necessary and I don't spill my guts about everything onto my blog or on Facebook (frankly, when it comes to privacy and government subpoenas or server security breaches, Facebook probably has way more invasive information on people than Google does). On the other hand, I try as much as possible to make sure that anything I do online, if it were to be made public, would not be extremely embarrassing to me or my family.

I agree completely.

[aysiu]

Don't be such a drama queen! People are complaining about Google invading their privacy, and I'm the drama queen? I'm the realist here, sorry.

[t0p]

People are complaining about Google invading their privacy, and I'm the drama queen? I'm the realist here, sorry.

You're a drama queen because you run around like a Chicken Little of Internet Anonymity, crying that there's nothing one can do, anonymity is impossible. Of course it's possible. So please try to refrain from scaring those who know no better.

[aysiu]

There are other reasons which have nothing to do with the ethics of what we ourselves are doing. These are my primary concerns when it comes to data mining & the sophisticated processing of huge databases such as those owned by Google, for the benefit of whichever organisation is paying for the service. I agree. The problem is that Google has somehow become the scapegoat for it. The truth is that people's privacy is eroding everywhere, and especially on the internet, and Google plays only a very small part in that, and they are far from the worst offenders.

At least Google is upfront about its business model. Google uses targeted advertising. Aggregate user behavior is a useful thing for Google to know about in order for advertisers' advertisements to be effective. Selling individual search behaviors to advertisers is not to Google's benefit.

What worries me more is how people are using Facebook to document every part of their lives, and Facebook has not had any kind of strong track record of protecting users' privacy. Worst still, Facebook is not in control of everything anyway. People put trust in "friends" who may be using that info to rob them. People put trust in Facebook applications that have access to all your personal data and your friends' personal data. Who's making these applications? Is there a vetting process?

Basically, when it comes to privacy, there are three fronts to fear: Is the government going to think I'm some kind of national security threat and scrutinize my surfing habits and what I've written online? Is some corporation going to sell my personal information for financial profit? Will I somehow become a "reality" celebrity, and suddenly everything I write will be publicized by tabloids for people to laugh at or ridicule? If you are not living in a cave, the government (through your credit card purchases, emails to friends, library book checkouts, whatever) will find a way to get you if the government wants to get you. As I spelled out before, it is not to Google's benefit to sell personal private information, and it's also too much work for them. Aggregate information is better for their business model. And finally, just don't do anything embarrassing online. Always consider that even those you consider your friends may "out" your emails, blog posts, or Facebook or Twitter updates.

[Irihapeti]

Why is it that people are so up in arms about internet anonymity, but the moment they get hacked, they want to track the ***** down?

[aysiu]

You're a drama queen because you run around like a Chicken Little of Internet Anonymity, crying that there's nothing one can do, anonymity is impossible. Of course it's possible. So please try to refrain from scaring those who know no better. I'm not crying about anything. I'm just asking people to use good sense and recognize that what they do online is tracked. Tracking can be minimized, but if the government or corporations want to find out what you do, they can. And if you encrypt the emails you send, there's nothing to stop your friends (the recipients) from forwarding your messages unencrypted or using silly passwords that can be compromised. In fact, your friends probably use Yahoo, Hotmail, or GMail anyway, so the emails you send your friends are on those corporate servers that "can't be trusted."

You can't live in a bubble. If you interact with people, you exist. You are not anonymous.

[Isengrin]

Yet another reason to keep away from Google.
Actually I just use Gmail and the google search but... finding alternatives right now. XD

[yoasif]

you guys can use scroogle to get google results without tracking, over ssl.

http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle

[User3k]

you guys can use scroogle to get google results without tracking, over ssl.

http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle

And

https://ssl.scroogle.org/


Edit:
https://ssl.scroogle.org/sslnote.html
http://www.scroogle.org/doctorow.html

[jwbrase]

You're a drama queen because you run around like a Chicken Little of Internet Anonymity, crying that there's nothing one can do, anonymity is impossible. Of course it's possible. So please try to refrain from scaring those who know no better.

*Complete* anonymity *is* impossible. But there are things you can do to make it hard enough to track you that unless you have made powerful enemies, your anonymity will *probably* be secure, at least against the most dangerous things.

[Gizenshya]

*dons tin-foil hat*

Well, for those who may still be convinced about how hard it is to keep secrets online, and how anonymity is never guaranteed...

https://secure.wikileaks.org

If the most powerful governments in the world can't even get it right... good luck. True, the risk can be minimized, but if you really don't want your grandma to figure out that you don't like her pudding, don't let that fact get anywhere near the internet.

And a couple (not-so-secret-anymore) things they got ahold of that are relevant to this thread...

Yahoo's internal legal compliance guide (https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Yahoo_compliance_guide_for_law_enforcement%2C_23_D ec_2008)

Myspace.com Law Enforcement Investigator's guide (https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/MySpace.com_Law_Enforcement_Investigators_Guide%2C _23_Jun_2006)

Microsoft COFEE (Computer Online Forensics Evidence Extractor) tool and documentation, Sep 2009 (https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Microsoft_COFEE_%28Computer_Online_Forensics_Evide nce_Extractor%29_tool_and_documentation%2C_Sep_200 9)

Wikileak's own guide to connection anonymity (https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Connection_Anonymity) (scroll below the list of links to get to the info) This is pretty much the most blunt and sobering breakdown of internet privacy you're going to get.

1. Don't do stupid stuff.

2. If you insist on doing stupid stuff, don't do it online.

3. It is always best to assume that everything you write, send, read or otherwise transmit/receive via the internet can be seen by anyone (friends, family, gov, ex-gf's, etc.).

I would strongly advise against russian roulette, if doing stupid things are your motivation for a greater interest in privacy.

That being said, there are more legitimate reasons to protect your privacy than there are illigitimate reasons. Any reason, or even no reason at all, is perfectly legitimate as well. Just know what you're doing, that is all.

[running_rabbit07]

If Google is so crappy, why do we recommend people "Google" their problems before posting a thread. I guess we could tell them to "MS" their problems instead.

[Cuddles McKitten]

"Seedy-looking pervert: Only ugly people want to pee in privacy"

[pwnst*r]

If Google is so crappy, why do we recommend people "Google" their problems before posting a thread. I guess we could tell them to "MS" their problems instead.

BING.. it's BING!

[running_rabbit07]

BING.. it's BING!

I know, it is just easier to see the irony of going to MS to find fixes for Ubuntu by saying "MS."

[pwnst*r]

I know, it is just easier to see the irony of going to MS to find fixes for Ubuntu by saying "MS."

i use bing for that and more. i also use google. my OS's include kubuntu, ubuntu, OSX, and Win7.

[running_rabbit07]

i use bing for that and more. i also use google. my OS's include kubuntu, ubuntu, OSX, and Win7.
Once this semester of hell is over with, I plan on installing Windows 7 to learn it. I installed it once, but Cisco PacketTracer doesn't have have a 64bit version and I didn't get the 32bit version from MSDNAA.

I have noticed the Bing spiders on UF, so I guess they have the same coverage of UF as Google.

[Xbehave]

It's great how when wikileaks say (paraphrasing) "everything you do online can be tracked" that's good, but when the google CEO says the same thing

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place well that's plain evil LOL.


i use bing for that and more.
Does Bing even have a Linux search (http://www.google.com/linux)? I think Google tweak results by user agent too. Hell i look forward to personalized search results too, I'll sacrifice "privacy"(see wikileaks for why i don't have any to start with) for convenience (tor is slooow) but then again if i want to do something anonymously I know what I'm doing (car+macchanger+aircrack+tor).

[Keyper7]

I know, it is just easier to see the irony of going to MS to find fixes for Ubuntu by saying "MS."

But "MS" is not a good verb... "Go bing it" sounds better.

[jbrown96]

Please provide links to credible sources for both of those statements.

Here (http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2006/01/20/google-fights-us-govt-request-for-search-data-39155785/)

Some quotes from it
Prosecutors are requesting a "random sampling" of one million internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine, and a random sampling of one million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

Google said in a statement on Thursday that it will resist the request "vigorously".


ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine said: "Our understanding is that MSN and AOL have complied with the government's request, that Yahoo! has provided some information in response but that information wasn't completely satisfactory [according to] the government."

This seems to be about the only case about subpoenas and Google. However, they did fight it; whereas, Microsoft and Yahoo! turned over records. I think that says a lot about them; they spent time and money to defend their users in court.
Granted that's not a whole lot of history to go from, but I believe that Google takes this stuff seriously.

[pricetech]

If Google is so crappy, why do we recommend people "Google" their problems before posting a thread. I guess we could tell them to "MS" their problems instead.

I've actually stopped using the phrase, replacing it with something like "look it up with your favorite search engine".

[madhi19]

Of all the comments about privacy this really get the cake it deserve a Balmer award for Boneheadness!

[Anuovis]

Every door lock can be picked by a skilled thief in a matter of minutes, sometimes even seconds. Dishonest friend can secretly make a copy of the key. Your door can be breached by the local police, can by blown up by the tank of invading army or teleported to another galaxy by aliens.

Yet you still lock it every time you leave the house. And nobody thinks it is a stupid thing to do. Now why is that?

Google CEO did not say anything new about privacy on the net. But that does not mean that Google is taking adequate measures to protect it either. I, for one, do not like the fact that they retain the right to keep my personal data for as long as they want. That is why I avoid Google. There is no reason to do that, ads can be displayed on the fly, usage statistics may be saved but they do not need my email message from 5 years ago.
This is unreasonable. Given the fact how many free services they are offering, such practice can become a serious privacy problem one day.

This is not to say that Google is some kind of demon, or the worst threat of all. But the above reasons are enough for me to not enter into contract with them.

But people usually do not care. Facebook is a great example of privacy unawareness.

[Sand & Mercury]

I don't see much of a problem here really, as long as they are not selling information to private companies. If I do anything that's illegal or legally gray it's not done through google. And as stated before, NOTHING you submit to the internet is completely 100% airtight from being viewed by third parties. NOTHING.

[t0p]

What really worries me is the fact that Schmidt in effect said that there's something wrong in wanting online privacy. That if you want to keep something secret, it must be something to be ashamed of. If the CEO of Google doesn't understand the fundamental need for privacy, how can that company be trusted to maintain that secrecy?

I'm also concerned at all the forum members saying that online privacy is impossible. This level of ignorance no doubt enheartens those government agencies who have a vested interest in abolishing privacy; but anyone who cares about freedom will worry at the success of this misinformation.

[HappinessNow]

i dont really care. As long as I know they are doing it, then its fine. If they were being sneaky about it then I would have a problem with it. Its a matter of principle with me.


^ This.

^ This, again.


Wow, I can't believe how far people have blow this out of proportion.

What Eric Schmidt said was that if they are given a valid subpoena by a US court, they are legally required to turn over all information about it. If you don't want your criminal behavior to be in the hands of a US court, then don't give it to a US corporation.

Honestly, Google has a good track record of fighting subpoenas, and other search engines don't. He was simply telling the truth, and people are foaming at the mouth about it.

Google does a very good job (comparatively) with anonymizing data and protecting it from third parties.

I trust Google a lot more than my ISP. At least Google has specific privacy policies, and I have never heard of an instance where they violated it. ^ This.


I think that's what Eric Schmidt's point was.

Search engines (Google is one of them, but all the major search engines do this) keep your search data for some period of time. So if you should be aware of what you are searching for and that it isn't private. Privacy on the internet does not exist (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/privacy-on-the-internet-doesnt-exist/). So, yes, be wary. Don't be doing anything you shouldn't be doing.

I watch a lot of true crime television, and I can tell you a lot of times what suspects search for on their computers can be used as evidence to convict them of murder. The police obtain a warrant to search the house and seize the computer, and then run some kind of forensics (I'd imagine something like photorec, but tailored to internet history instead of photos and documents) to see what people have been searching for.

Whether it's through a search engine's past 90 days of data, through your ISP's logs, through an untrustworthy proxy, or through your actual computer itself being confiscated, if the government wants to know what you're doing, the government will find out. Want to be anonymous? Stop using a computer. Want privacy, don't send emails, don't communicate online, don't write blog entries, don't check out books from the library, don't ever shop with a credit card or debit card... just live in a cave. Thank You for being a voice of reason.


Please provide links to credible sources for both of those statements. Google is your friend! :P


People are complaining about Google invading their privacy, and I'm the drama queen? I'm the realist here, sorry. Well said.


I agree. The problem is that Google has somehow become the scapegoat for it. The truth is that people's privacy is eroding everywhere, and especially on the internet, and Google plays only a very small part in that, and they are far from the worst offenders.

At least Google is upfront about its business model. Google uses targeted advertising. Aggregate user behavior is a useful thing for Google to know about in order for advertisers' advertisements to be effective. Selling individual search behaviors to advertisers is not to Google's benefit.

What worries me more is how people are using Facebook to document every part of their lives, and Facebook has not had any kind of strong track record of protecting users' privacy. Worst still, Facebook is not in control of everything anyway. People put trust in "friends" who may be using that info to rob them. People put trust in Facebook applications that have access to all your personal data and your friends' personal data. Who's making these applications? Is there a vetting process?

Basically, when it comes to privacy, there are three fronts to fear: Is the government going to think I'm some kind of national security threat and scrutinize my surfing habits and what I've written online? Is some corporation going to sell my personal information for financial profit? Will I somehow become a "reality" celebrity, and suddenly everything I write will be publicized by tabloids for people to laugh at or ridicule? If you are not living in a cave, the government (through your credit card purchases, emails to friends, library book checkouts, whatever) will find a way to get you if the government wants to get you. As I spelled out before, it is not to Google's benefit to sell personal private information, and it's also too much work for them. Aggregate information is better for their business model. And finally, just don't do anything embarrassing online. Always consider that even those you consider your friends may "out" your emails, blog posts, or Facebook or Twitter updates. Again, Thank You for being a Voice of Reason in a sea of FUD.

[User3k]

What really worries me is the fact that Schmidt in effect said that there's something wrong in wanting online privacy. That if you want to keep something secret, it must be something to be ashamed of. If the CEO of Google doesn't understand the fundamental need for privacy, how can that company be trusted to maintain that secrecy?

I'm also concerned at all the forum members saying that online privacy is impossible. This level of ignorance no doubt enheartens those government agencies who have a vested interest in abolishing privacy; but anyone who cares about freedom will worry at the success of this misinformation.

For me, I don't see it as impossible. However I don't see it existing at all right now. So many ways for so many others to watch over our shoulders. In the current state things are in I don't see anything that will ever be 100%.

[HappinessNow]

People who are really concerned about privacy should not be posting in this thread or this forum. Trite but True even here.

[pwnst*r]

maybe we should form a line and start handing out tinfoil hats.

[t0p]

For me, I don't see it as impossible. However I don't see it existing at all right now. So many ways for so many others to watch over our shoulders. In the current state things are in I don't see anything that will ever be 100%.

But online privacy is attainable! Yes, now! A simple step like using a VPN or a service like Your Freedom (https://www.your-freedom.net/) gives anonymity straight away. PGP/GPG is an excellent tool (and the Firefox add-on FireGPG makes its use trivial). If you want to blog anonymously, there are strategies you can use to enable this (http://www.eff.org/wp/blog-safely) - strategies that are used successfully by people who blog from countries with oppressive censorship. Services like tor, if used correctly can afford you plenty of protection. And there are lots of other ways to protect your privacy online - I don't have links to hand, but a simple search for "anonymous online" or "privacy online" will turn up lots of stuff. Also check out the EFF's site (http://eff.org). They have lots of useful ideas.

Some steps are trivial; others need more determination. But don't let anyone tell you it's impossible. And certainly don't let characters like Schmidt tell you that your desire for privacy is somehow perverse or criminal. When Schmidt sends a letter through the post, does he just write the message on the back of a postcard and stick it in the mail? Of course not: he uses envelopes. Not because he's ashamed of what he's written; but because it's no one else's business. Your life is also no one else's business.

[oobuntoo]

Eric Schmidt maybe a bit blunt and some people find the truth hard to take, but what he said is valid. If you worried so much about privacy to the point of being paranoid, then stay off the internet. There will always be some forms of collecting and storing of information when using internet search engines, no matter if it's Bing, Google, or any others. Even if Bing's policy on privacy sounded more friendlier than that of Google's, it means nothing. Both Google and MS will still have to answer to the legal system they operated under. If the U.S. Homeland Security came knocking on their doors, they would have to give up any info they were asked to. Anyone who thinks a search engine's privacy policy means jack to federal government needs to have their reality checked.

Personally, I'm worried more about some scumbag scammers stealing my personal and financial infos then Google or Bing selling my infos to advertising companies.

[pwnst*r]

Eric Schmidt maybe a bit blunt and some people find the truth hard to take, but what he said is valid. If you worried so much about privacy to the point of being paranoid, then stay off the internet. There will always be some forms of collecting and storing of information when using internet search engines, no matter if it's Bing, Google, or any others. Even if Bing's policy on privacy sounded more friendlier than that of Google's, it means nothing. Both Google and MS will still have to answer to the legal system they operated under. If the U.S. Homeland Security came knocking on their doors, they would have to give up any info they were asked to. Anyone who thinks a search engine's privacy policy means jack to federal government needs to have their reality checked.

Personally, I'm worried more about some scumbag scammers stealing my personal and financial infos then Google or Bing selling my infos to advertising companies.

although i agree with this, i still VPN and SSH home when i'm mobile and strictly use linux when i'm doing so. this is for my own peace of mind.

[t0p]

People who are really concerned about privacy should not be posting in this thread or this forum. Trite but True even here.

People who are really concerned about privacy can post here without any problem. Of course, when they set up their Ubuntuforums.org account, they won't have associated it with their "private" email addresses. And they'll be careful that they don't give away any info that can be cross-referenced with their "private" life (for instace they won't put their "private" Yahoo Messenger ID in their profile). But that's not complicated or difficult - it demands common sense more than technical expertise.

[HappinessNow]

maybe we should form a line and start handing out tinfoil hats....or tinfoil under-roos! :P


Eric Schmidt maybe a bit blunt and some people find the truth hard to take, but what he said is valid. If you worried so much about privacy to the point of being paranoid, then stay off the internet. There will always be some forms of collecting and storing of information when using internet search engines, no matter if it's Bing, Google, or any others. Even if Bing's policy on privacy sounded more friendlier than that of Google's, it means nothing. Both Google and MS will still have to answer to the legal system they operated under. If the U.S. Homeland Security came knocking on their doors, they would have to give up any info they were asked to. Anyone who thinks a search engine's privacy policy means jack to federal government needs to have their reality checked.

Personally, I'm worried more about some scumbag scammers stealing my personal and financial infos then Google or Bing selling my infos to advertising companies.Personally, I'm not worried at all about much...but do find this thread rather amusing.

[Grenage]

Unless you are personally in control of every machine between you and the webserver (including the webserver, and the ISP), privacy isn't happening for you. It's simply not possible, unless you're using encrypted connections to another machine that you own (in which case, you might as well keep them in the same room).

[HappinessNow]

"a strange game. The only winning move is not to play" ~ War Games

[Anuovis]

Unless you are personally in control of every machine between you and the webserver (including the webserver, and the ISP), privacy isn't happening for you. It's simply not possible, unless you're using encrypted connections to another machine that you own (in which case, you might as well keep them in the same room).

But that does not mean that everyone on this planet have an easy access to the information that you send. Why does it have to be 0 or 100%?

All of the communications are like this. Even regular mail can be opened and read.

I really like that analogy with the door lock. You do not consider somebody will bomb your house when you lock it before going to work, although it can happen any day.

[Sporkman]

Basically, when it comes to privacy, there are three fronts to fear: Is the government going to think I'm some kind of national security threat and scrutinize my surfing habits and what I've written online? Is some corporation going to sell my personal information for financial profit? Will I somehow become a "reality" celebrity, and suddenly everything I write will be publicized by tabloids for people to laugh at or ridicule?

More that that - due to online information about your health, lifestyle, activities, etc, you could in theory:

- Be denied health insurance, or charged more,
- Be denied a loan or charged at a higher rate,
- Be denied a job, or lose your current job,
- Be targeted as vulnerable for various crimes,
- Be open to potential lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise,
- Have your identity stolen

Not saying these thing happen frequently today, or at all, but the potential is there.