No, but it makes you a hypocrite, when you claim that you shouldn’t be doing things that you feel you should keep secret.
That’s a lovely bunch of strawmen, but just to be clear:
Google will use your real name to make money.
Google does, in fact, punish groups by downgrading search results.
Schmidt spouts his bullshit to maintain his bottom line, which is disgusting, but understandable. I can only hope you’re trolling – badly – because if you actually believe this crap, that’s the saddest part of all.
Of course, the Google douchebaggery goes deeper than most Americans are aware…
Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA
National Security Agency head and Internet giant’s executives have coordinated through high-level policy discussions
When you put it like that, it sounds pretty reasonable IMO.
Schmidt’s not just advocating some secrecy; he’s straw-manning whistleblowers and anyone else who cares about transparency as extremists who deny any need for secrecy; effectively advocating the current level of attempted secrecy despite the litany of atrocities it’s failed to conceal.
@doctorow Mad props for linking to the epub; neat combination of a gesture of disrespect and a subtle bit of evidence demonstrating the futility of persisting with a mindset and economy that’s in denial of digital reality. Well-spotted, @teapot : )
suggesting that a government might have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets makes you a Nazi.
Good thing nobody remotely suggested that. Anything else you’ve hallucinated lately, socky newcomer?
Shill in hell.
Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!
There was nothing knee-jerk about it, but your inane, hollow posts are another story:
If you and your sockpuppets don’t like Cory’s posts and his headlines attack your fragile sensibilities, then I suggest you avoid them at all costs before you end up with a full-on hissy fit.
My previous comments on an unrelated story have anything to do with this how?
And in what way is name calling appropriate?
If you don’t like my comment, that’s OK, but this is an incredibly weak rebuttal.
this is an incredibly weak rebuttal.
Agreed, and even after you ninja-edited your post, your rebuttal is still weak.
I also need to work on my rebuttals, though. Maybe some day I can reach the level of that other poster here that had that strong rebuttal to Cory that said, “Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!”. You know, that other poster here with the strong rebuttals? I can only dream of being that strong of a rebutter someday.
Name calling is in what way appropriate?
I’ve tried that procedure, and it’s super uncomfortable. Again, not sure how it relates to Cory’s click bait trollish post, but hey, thanks for the fun image.
Thanks for your informative and damning post. It’s interesting after how after one slams down these type of hyperbolic posters with facts, they go slithering back under the rocks whence they came.
To expand on what you said, there’s also this:
I’ve tried that procedure
The real names policy on G+ is a load of shit…
Any company you use for email is going to know your real name
The zeal in which people come out of the woodwork to defend and apologize for Google all over the Internet and here at boingboing is really interesting. This should be an interesting thread.
You know, I don’t think “knee-jerk” means what that guy thinks it means, but you have to admit Cory’s headlines are sometimes total clickbait, and say things which are not actually true - like calling Schmidt a “war crimes apologist.” That was nowhere in the click-through I read, and if Schmidt acted that way somewhere else, wouldn’t it be good if Cory substantiated that claim before appearing to commit slander of the most irresponsible kind?
Mod note: dial down the snark.
Isn’t this what the Internets is all about? Well, besides cat videos…
Not to be pedantic (but I’m going to be): Larry Page is the current CEO of Google. Eric Schmidt was once the CEO, but is now the Executive Chairman.
For Schmidt to be straw manning, you’d have to believe that these few
sentences constituted an attempt at an argument. It seems more reasonable
to read this as a simple statement that a bunch of people hold different
views, but Schmidt disagrees, for reasons he is not going to bother to
articulate. (Albeit other readings are possible)
Being a smug self satisfied person who makes pronouncements about things to
which he does not appear to have given much thought is scarcely to his
credit. At the same time throwing around the term “war crimes apologist”
casually doesn’t seem to contribute much.
IMO it’s a pretty valid point that defending the degree of government security currently being attempted amounts to condoning a long list of vile misdeeds, war crimes among them.
If you can make an argument that Schmidt isn’t actually in favour of current levels of attempted secrecy based on those words, I might be prepared to concede some ground, but it’s plain as day that anyone defending SOP in DC has to be delusional, if not malevolent.
It sounds hyperbolic to say Schmidt is an apologist for war crimes. In order to make this sort of claim you first need a war crime to have been committed, you then need that war crime to be covered up by the use of state secrets, and then you need to have Schmidt support the use of state secrets while in full knowledge of the war crime and the use of state secrets to cover it up.
Can we make those links?