Eric Schmidt has called for measures to delete information from the internet

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/07/digital_delete_google/

by alan_cx • 13 years ago

51 50 13 years ago

theregister.co.uk

Udo• 13 years ago

I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders.

The complication here is non-obvious but real: Google has been pushing a hard link between online and offline personas to the point of absurdity sometimes. They are in a unique position to profit from a law that requires this kind of link. Compare that to, say, HN or even very small websites where no such policy exists and no such policy would even be realistically enforceable. How could HN verify the authenticity of a deletion order?

I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here. They are in a great position to leverage their ToS in a way that would effectively outlaw smaller competitors. He is obviously not pushing a technological idea here, so it follows he must be lobbying for a legislative one.

eurleif3• 13 years ago

Eric Schmidt also wants to ban consumer drones[1]. When he said that, I couldn't help but wonder if it had something to do with protecting Street View from competition.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-goog...

gcb03• 13 years ago

yep. it's the same reason amazon now is in favor of internet sales tax.

swalsh• 13 years ago

"I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders."

If you're careful about the scope of whats protected, its maybe not such a bad thing. I'm open to a limited amount of oversight if it means I'll have a more protected experience on the web. As much as I love the freedom the web provides, It's also a bit of a dangerous place where it can be hard to tell who you can trust. As techies its pretty easy for us to know who to trust and who we cant. But your mother probably can't.

Additionally, it opens up the possibility for opportunities too. Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data. If we can use laws to build up walls, we can also invent laws that break down other artificial walls.

eurleif3• 13 years ago

>Its not unreasonable to believe that if I'm regulating the storage of personal data that I can also slip in a requirement that allows easy mechanical transfer of that data.

Regulation leads to more regulation, and you're calling that a good thing? No thanks. Walled gardens suck, but I'll take them over letting the government define what makes an online service acceptable.

OGinparadise• 13 years ago

>>I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here.

Maybe they are (I don't buy it either) but Google has lost the right to get the benefit of the doubt, at last from me.

Now on topic, I understand the first amendment and public's right to know but people also make mistakes and at some point deserve a fresh start (criminal record expunge, bad news hidden after x years, right to file bankruptcy etc.)

Not only is it the right thing to do morally, IMO, it's also great for the economy, eventually we all will do something embarrassing or bad. For how long do we have to suffer? If I can't get a decent job based on my qualifications because of a marijuana /underage alcohol conviction 12 years ago, how is that good for my children and eventually the state /country?

dsl• 13 years ago

"The lack of a delete button on the internet is a significant issue."

Shareholders should call for someone with such a profound disconnect from how the Internet works to step down from a technology company.

iaw2• 13 years ago

That doesn't demonstrate any disconnect from how the internet works. He is saying, that in it's current state, being unable to remove information from the internet poses a large problem for numerous members of society.

Ultimately I think he's going to be entirely S.O.L. on getting this pushed through but I'm not going to bet against the guy. What in his statement implies there's a disconnect?

scotty792• 13 years ago

Because it's like complaining about gravity and telling that lots of people currently hurt by gravity would benefit from having the ability to turn it off in some defined volume on demand.

Technically true but kinda disconnected.

chc• 13 years ago

I don't think Schmidt is saying that he believes this is an easy problem to solve. As a generous interpretation, I think he's just pointing out that it is a problem.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

There's nothing about "how the internet works" here.

Technology is a tool. WE shape it as WE want it. It's not some master that we have to obey ("oh, it's difficult to delete stuff in how we have set internet up, so we just bend over and accept it").

samwillis• 13 years ago

This is a debate that I think is not only inevitable but needs to happen. I am completely in favour of free speech and the freedom of the Internet but I think stories like the one about the teacher from earlier on the homepage make you realise that there are situations where the Internet can cause harm. It is a difficult situation and I certainly don't know how to solve it, or even if it can be. What I do know is that it will be a very vocal debate and never end.

GauntletWizard• 13 years ago

Completely disagree. What the world needs to learn is that people do make mistakes, and a single mistake, or small series of mistakes, does not disqualify someone from having a productive life.

scotty792• 13 years ago

I agree with you. More transparency brings more acceptance and tolerance. Fuller information about life and how other people live theirs allows people to decide better and accept their life or discover the way how to alter it.

From technical standpoint computers should never forget anything and it's really unfortunate that they do and that this implementation detail leaks to UI.

alan_cx• 13 years ago

Firstly, The Register is a bit tabloid. So, factor that in.

Second, a brilliant reply from the comments on The Register:

"Can't see how it will work. Lets say somebody completely annihilates me in some sport or other when we both youths. Now I might want that expunged from the internet since I am embarrassed about it, but the person who beat me will want it kept because they are proud of their sporting achievement. Who gets to decide whether it is expunged or kept? A similar argument for criminal acts can also be made. As an example, I attempt to mug an OAP but another youth bravely thwarts my dastardly deed. Again, I want it expunged but the other youth wants it kept. The problem is, that most of what you do in life involves other people (I expect a few w*nkers will argue about this) and therefore if you are deleting an incident in your history you are also deleting it in theirs and they might not want it forgotten."!

Correct me if Im wrong, but IMHO, that pretty much defeats the whole idea, no? I might want to delete something, but others could still reference it, and me.

droithomme• 13 years ago

It takes effort to parse Schmidt since everything he says has a self serving agenda. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as CEO [corrective edit: as Executive Chairman] part of his job is to promote the profitable interests of the corporation he heads.)

His stated agenda is to have real id mandated on the internet and eliminate anonymity. This benefits him which enables Google to make more money selling targeted ads where the target is known and identification is reliable, as well as reliably tracking people's private and personal interests and preferences, which is very valuable information which those in marketing, insurance claims, and security will all pay good money to have access to. It is an asset which can be sold and profited from, of interest to his business.

One problem that has been brought up with having mandated identification on the internet, the "internet drivers license" proposal, is that it can ruin kids lives since they may say a lot of dumb things.

So Schmidt heads this off with a proposal to have a global delete protocol, likely mandated by law that it be respected by various sites.

For delete to work though with a single button press, real id is necessity. No problem, everyone will have to have their net drivers license, all net accesses, views and posts tied into unique personal identifier such as social insurance numbers, so it is a simple matter to allow for a one-time delete of all records associated with a given globally unique personal identifier upon receiving a request from a central authority, or required daily checking of a central delete authority.

Of course the current solution, of using anonymous aliases, makes a delete button unnecessary. The delete button is only necessary in a world where anonymity is not permitted. It is useful to understand this is an unspoken premise of his proposal.

wmf2• 13 years ago

BTW, he hasn't been CEO for two years.

greiskul• 13 years ago

Just nitpicking, but Eric Schmidt is not the CEO of Google anymore. He stepped down on 2011, and was replaced by Larry Page. He is the Executive Chairman of Google though.

rhizome• 13 years ago

In other words, he doesn't want bureacracy to encroach on Google, but he would LOVE for bureaucracy to depend on Google by providing fundamental privacy functions for the Internet. Content control is not to far from this logic, btw, though I'm not sure it qualifies as a slippery slope.

UPDATE: On further thought, I wonder if this is just textbook Rent-seeking or Regulatory Capture (or some hybrid). If so, my apologies for puffery!

hdevalence2• 13 years ago

I agree with the bulk of your criticism, but this made me think a little:

> Of course the current solution, of using anonymous aliases, makes a delete button unnecessary.

I'm not sure it does, at least in practice.

People can and will leak information between their aliases, unless they are extremely careful to maintain separation, and if we're operating in a context where everything is recorded, and only the anonymity of the alias attached to that content protects it, then a single leak of information screws things up permanently, at least from the point of view of someone who has a significant interest in having surveillance over (and hence power over) that person.

I don't think that it's reasonable to expect everyone, to maintain perfect opsec starting from the first time they turn on their computer -- it's not only unreasonable to demand it, or to think that it's possible, but it's also incredibly destructive psychologically. So under a system where there is some anonymity, but no deletion, there's still the problem of this sort of information being available.

To me, the problem seems to be that "anonymous" is a word sort of like "security", in the sense that it doesn't really have meaning without some (perhaps implicitly) attached idea of "to whom".

When we say that some information is posted anonymously, do we mean anonymous to someone who does a casual web search, to someone who spends a few hours looking at various sources of information, to an army of internet vigilantes (c.f. reddit and the Boston bombings, or 4chan's harassment), to law enforcement, or to three letter agencies?

And is it even possible to post anything substantial anonymously, or will network analysis, or the content itself (eg. writing identification) reveal the author to an adversary?

> The delete button is only necessary in a world where anonymity is not permitted. It is useful to understand this is an unspoken premise of his proposal.

When the NSA is building a yottabyte-scale data centre in Utah, and carries out data-collection programs beyond the scale of imagination, don't we already live in such a world?

Moreover, is it even possible to have a world in which anonymity exists, or does the increase in sophistication of surveillance tools make it impossible?

(Note, of course, that Schmidt's proposal doesn't solve this problem at all, because it presumes that there is one authority with the power to enforce deletion orders, and that that authority is trustworthy. Neither of those conditions can be met.)

gcb03• 13 years ago

having a delete button is a crackpipe dream. be realistic.

having an alias is not perfect, of course. but it's time proven and the best trade off. Heck, name one writer trhu history that didn't start with a pen-name.

w1ntermute• 13 years ago

I think you're overestimating how serious he's being every time he kicks up a Schmidtstorm with his latest comments.

cortesoft• 13 years ago

This might work for written content (such as forum posts), but it certainly won't help for photos or videos, which are most like more damaging than some forum rant. You can be very careful with your anonymity online, but you can't stop your friends from posting pictures of you doing stupid shit.

grecy• 13 years ago

The cynic in me sees a time when it will just cost money to get something deleted from the internet. Of course, those with the money win.

Don't like that your teenage misdemeanor is on the record? That's just a $5mil delete away, Mr CEO.

wmf2• 13 years ago

This business model is already in play with mugshot extortion sites and such.

brockhand• 13 years ago

I have (sometimes jokingly, sometimes seriously) wondered if this is the future business model of Facebook. Subscription required to keep private or something along those lines.

nlh• 13 years ago

Very interesting development. I presume when he refers to "deleting" he means something more like allowing a user to remove references to him/herself from, say, Google, which is effectively the same as removing from "the internet" (nerd analogy - if you lose the MBR on your hard drive, you basically lose the data since there's no simple way to rebuild it. I know, not a perfect analogy, but still..)

Here's the question I have -- no answer just yet but curious what you folks think. If I had some bad press about me in the New York Times and I had the ability to have Google de-index the pages that talk about me, is that a Good or Bad thing? I imagine they wouldn't simply remove the entire pages, but they'd instead make it so searches for my name wouldn't show the bad stuff whereas other related searches would pull up those pages.

On the one hand, this is a plus for people and the ability to personally be in charge of your online image.

On the other hand, this is a minus for "open information" -- maybe Jack's drunken arrest on disorderly conduct charges doesn't need to show up, but Bill's indictment for securities fraud better serves the public interest, particularly if he's a con artist and runs the same scam again and again...

Thoughts?

zachgersh• 13 years ago

"One does not simply delete information from the Internet."

Jabbles• 13 years ago

This isn't a particularly new idea, so I don't see any reason to link it to Glass or any specific (Google or otherwise) technology.

Eric Schmidt has been saying something like this for (at least) about 3 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-w...

venomsnake• 13 years ago

This is solving the wrong problem. The problem is not the infinite preservation of history, but the overreaction of the employers and organizations.

The need is for society to evolve and accept the people the way they are and not enabling people to keep a mask in public.

zenbowman• 13 years ago

Exactly, this is literally hiding junk under the carpet.

julienchastang• 13 years ago

It reminds me of that old Onion article: "Google Announces Plan To Destroy All Information It Can't Index" http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-announces-plan-to-de...

danbruc• 13 years ago

This is probably as hard as removing a drop of ink from a glass of water - not entirely impossible but quite hard. Furthermore you have do find a mechanism that enables you to prove that the information you want to delete refers to you and that it therefore is you right to do so. Failing on this may easily turn the thing into means of censorship.

On the other hand it is probably sufficient to remove the easily discoverable instances of that information because not many people will try really hard to come up with something. And the ones that do will probably also do so outside of the internet.

BrainInAJar• 13 years ago

But presumably keep it in Google's database, so they can keep harvesting it and running statistical models against you

CyberDroiD• 13 years ago

From the mangled words of Eric Schmidt: "Maybe if you didn't do those things, you wouldn't need things deleted from the internet"

onemorepassword• 13 years ago

Most of this is already covered by privacy laws in many countries. One of the foundations of most privacy laws is that you own the data collected about you, and those that collect that data must adhere to certain rules regarding insight, alteration, deletion and security.

Countries btw in which Google operates and has a tendency to ignore said laws. This is like someone driving 100mph on a 50mph road abroad, but calling for measures against speeding in their own neighborhood.

bgruber• 13 years ago

As NewsRadio taught us so many years ago, deleting something from the internet is like trying to remove pee from a swimming pool.

sorry, i had to post this.

pessimizer• 13 years ago

Something similar to how we use fire on books? Like how we seal or expunge criminal records sometimes, except every individual is obligated to comply?

The protocol could be extended to deleting particular opinions from the internet, which could help with terrorism (or talking about terrorism or whatever), or even tracking and taxing particular opinions, as Cass Sunstein theorized might be a good way to bring down the pervasiveness of conspiracy theories.

The possibilities are endless.

squozzer• 13 years ago

Maybe we should try something a little more prosiac, such as, I don't know - forgiveness maybe?

That probably sounds like some hippy-looking (or overly-meditative) founder of a major religion, so nevermind.

Plan B - find the dirt that Mr. Schmidt is obviously wishing would disappear.

shmerl• 13 years ago

Sounds bordering on totalitarian censorship.

csense• 13 years ago

If there are some people who are considered "un-hire-able" by most existing companies due to what the internet says about them, why doesn't a new startup just break the taboo and hire them?

If too few startups want to take on the risk, why don't the un-hire-able create their own businesses and work for each other?

Why don't we give capitalism a chance to solve the problem before we jump into regulatory solutions?

Eric Schmidt has called for measures to delete information from the internet

Related Stories