Some people use quotation marks for paraphrased quotes.
Right. And some people don't know what they're talking about and like to put words in other people's mouths. If you're going to quote someone, quote them.
What was actually said in the oft-misquoted Schmidt interview:
"I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but 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 to remember, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." -- Eric Schmidt
Note that isn't a paraphrase. That's a real, gen-u-ine quote. I don't agree with him that the desire to maintain privacy is any way linked to whether I should or should not be doing something. But what I find even more interesting is that in the same breath, we're being warned about the Patriot Act. We're being told without actually being told (because that would be illegal) that Google is being served with Patriot Act requests. Nobody ever seems to key on that though.
Back on topic - nowhere does Schmidt say that privacy isn't important. I understand and share the concern over how much data and meta-data Google has access to. I'm even more concerned over the possibility of Google changing hands or Government access to data (i.e. Patriot Act). But let's limit criticism and concerns to real issues. The real issues are enough without making crap up.
Unless, of course, making crap up is part of a larger agenda.
I thought it was more interesting when you did this post the first time. But I guess you can now copy and paste this in to anything Google related from here on out, right?
Now I'm wondering. Where does this copy-and-paste come from? When has an agent of Google said "privacy is not important"? And when does Google+, a "social network" service that not only features but stresses limiting communications to user-customizable groups and therefore controlling how public any given communications are, represent an example of privacy not being important?
And a traitor. Don't forget that part.
Here's the rub. If we assume that the logs are accurate, Manning seems to feel that he's really uncovered an amazing amount of corruption. Revealing such a thing would not be treason. It would, in fact, be a very heroic thing to do.
My take on it is that he didn't deliver what he thought he had. And if anything, we was an emotionally compromised individual who's clueless actions will have negative impact on people's lives... none the least of which includes his own. That makes him more fool than traitor.
Keep in mind that mistakes are made. Unfortunately, in the military those mistakes tend to cost lives. We don't accuse treason against those who're involved in friendly fire incidents where there is no evidence of intent to kill friendlies (though we may accuse them of negligence if appropriate).
Actually, the full version of the helicopter video was released at the same time.
Which is actually a rather wonderful bit of bait-and-switch. The basic focus of the video is intact - the horrific deaths of a news media crew. But there's some background that gets edited out. Instead, what is always linked to is the edited and editorialized version.
It goes to show that 'whitehat' security companies are mostly clueless and are not delivering on their promise of security.
Or it shows that lumbering bureaucracies have fundamental disadvantages that can not be overcome by bolting on additional layers of bureaucracy (read: compliance).
In 200 years it will quite possibly still be known and cataloged - long after he's gone.
Unless it gets "lost" in another fire or other misfortune.
To put it more bluntly: would you rather it be in a private collection or lost completely? Those are your two options.
No - there's a 3rd option. It is recovered and placed back in public stewardship where it belongs.
Will never happens, they live in the past, not in the future. Such a thing just isn't possible for them to even imagine.
Media companies always live in the past. There is always a business model that transforms the industry until it becomes outdated yet held on to even as it drags the industry down in to near collapse. Then someone finally adapts to reality by implementing a new business model and the survivors all jump ship. Reality often involves disruptive technology. You can see this in the history of Hollywood (studio system, television) and music (radio).
Of course - that history also shows a grudgingly slow adaptation to change. But change does eventually happen.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke