I stand corrected. He did not literally say "the innocent have nothing to hide". He literally said this:

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

I'm not convinced, however, that there's a reassuring amount of daylight between these two statements.

Except that the former is plainly false, and the latter is pretty much indisputable provided you aren't walking up to the phrase with a preconceived notion that it's codespeak for something more sinister.

I should add that I very much agree with what you said about Google being in a position to make a much stronger stand for privacy rights in this country. I equally think that this is a pointless little shitstorm that detracts from the larger issue by making privacy advocacy look like petty language lawyering.

And furthermore: Schmidt did not say the quote was being used out of context, despite all the publicity.

He's quoting a snippet of the interview. I have no reason to believe he hasn't read or watched more of the interview. If he has, then he's commenting on more than just that snippet. What's more, the interview is available to you. Why not look at it (if you haven't already) and see if that part of the interview is taken out of context, and explain why it's taken out of context, if you think it is?

Also, if it seems it might have been taken out of context, people should rail on what he said anyway, so he has a chance to defend himself. If he doesn't defend himself, there's a pretty good chance he meant it.

It seems like Google might be coming out of the closet as a regular megacorp, just like Apple did a few years ago when it started using DRM, and again a couple of years ago when it made a deal with AT&T, and finally put away any question of them being an exception to the rule when it came out with its app store.

> a few years ago when it started using DRM

Are you referring to the DRM it also dropped at a later stage after they managed to convince the content suppliers ;)

The only dropped DRM on a subset of their digital content. Apple still sells plenty of DRM-encumbered material.

I don't understand why only a megacorp would use DRM. Imagine yourselves in the shoes of a content owner: Congress has decided you have certain rights to control the distribution of your content, using DRM. Some company comes along and decides those rights are invalid and immoral. Would you want to do business with them, or with a competitor who allows you to exercise the full rights given to you by law?

If they're going to any length to get business, even if it pisses off they're staunchest fans, they're acting like a megacorp.

I'm not arguing for them sacrificing their customer base. I'm arguing for us not letting companies like Apple and Google get away with looking like the good guys when they're just the profit-driven guys like everyone else. Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto makes me sick, just like the squeaky-clean reputation Steve Jobs once had.

But what is more evil - refusing to honor the rights from content owners that Congress has passed laws protecting, or enforcing some content consumer right you think you have?