In his letter on privacy shared last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook contrasted the business model of Apple against that of its competitors while strongly taking a shot at Google, Gmail, and Android without actually naming the company and services. The infinitely entertaining executive chairman of Google and former Apple board member Eric Schmidt was recently asked by ABC News about Cook’s open letter on the company and privacy.
In short, Schmidt, who is making the media rounds to promote his upcoming book How Google Works, said Cook’s description of Google and privacy is incorrect, which you would expect from the Google chairman. But his first shot at debunking Cook’s claim was sort of out of left field (okay, as you also might expect):
Eric Schmidt: I think that’s not quite right. The fact of the matter is Google allows you to delete the information that we know about you. In fact, Google is so concerned about privacy that you can in fact be using Chrome for example you can browse in what is called Incognito Mode, where no one sees anything about you. So I just don’t think that’s right.
Rebecca Jarvis: You think he’s incorrect in saying so?
Eric Schdmit: That’s correct.
Incognito mode?! The privacy setting you use to hide your browsing history when you’re, ahem, planning a top secret surprise vacation with your significant other that you don’t want revealed in your search results? That’s Schmidt’s response to Cook’s suggestion that Google doesn’t value your privacy?
As a refresher, here is the relevant excerpt from Tim Cook’s open letter on privacy:
A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product. But at Apple, we believe a great customer experience shouldn’t come at the expense of your privacy.
Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple.
Not that ‘incognito mode’ isn’t valuable and without merit in terms of privacy, but it’s hardly a differentiating factor between the two companies and tiny part of the big picture that Cook was describing. Also interesting in the context of Schmidt’s line of defense is the history section of the Wikipedia entry for ‘privacy mode’:
The earliest reference to the term was in May 2005 and used to discuss the privacy features in the Safari browser bundled with Mac OS X Tiger. The feature has since been adopted in other browsers, and led to popularisation of the term in 2008 by mainstream news outlets and computing websites when discussing beta versions of Internet Explorer 8.
However, privacy modes operate as shields because browsers typically do not remove all data from the cache after the session. Plugins, like Silverlight, are able to set cookies that will not be removed after the session. Internet Explorer 8 also contains a feature called InPrivate Subscriptions, an RSS web feed with sites approved for use with InPrivate browsing.
Okay, so not so Chrome-specific (aside from the naming) and maybe not so private. Chrome admits as much when entering the privacy mode (admittedly, I do miss the line where it says it doesn’t protect you from the people behind you):
At any rate, here’s good ol’ Schmidt in action:
More ABC news videos | Latest world news
See also: Cook’s discussion on privacy during his interview with Charlie Rose where he did name Google as what comes to mind when he thinks of Apple’s competition (hence the slight back and forth between the CEO and the executive chairman) and the rest of our Talking Schmidt series.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
What else is going to say? Google is a front for the NSA.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that they’re a front for the NSA.
However, their culture doesn’t get privacy. I know (and work with) quite a few of their engineers, and it is felt at that level too: There is a sense that “data” cannot be owned. It translates in a certain disrespect for copyright, patents, and privacy.
I don’t think it’s malicious per se, but the end result is bad anyway (and I am especially careful with the use of their services, avoiding them altogether if practical).
wouldn’t trust Schmidt with anything
Yeah, he’ll full of schmidt.
Damn autocorrect. He’s*** full of schmidt.
I thought your reference to autocorrect was sarcasm. I honestly wouldn’t have seen it until you drew attention to it.
I’m a fan of Google as a technology company but I do not buy that truly value privacy. BTW, that picture has meme written all over it.
He’s clearly on the verge of saying “F… Fred Figglehorn”.
So, in trying to say Tim Cook was wrong, he proves he was right? Classic.
Schmidt has done many things that seem stupid, this is perhaps one more. I am not sure why they keep him around really. Isn’t he like Ballmer and past the best before date but no one has the cojones to boot him?
Chrome represent what % of the browsing market share? Extra credit question, what % of Chrome browsing is in incognito?
My guess, the net % is well below 1%.
the point is that incognito mode maybe hides from your wife or girlfriend but not governments etc. who cares what the exact adoption rate is. Does he actually not know how this works? go back to burning man Schmitty.
Google offers great products – but I severely restrict using them.
The issue is not about ludicrous claims that the NSA is snooping on me, or more realistic claims that ad cookies etc are snooping on me – which is where google tries to deflect attention. The issue is the very clear fact that GOOGLE is snooping on me.
Some people are happy to pay for ‘free’ services with their personal information, but I am not.
Sorry google, other companies are ahead of you on this. Not just apple but also firms such as Microsoft are giving clear assurances they are not reading our mail, messages etc. Even if I had to pay a small fee for a service, or a premium on hardware, they are likely to get my business.
Hah, Google and privacy :D That doesn’t go hand in hand.
How could a guy that dumb be an executive chairman. Sounds like Roger Goodell not knowing what to say and knows he’s lieing. Your supposed to be a face of a major company and project strength and intelligence. Simply funny and sad.
I use some of Google’ services, and a number of Apple’s products. It’s pretty clear that Google makes money off knowing about me and what I do, and Apple makes money from selling me things. Even if they are run by God people, the motivations and practices are going to be different. We have to remember that.
He’s known to be a not very bright man, what do you expect?
Schmidt is the George Bush of the Tech CEO world.
Cook is more like Obama. Bright, well-meaning, honest, but with no real insight or style.
Sorry, but your analogies are complete horse-shit. I don’t like Schmidt, but he’s definitely extremely bright, this much is obvious if you read any of his past insterviews, etc. Comparing him to George Bush, really?
Also, Cook has a shitload of insight, and he definitely has his own style. Go read his bloomberg Q&A. I’m not sure how you can come away with that with the conclusion that he “has no real insight”. Cook makes thousands of decisions pertaining to Apple every single day. If he had no insight, as you say, Apple would be fucked. Its pathetic that people like you give him absolutely no credit, even though he’s changed so much, for the better, since he’s been CEO.
Well, I disagree rather strongly of course or I wouldn’t have made the statement in the first place. Being a CEO doesn’t automatically mean you are smart, and I’ve never heard the man say anything particularly smart myself, yet he is “Internet Famous” for such bullshit as related in the article.
At the very least, you can only believe he’s “smart” if you also believe he is lying. So all the dumb stuff he says could be down to being an idiot, or a lying jerk. Take your pick.
Also, I like Cook and I like Obama, and I didn’t mean it as an insult to compare the two. That doesn’t mean that Cook has “insight” in the same sense as some of the better CEOs. He’s a competent pair of hands and the company is doing financially very well under his leadership.
I would also disagree that he has “changed so much for the better” under his leadership. To prove that statement, you’d have to allow for a lot longer time period for one, and some kind of analysis as to “better for whom” and “better why.” I’m sure things are better for Apple employees for example, but does that mean he is overall “better?”
You also set yourself up by that statement in that it forces a comparison wherein Steve Jobs gets the short end of the stick. If things are “better” now, then you are basically implying that the things that were improved were things that Steve Jobs did, that Tim cook now does not. In other words, all that time we had Steve in charge, he was making mistakes? Mistakes that took Tim Cook to correct? I doubt you have any real evidence for that either.
Lol, I didn’t know people like you still existed :D
Well, with Balmer gone… someone has to step up and take his place as a buffoon. Of course, Schmidt didn’t realize that he was already there. I guess he can multi-task as a buffoon.
Schmidt is no buffoon. He was smart enough to spill the beans to Google about the design of the iPhone so they could revamp Android. He’s a dishonest opportunistic backstabbing thief, but stupid he’s not. He just looks buffoonish.
Schmidt’s a pig-eyed piece of shit, too.
Man that picture of Eric just sent chills down my spine.
Incognito mode data stream sketch
[Eric’s Creepy Eyes] ??? (powered by Google™)
^ ^
| |
[Google Master Key]->[NSA BACKDOOR]->->->[PRISM]
^
|
[YOUR DATA] ->[ENCRYPTED]->->->->^->->->->->->->[DECRYPTED]->[WEBSITE]
On the Diane Rehm Show yesterday, Schmidt said Apple was a little late to deploy encryption technology, as Google did it two years ago. However, the encryption to which Schmidt is a process that protects Google from unintentionally leaking information about users to third parties; Google still holds the keys to the encrypted data and exploits those keys to mine data about us. In contrast, Apple does not hold the encryption keys and can’t mine the data. Google will probably never go as far as Apple has–and Apple/Tim Cook knows it–because the company believes much of their profits and value comes from mining your personal data. I hope Apple keeps on hammering on this distinction, because eventually the public will realize and understand it. Hopefully the public comes to realize and understand what slimebags Google and Schmidt are, as well.
“However, the encryption to which Schmidt _refers_ is a process that protects Google from unintentionally leaking information about users to third parties”
There was a story a few weeks back about a pedophile getting busted sending photos over Gmail. I’m all for pedophiles being caught, but Google did this without any prompting from the government or any law enforcement agency. They poked around in his email and called the authorities. Is evidence obtained this way even admissible in a court of law?
When I hear the words Google and Privacy in the same sentence I expect a punchline. I can’t comprehend anyone using Gmail or any other Google service knowing that every message and document will be analyzed.
I just don’t trust Google, not since Eric Schmidt turned Android into an iOS knockoff. He’s a liar and a thief and I don’t trust one word that comes out of his mouth.
Google services may not cost money, but they’re certainly not free.
Google makes its money by selling the data it collects about us. I wouldn’t trust Google’s claims of privacy as far as I could spit a rat.
Google is the antichrist of privacy! Their business is to suck all privacy out of teir customers to use it for paid commercials. Enough said.
I don’t believe any large tech companies in 2014 value privacy. At least Android is open source, though. Not that it matters when the hardware itself is tracking you.
To be honest I think it’s pretty unfair of Cook to make this accusation. Sometimes to provide a great service you need to use customer data. For example Google Now cards won’t have any use if the software doesn’t track your behaviour. And if you have a problem with that you opt-out. Another example is traffic information in navigation software.
So it’s unfair to state that in general using customer data is a bad thing. It depends on the services you’re providing. Cook knows that but he is opportunistic and deliberately using anti-privacy sentiments.
how is it an ‘unfair accusation’ when its clearly just a fact? you even admit that they need that information for your services to work so…
Personally, i thin there are many ways to screw Google, and the best and easiest is dimly do not use them…! For some it is easier than others to deal with it another way, especially in the UK, was have something called SAR – Subject Access Request, basically, it is a law that allows you to request ANY and ALL information held about you by a company, government agency, employer etc. While it does cost you money, it is only £10, normally paid by check with your request, they then have 40 days from the date of receipt to supply you with all they information that they hold…! And it is ALL not some, but ALL. SO you would simply state, in the application that ALL info held on what the searches are, who your info was sold to, and what sums the data was sold for, and how it was applied to other areas of the business.
It is not so easy for them to pull info, but they must by law comply with the request, if they don’t they are subject to fines from the UK government. They could also be the subject of further action, like injunctions for not complying, wether made by you or a government agency…
I have not tried this yet, but am very very tempted to try it, just because… ;) I have however used SARs against other companies and agencies… ;)
It doesn’t make any difference what Eric says, just follow the money. Google makes money off of your information, targeting ads at you, period. There’s no way to escape that, it’s their business model. And it’s fine, but lets not start acting like that isn’t what they do and they somehow magically make money off of giving everything away for free.
The problem with this argument is that he does not back it up with figures. The fact that an overwhelming majority of folks probably do not use incognito mode on chrome does not indicate that they are not worried about privacy or that they endorse the fact that their data may be mined for revenue. How many chrome users are actually aware of what data is being mined and how to avoid it? Not hating on google but the company generates an insane amount of revenue from data and it will defend that to the death. Most folks do not care and there is really no need to care but to refute a claim by stating that they provide an incognito mode is rather ill-advised.
Wow he should know better. Incognito mode has nothing to do with privacy in Googles massive databases. Nothing at all.
Oh my god that pic made my night
When I see Schmidt talk and watch his eye movements, for some reason I get this untruthful look about him. It’s like he’s just saying things to make people think Google is all about doing things right for the user. All i see is Google trying to make more money for Google when he talks.