« The unrevolution | Main | Yes, Virginia, there is attentiveness »
Privacy is relative
November 11, 2010
January 17, 2010: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." -Eric Schmidt
November 10, 2010: "Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced the salary hike in a memo late Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by Fortune. The memo was also leaked to Business Insider, which broke the news. Within hours, Google notified its staff that it had terminated the leaker, several sources told CNNMoney. A Google spokesman declined to comment on the issue, or on the memo."
Comments
Related to this is the recently published article from The Beast on their experimentation with how Facebook applies their algorithms to your feed and why you get the particular info you do. Not posting what you don't want people to know is one thing, Eric Schmidt, but notwithstanding the fact that you have no control over what other people post about you there's the issue of the stuff you DO want people to know that may be overlooked. You must read this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-18/the-facebook-news-feed-how-it-works-the-10-biggest-secrets/
Posted by: Kaitlin Hanger ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.roughtype.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 11, 2010 12:12 PM
Lolcat text: "I iz hippocrit?"
Posted by: Kelly Roberts at November 11, 2010 02:33 PM
If the memo was leaked in its entirety, it doesn't include any statement about it being confidential — you'd need to check with their job contact if all aspects of remuneration are, but that would seem far fetched.
Posted by: Bertil Hatt at November 12, 2010 01:59 AM
But why do you think he is thinking that no one is supposed to know this? This was a private email to Google employees and was not supposed to be leaked. There is a difference between visiting objectionable websites versus leaking corporate information.
Posted by: Nitingoyal at November 12, 2010 05:03 AM
Sure, Schmidt's statement is extreme, but nonetheless it seems to me that you're wrongly conflating privacy and confidentiality. Information about the Google raises wasn't private, but it appears that it was confidential, with confidentiality binding on Google employees including the one who leaked the news.
Posted by: Seth Grimes at November 12, 2010 09:31 AM
Seth, I think the distinction is specious in this context. If we're talking about the expectation that everything someone does will be documented online, then that would cover confidences between friends as well as confidential memos from CEOs. Each assumes privacy of communication.
Posted by: Nick Carr at November 12, 2010 10:03 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Now in paperback:
Pulitzer Prize Finalist
"Riveting" -San Francisco Chronicle
"Rewarding" -Financial Times
"Revelatory" -Booklist
The Cloud, demystified:
"Future Shock for the web-apps era" -Fast Company
"Ominously prescient" -Kirkus Reviews
"Riveting stuff" -New York Post
Greatest hits
Avatars consume as much electricity as Brazilians
The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock's avatar
Flight of the wingless coffin fly
Other writing
The end of corporate computing
The limits of computers:
Order from Amazon
Visit book site