If you look at the actual interview, the context is police search warrants for search data, and whether people are too blaze about making sensitive searches. From the context, it's pretty clear that the intended parsing of:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Was:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it [searching for that something on Google] in the first place."
Not, as that EFF article interpreted it:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it [that something] in the first place."
It's a warning that you really should not be assuming confidentiality from law enforcement in your use of online services, not a patronizing "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" moral judgement.
It bugs me a bit that EFF was more interested in intentionally misinterpreting the quote for cheap publicity than in curbing the use of search warrants for internet service provider data, which was still in its infancy.
This reading misses the more general issue of Google collecting and storing large amounts of data about people for its own commercial purposes thereby exposing people to search warrants directed to Google rather than to the persons themselves.
Schmidt could have answered, "No, they should not be sharing data with Google as if Google is a "trusted friend". (Was Google even notifiying people their data had been obtained by law enforcement?)
Instead he tried to suggest responsibility for the search warrant problem is with people using Google.
I have seen interviews with Google founders where they proclaimed "users trust us". I have seen this in the company's marketing copy. I have seen it in published discovery materials from the antitrust cases. Google expects that they have peoples' trust. The company wants people to let it collect data about them.
Google created this problem. This target for search warrants did not exist previously. But Schmidt refused to accept responsibiilty.
Does Google have to collect and store data long-term? No. They will provide a list of bogus reasons^1 but today, trillions of dollars in revenue later, everyone knows they do so to enrich themselves at the expense of peoples' privacy. Why would anyone trust Eric Schmidt? Because they are led to believe that they can.
Look at how Google responds to discovery requests. It is extremely secretive. Much to hide.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Was:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it [searching for that something on Google] in the first place."
Not, as that EFF article interpreted it:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it [that something] in the first place."
It's a warning that you really should not be assuming confidentiality from law enforcement in your use of online services, not a patronizing "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" moral judgement.
It bugs me a bit that EFF was more interested in intentionally misinterpreting the quote for cheap publicity than in curbing the use of search warrants for internet service provider data, which was still in its infancy.