Matt Cutts, my favorite Google blogger, wrote a good response to the “Google is evil on privacy” claims of yesterday.
Donna Bogatin isn’t buying it, though.
And the conversation continues …
Advertisements
Matt Cutts of Google answers Privacy International
Published by Robert Scoble
I give you a front-row seat on the future. Focusing most of my efforts now on next-generation augmented reality and artificial intelligence, AKA "mixed reality." SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER: http://clevermoe.com/scobleizer-news/ BUY OUR NEW BOOK: https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Transformation-Robert-Scoble/dp/1539894444 "The Fourth Transformation: How augmented reality and artificial intelligence will change everything." WATCH MY LATEST SPEECHES: State of VR with Philip Rosedale (done in VR itself, very cool): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zAA1EVGUZU At GEOINT, June 2017: http://trajectorymagazine.com/glimpse-new-world/ Augmented World Expo, June 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4xHILvLD8E At Leade.rs, April 2017: https://youtu.be/52_0JshgjXI +++++++++++ BIO: Scoble gives you a front-row seat on the future. Literally. He had the first ride in the first Tesla. Siri was launched in his house. He's been the first to share all sorts of technologies and companies with you, from Flipboard to Pandora to Instagram. Today he's focusing on mixed reality, AKA "next-generation augmented reality" which will include a new user interface for EVERYTHING in your life (IoT, Smart Cities, driverless cars, robots, drones, etc). That's based on his view thanks to his past experience as futurist at Rackspace. Best place to find Scoble? On his Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble He has been a technology blogger since 2000, was one of five people who built Microsoft's Channel 9 video blog/community, worked at Fast Company Magazine running its TV efforts, and has been part of technology media businesses since 1993. ++++++++ SPEAKER PITCH: Apple and Facebook now have revealed their Augmented Reality strategies, which means your business needs one too. Rely on Robert Scoble, the world's top authority on AR, to bring to your conference what businesses should do next. SPEECH ABSTRACT #1: TITLE: The Fourth Transformation: What's next in mixed reality (AR and AI) and the future of technology? Here's an example of this talk at Leade.rs in Paris in April, 2017: https://youtu.be/52_0JshgjXI Why "the Fourth Transformation?" Soon we will have phones and glasses that do full on augmented reality. Everything you look at will potentially be augmented. This world is coming in late 2017 with a new iPhone from Apple, amongst other products. Microsoft is betting everything on its HoloLens glasses that do mixed reality and the industry is spending many billions of dollars in R&D and funding new companies like Magic Leap. This future will be the user interface for IoT, Smart Cities, autonomous cars, robots, drones, and your TV. This is a big deal and Robert will take you through what mixed reality is and how it will change every business. Learn more about Robert's speaking style and contact his agent at http://odemanagement.com/robert-scoble/Robert-Scoble.html ++++++++ SPEECH ABSTRACT #2: "The Next Two Clicks of Moore's Law." Over the next four years, or two clicks of Moore's Law, a ton about our technology world will change. Scoble will bring you the best from his travels visiting R&D labs, startups, and innovators around the world. He views the world through his rose-colored-mixed-reality glasses, which will be the new user interface for self driving cars, Smart Cities, IoT, and many other things in our world. He'll send you off with some lessons for companies both large and small. ++++++++ SPEECH ABSTRACT #3: "Personalized Meaning: What is Augmented Reality For?" As we enter a far more technological world where even cars drive themselves, I predict we'll see a blowback toward the analog, more authentic world. What role does augmented reality play in both worlds? Get Scoble's insight into where augmented reality is going, see tons of real-world demos, and understand what he means by 'personalized meaning.' CONTACT: If you are looking to contact me, email is best: scobleizer@gmail.com. ++++++++ ENDORSEMENTS: IZEA Top 25 Tech Influencers: https://izea.com/2017/07/07/25-top-tech-influencers/ Time: One of the top 140 Twitterers! FT: One of the five most influential Twitterers! Inc. Top 5 on list of Tech Power Players You Need to Know: http://www.inc.com/john-rampton/30-power-players-in-tech-you-need-to-know.html Next Reality: #4 on top 50 AR influencer list: https://next.reality.news/news/nr50-next-realitys-50-people-watch-augmented-mixed-reality-0177454/ View all posts by Robert Scoble
Published
Scoble. I know somebody who recently got out of the NSA who now works in software in Seattle. He said that Matt Cutts is not well liked there anymore.
Matt Cutts would know about this from his work at the NSA better than anybody at the AP how to protect people’s privacy. From what I heard some at the NSA consider that he sold out to Google for money.
Whether or not that’s true I have no idea, but that is what I heard from his alumni.
LikeLike
Scoble. I know somebody who recently got out of the NSA who now works in software in Seattle. He said that Matt Cutts is not well liked there anymore.
Matt Cutts would know about this from his work at the NSA better than anybody at the AP how to protect people’s privacy. From what I heard some at the NSA consider that he sold out to Google for money.
Whether or not that’s true I have no idea, but that is what I heard from his alumni.
LikeLike
Chris: everyone gets jealous of someone who gets more than they do. More PR. More money. Etc.
If you do anything interesting in life you create enemies.
Unless they are willing to tell us why and sign their names to it (IE, put it on a blog) I totally discount this kind of commentary. It’s worthless and not even worth discussing.
LikeLike
Chris: everyone gets jealous of someone who gets more than they do. More PR. More money. Etc.
If you do anything interesting in life you create enemies.
Unless they are willing to tell us why and sign their names to it (IE, put it on a blog) I totally discount this kind of commentary. It’s worthless and not even worth discussing.
LikeLike
OK then. I am not going to post his name.
LikeLike
OK then. I am not going to post his name.
LikeLike
Hi Chris! I’ve written before about my experience working as a co-op student for the NSA in college. See here for example:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/debunking-google-in-bed-with-cia/#comment-91063
I doubt anyone in the government even remembers me working there as a college student 15 years ago, let alone cares about what I say about Google and privacy now. Maybe someone there cares, but it would surprise me.
LikeLike
Hi Chris! I’ve written before about my experience working as a co-op student for the NSA in college. See here for example:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/debunking-google-in-bed-with-cia/#comment-91063
I doubt anyone in the government even remembers me working there as a college student 15 years ago, let alone cares about what I say about Google and privacy now. Maybe someone there cares, but it would surprise me.
LikeLike
Hi Matt, if you know who it is, just email me. I don’t mind telling you but I certainly won’t post it on Scoble’s blog. He just got out of the NSA a couple years ago, so I doubt he was doing anything but repeating what he heard there.
LikeLike
Hi Matt, if you know who it is, just email me. I don’t mind telling you but I certainly won’t post it on Scoble’s blog. He just got out of the NSA a couple years ago, so I doubt he was doing anything but repeating what he heard there.
LikeLike
Oh, and Matt. If Google clones our new concept site shortly after it goes live, I am cloning Google in retaliation. All of it. Just so you know.
LikeLike
Oh, and Matt. If Google clones our new concept site shortly after it goes live, I am cloning Google in retaliation. All of it. Just so you know.
LikeLike
It is nice, that Google didn’t publish user queries and data. And maybe the PI report is only PR, but I have another problem related to Google and privacy.
I’m afraid that Google stores data that nobody knows and uses it inside to “optimize” the search results or the ads.
And Google did nothing to prevent this feeling up to now.
LikeLike
It is nice, that Google didn’t publish user queries and data. And maybe the PI report is only PR, but I have another problem related to Google and privacy.
I’m afraid that Google stores data that nobody knows and uses it inside to “optimize” the search results or the ads.
And Google did nothing to prevent this feeling up to now.
LikeLike
Robert – good information, and thanks for the links to opposing views.
I appreciate that Matt is stepping forward and offering his side of the story. It is a necessary move for someone to start talking about this, and that person will take some heat. Good luck!
I also appreciate Donna’s point of view. Statements need to be challenged to create a dialogue to get more of the truth.
LikeLike
Robert – good information, and thanks for the links to opposing views.
I appreciate that Matt is stepping forward and offering his side of the story. It is a necessary move for someone to start talking about this, and that person will take some heat. Good luck!
I also appreciate Donna’s point of view. Statements need to be challenged to create a dialogue to get more of the truth.
LikeLike
Thomas,
The thing that isn’t right about this reporting is that you can use any tool like http live headers for Firefox and or Ethereal and you can see what you are sending to the Google, MSN, Yahoo website.
Had this report done a rundown in the way FPS is tested for Video cards in Hardware reports, it would have made more sense.
This article is full of opinion and very light on facts.
If Google has information it is because you willingly sent it to them. Same with the other engines.
Had the article focused on reality with ethereal dumps and HTTP header output data in the form of real statistics that prove a point, it would have made sense.
How *could* Matt Cutts defend this based on somebody’s opinion? Aside from answering with his own opinion which he did. That’s not a very geeky way to compare things and have a faction debate.
The fact remains that NONE of us have their server side code, and none of us knows what is really going on with msn, google, yahoo, aol or any other search engine. For that not to be the case, the engine code would have to be open source like media wiki for wikipedia. And there you would have to know that the site is running it unmodified.
This is just more opinion and blogger spew for rating.
Matt Cutts, Google better not take our new site idea. I spent a long time thinking this one up and I have to spend tons for the bandwidth. If you steal it you better compensate us big time.
LikeLike
Thomas,
The thing that isn’t right about this reporting is that you can use any tool like http live headers for Firefox and or Ethereal and you can see what you are sending to the Google, MSN, Yahoo website.
Had this report done a rundown in the way FPS is tested for Video cards in Hardware reports, it would have made more sense.
This article is full of opinion and very light on facts.
If Google has information it is because you willingly sent it to them. Same with the other engines.
Had the article focused on reality with ethereal dumps and HTTP header output data in the form of real statistics that prove a point, it would have made sense.
How *could* Matt Cutts defend this based on somebody’s opinion? Aside from answering with his own opinion which he did. That’s not a very geeky way to compare things and have a faction debate.
The fact remains that NONE of us have their server side code, and none of us knows what is really going on with msn, google, yahoo, aol or any other search engine. For that not to be the case, the engine code would have to be open source like media wiki for wikipedia. And there you would have to know that the site is running it unmodified.
This is just more opinion and blogger spew for rating.
Matt Cutts, Google better not take our new site idea. I spent a long time thinking this one up and I have to spend tons for the bandwidth. If you steal it you better compensate us big time.
LikeLike
“faction debate” should read “factual debate”
LikeLike
“faction debate” should read “factual debate”
LikeLike
Thanks for the links Robert,
I read both. and I think Donna needs to be more explicit and compelling in her argument. On the surface it seems very circumstantial and almost hearsay. Matt makes a more convincing argument.
No doubt Google has their interests at heart, but to say standing up to the DOJ was purely based on money is to say greed is what rules Google, that may be debatable. Its also so vague its like watching someone driving really fast down the road and saying, “they’re doing that to show off.” When in reality since you are not in the car to ask the person you have no idea. Maybe they are a doctor or cop or something. Yeah sure maybe they need to make obvious the reason, but that does not make it any less valid (meaning defending user’s privacy).
She also state the group based this on now and not past mistakes. Umm, those companies would never have corrected the mistakes unless it made them look bad (potentially money lost). Really, did the tobacco companies change their marketing and product even though they knew better, not until they got caught.
Objective discussion is hard and is not something that happens overnight. People have to have firm belief in the ability to be objective. In this case I think Matt was closer.
But I could be wrong…
LikeLike
Thanks for the links Robert,
I read both. and I think Donna needs to be more explicit and compelling in her argument. On the surface it seems very circumstantial and almost hearsay. Matt makes a more convincing argument.
No doubt Google has their interests at heart, but to say standing up to the DOJ was purely based on money is to say greed is what rules Google, that may be debatable. Its also so vague its like watching someone driving really fast down the road and saying, “they’re doing that to show off.” When in reality since you are not in the car to ask the person you have no idea. Maybe they are a doctor or cop or something. Yeah sure maybe they need to make obvious the reason, but that does not make it any less valid (meaning defending user’s privacy).
She also state the group based this on now and not past mistakes. Umm, those companies would never have corrected the mistakes unless it made them look bad (potentially money lost). Really, did the tobacco companies change their marketing and product even though they knew better, not until they got caught.
Objective discussion is hard and is not something that happens overnight. People have to have firm belief in the ability to be objective. In this case I think Matt was closer.
But I could be wrong…
LikeLike
Matt talks about hitwise and ISPs selling data with router TCP filtering, but if Google really cared about privacy to the extreme that Matt makes it out to be, BTW, don’t ripp off our new site, https://www.google.com would work and not redirect you to the HTTP. Google doesn’t want you to SSL your queries so people can’t snoop on the LAN level. Thanks to no SSL, it means that any agency can tap your searches, knowingly, or not as we saw with the NSA’s no warrant tapping.
Why isn’t SSL mandated on Google’s jabber server?
Why not build encryption into GMail, and depart from pure RFC plain text mime? They have the pull that OE and Thunderbird would be forced to follow.
Why? Because they don’t care any more than MSN or Yahoo, and they do the minimum, while making data completely as insecure as the other services.
That’s criticism more in tune with reality than the article Matt responded to.
LikeLike
Matt talks about hitwise and ISPs selling data with router TCP filtering, but if Google really cared about privacy to the extreme that Matt makes it out to be, BTW, don’t ripp off our new site, https://www.google.com would work and not redirect you to the HTTP. Google doesn’t want you to SSL your queries so people can’t snoop on the LAN level. Thanks to no SSL, it means that any agency can tap your searches, knowingly, or not as we saw with the NSA’s no warrant tapping.
Why isn’t SSL mandated on Google’s jabber server?
Why not build encryption into GMail, and depart from pure RFC plain text mime? They have the pull that OE and Thunderbird would be forced to follow.
Why? Because they don’t care any more than MSN or Yahoo, and they do the minimum, while making data completely as insecure as the other services.
That’s criticism more in tune with reality than the article Matt responded to.
LikeLike
Chris (#8) – You address some legitimate concerns that I think should get answers. I think questioning the methodology of the report is the next logical step.
The motto of the group I work in is ‘Trust but verify’ so I am all for validating the resulting claims.
I wrote a post – Privacy International and Google – What’s Really Going On?, where I raise the issue of all the he said / she said arguments being raised by the two companies and question how much of this story we really know.
LikeLike
Chris (#8) – You address some legitimate concerns that I think should get answers. I think questioning the methodology of the report is the next logical step.
The motto of the group I work in is ‘Trust but verify’ so I am all for validating the resulting claims.
I wrote a post – Privacy International and Google – What’s Really Going On?, where I raise the issue of all the he said / she said arguments being raised by the two companies and question how much of this story we really know.
LikeLike
@11,
If Google really wasn’t in cohorts with the NSA and other agencies, as is MS, Yahoo, AOL and all the others, they would simply stop the plain text web.
No more plain HTTP, no more plain IM message streams like MSNP 789-10,11,…., oscar AIM/TOC protocols or unencrypted Jabber. No more unencrypted email.
It would be at the very least SSL, and at the most a newer better encryption that pushes even super computer deciphering.
This would be at the network stack level and would not effect application code doing TCP socket routines.
Our own social networking used to be all in SSL but due to it not being in a datacenter anymore, we lost the IP for it. So I can’t do it as a virtual site.
BUT Google has all the resources in the world to make a secure web experience. They KNOW BETTER. And they choose not to. They could totally replace the whole root CA system if they wanted to with their pull as a matter of fact. And develop something better and free. The only reason they SSL’d gmail and parts of the adsense/words is because everybody else does it with CC data and email.
They *WANT* your information to remain vulnerable. They are complicit to it. All the major companies are. They create this semblance of competition and real issues get clouded by the article mentioned, to avoid the real facts.
These companies are all from the same place and they all swap employees like an inbred family tree. Think about it one second. There is industry cohesion here on why the web is not secure.
LikeLike
@11,
If Google really wasn’t in cohorts with the NSA and other agencies, as is MS, Yahoo, AOL and all the others, they would simply stop the plain text web.
No more plain HTTP, no more plain IM message streams like MSNP 789-10,11,…., oscar AIM/TOC protocols or unencrypted Jabber. No more unencrypted email.
It would be at the very least SSL, and at the most a newer better encryption that pushes even super computer deciphering.
This would be at the network stack level and would not effect application code doing TCP socket routines.
Our own social networking used to be all in SSL but due to it not being in a datacenter anymore, we lost the IP for it. So I can’t do it as a virtual site.
BUT Google has all the resources in the world to make a secure web experience. They KNOW BETTER. And they choose not to. They could totally replace the whole root CA system if they wanted to with their pull as a matter of fact. And develop something better and free. The only reason they SSL’d gmail and parts of the adsense/words is because everybody else does it with CC data and email.
They *WANT* your information to remain vulnerable. They are complicit to it. All the major companies are. They create this semblance of competition and real issues get clouded by the article mentioned, to avoid the real facts.
These companies are all from the same place and they all swap employees like an inbred family tree. Think about it one second. There is industry cohesion here on why the web is not secure.
LikeLike
Since your last post about this subject I’ve become more and more interested in following it around the web.
It’ll be really interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thanks for stirring my attention.
(I still don’t think it’s going to blow up like Microsoft did, but I do agree that if Google keeps up in this direction it won’t be good for them)
LikeLike
Since your last post about this subject I’ve become more and more interested in following it around the web.
It’ll be really interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thanks for stirring my attention.
(I still don’t think it’s going to blow up like Microsoft did, but I do agree that if Google keeps up in this direction it won’t be good for them)
LikeLike
It’s not surprising that an organisation such as Privacy International is up in arms about Google. I further expect the EFF and EPIC to voice their concerns. As Robert notes in #2, If you do anything interesting in life you create enemies. This is merely a sign that Google is doing something right.
LikeLike
It’s not surprising that an organisation such as Privacy International is up in arms about Google. I further expect the EFF and EPIC to voice their concerns. As Robert notes in #2, If you do anything interesting in life you create enemies. This is merely a sign that Google is doing something right.
LikeLike
“I further expect the EFF and EPIC to voice their concerns.”
I’d be shocked personally. The EFF is usually unbiased and careful. I also don’t see this as being a result of Google doing something right.
LikeLike
“I further expect the EFF and EPIC to voice their concerns.”
I’d be shocked personally. The EFF is usually unbiased and careful. I also don’t see this as being a result of Google doing something right.
LikeLike
Chris: Wake me up when SSL is fast enough to be the default. Look up Ockham’s razor sometime. It will make you sleep better at night, because you won’t have to worry about your silly theories anymore.
LikeLike
Chris: Wake me up when SSL is fast enough to be the default. Look up Ockham’s razor sometime. It will make you sleep better at night, because you won’t have to worry about your silly theories anymore.
LikeLike