Yeah, except that's not what Eric meant. He phrased an answer poorly and sensationalist journalists took his answer out of context. What he REALLY said (in context) was "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be treating Google like your trusted friend by telling it to them"

Full context:

Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?

A: I think judgement 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, 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.”

Right. My re-interpretation of the quote is correct then. Google shouldn't be trusted with your most private information because it may have to share it with the government. Words of warning from Eric Schmidt - don't treat us like a trusted friend.

If you don't want it known, don't use the phone.

Any two-bit street hustler knows that, which is why billions of dollars on wholesale phone monitoring is such a waste.

You'd be surprised at the level of intimate details discussed by street hustlers on prepaid mobile phones. I'm not sure if prepaid throwaway ipv6 addresses would be viable, but it may not hurt to start thinking in this direction.

When I get an bright idea that will make me a lot of money and bring me fame, I'm sure I'll figure out a way to keep it secret when I communicate it to a few trusted advisors.