Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Eric Schmidt a Contender For US Commerce Secretary 47

Posted by Soulskill
from the don't-be-evil-there-either dept.
itwbennett writes "Rumor has it that the man who while CEO of Google was, at best, blithe about user privacy, is on a short list to replace Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. Schmidt has competition, though, including former Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, according to Bloomberg."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt a Contender For US Commerce Secretary

Comments Filter:
  • Change! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I, for one, welcome our new boss overlord, the same as our old boss overlord.

    • My personal apologies for the ridiculous partisan groupthink on slashdot, which moderated your post down to -1. It's becoming so prevalent, it's almost unbearable to read comments any more.
  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:10PM (#35453436)

    Well, that seems to be the way that Google works. I guess if Eric Schmidt gets chosen, that will be his first move: Declare all Commerce to be Beta. So if there are any problems with the US Commerce, he can just say, "Hey, this is all still Beta . . . problems are to be expected."

  • Sure, he's creepy, but he isn't a tax cheat... or is he?
  • There sure has been a lot of revolving door action in this administration, for a President who vowed there would be none. It's business as usual, as conflicts of interest abound with the appointment of big private industry leaders to significant posts and the vacating of significant posts leads to those persons capitalizing on their position (and, often, the actions they took while holding that position which just so happen to be in the same field of interest as the company's they're now leaving for) to pri

  • by HeckRuler (1369601) on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:37PM (#35453738)
    ok, I had to double-check this:
    blithe/blTH/Adjective
    1. Showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper.
    2. Happy or joyous.

    But when Eric Schmidt reminded everyone that he is bound by law to hand over your search history and that googling "how to murder my wife" was a really stupid thing to do before you go and murder your wife, I'd hardly consider his comments to be joyous or cheerfully indifferent.

    I know that there is an unreasonable hatred of Google around here, but seriously, stop trying to spin this quote into some sort of distopian doomsaying.

    And while I'm at it, I'm going to pre-emptivly rant about how it's not "Do no evil", it's "don't be evil". Just wait, someone will drag that minor grammar mistake out. Well you sir can consider yourself ranted against.
    • by Qwertie (797303)
      itwbennett/soulskill/Chris Nerney are criticizing the choice of Eric Schmidt without proposing an alternative. I'm inclined to think that a pharmaceutical industry bigwig from Pfizer is chosen instead, he probably will not in any way improve life for US citizens. What's the big deal about Schmidt? Do you think, as Commerce Secretary, that he will somehow water down privacy legislation to help Google?
  • by sconeu (64226) on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:41PM (#35453784) Homepage Journal

    At least if Schmidt gets appointed, there will be *SOMEONE* in DC who understands the Internet.

  • 4 in a row (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digitalsushi (137809) <slashdot@digitalsushi.com> on Friday March 11, 2011 @12:41PM (#35453786) Journal

    "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
        -- Eleanor Roosevelt

    Look at the last 4 story posts by soulskill. Looks like the cover of a gossip magazine. Here I am being ironic pointing this out. Guess I need to be angry at myself first, then. I'm just getting older and cranky. I think a lot of us are around here. I stopped putting energy into this system. I'm sorry everyone. I bring this place down too.

    • by Chapter80 (926879)

      "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

          -- Eleanor Roosevelt

      I'd like to discuss the idea that you mentioned, including the quotation. I don't really care who said it, or under what circumstances she said it. But the idea itself certainly has merit. I wonder if there's a way we could prove or disprove it.

      • by Yvanhoe (564877)
        Well we can surely prove that if it bears some truth, the average voter has a small mind.

        Therefore, if you want an idea to gain some merit, you have to push forward the people more likely to advance them.

        I would post as anonymous for augmented irony, but karma is good for my skin problem.
        • by Chapter80 (926879)

          As author of the GP, I was really going for "+5 Funny".

          I used the quote, and refused to talk about the people or event, but only wanted to discuss the idea - to show I have a great mind.
          But it apparently went over everyone's head. I guess my mind is either too great, or just not very funny.

    • "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
              -- Eleanor Roosevelt

      "America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, bad-ass speed."
              -- Eleanor Roosevelt

  • Wow...so we've got three choices: a guy who openly declares his current employer to be an advertising company masquerading as a benevolent information broker; a former boss of the most corrupt, cynical corporation in an industry that's famous all around for bribes, price fixing, and bad science for profit; and a bureaucrat.
    Is this Russian roulette or what?
  • Someone as naive as Eric Schmidt would be perfect, because hes naive but also commercially connected.

  • Two megacorp CEOs are not only eligible for, but are candidates for the position of commerce secretary. Real smart guys. Real smart.

    • by xMrFishx (1956084)
      Maybe, but he at least understands what a working business model of today is that doesn't involve making half your income by sueing everyone around you.
  • A burned out CEO from a company that is in a death spiral (Pfizer) seems like a very unlikely choice. Let's hope that US is not following the same trajectory as Pfizer.
  • With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.

  • Schmidt will fit right into the new post 9/11 government view of citizen privacy:

    If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    http://gawker.com/#!5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people [gawker.com]

    • Yet another fucking idiot using this misquote to manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what was actually said.

      What Schmidt actually said was (paraphrased): "If you do stupid shit you don't want people to know about, don't post it on the internet. Google can't save your ass, neither technically (there are other search engines) nor legally (Google is not immune to legal subpoena)."

      Instead of recognizing Schmidt for being one of the few (influential) people out there who actually recognize an

      • by Mr Bubble (14652)

        Well, sorry, but I am tired of people calling people assholes and fucking idiots because they disagree with the idea or sentiment being proposed. Grow up.

        I did not misquote the man, I put his words down verbatim and took the trouble to find the video so that people could judge the content for themselves.

        The whole point of the debate is, what if you are not doing stupid shit? What if you are doing research on terrorists because you want to know what makes them tick? What if you looking up something that is n

        • Ok, since you bother to reply I'll take back calling you names, and apologize for that.

          However, while your quote is not falsified by changing the words, I still see it as voluntarily misleading by only quoting the first part, which is really only hedging for what he actually has to say, which is: "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, for example, that we are all subject in the United St

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...