To the pressure group Big Brother Watch, “Google is a company that specialises in knowing where you are, what you are doing and who you are talking to. That’s a scary prospect.”  Crucially, however, the organisation is also keen to draw web users’ attention to issues of personal responsibility. “Mr Schmidt is completely right about how much information we are giving away online,” says Big Brother Watch’s Dylan Sharpe. “Right now there are millions of young kids and teenagers who, when they apply for jobs in 10 years’ time, will find that there is so much embarrassing stuff about them online that they cannot take it down.”  It’s that point that prompted Mr Schmidt’s latest statements. The idea that people would go so far as to change their names in an attempt to break the link with a no longer relevant past is outlandish, and probably pointless, but it does address a genuine concern.  Sir Tim Berners-Lee, founding father of the web, has suggested in the past that it may become necessary to regulate which aspects of a potential employee’s past a company can legitimately look at. When Sir Tim’s own lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is recruiting new students, it asks candidates if it may look at their social media profile. Although clearly that’s a matter of trust, it’s hard to believe that anyone who said no would not arouse suspicion.  All of this, however, risks denying the clear benefit that Google brings: those maps provide ubiquitous, convenient details of how to find precise addresses; that email is free and better than many rivals; the search engine is class-leading.  Mr Schmidt also observed that: “I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time.” Perhaps reassuringly, Google is aware that technological advancement at breakneck speed is unsettling for many people. He went on, however: “I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”  He suggested, as an example, that because Google would know “roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are”, it could remind users what groceries they needed to buy when passing a shop. That would be useful, but it has genuinely Orwellian overtones, too.  Google makes less invasive suggestions already. Search for “London tube map” and at the bottom of the results page there’s a link to “London Eye”. Yet some fear that there is a wider trend, and a debate shrouded in secrecy is helping nobody. Information commissioners around the world have criticised Google, Facebook and other companies for solving technical problems while inadequately considering the ethical implications.  Eric Schmidt asked who was harmed by the “Wi-Fi snooping” controversy. But growing numbers of people who have posted too much information about themselves online have paid a high price – by being sacked, not hired in the first place or simply embarrassed. Is it Google or Facebook’s job to stop them?  What’s needed is an open debate about where responsibility lies, and an element of increased education. Posting anything online is like shouting from a rooftop, plastering it on billboards and mounting a public information campaign all rolled into one. But there are benefits, social, commercial and more, to sharing information. Google will do consumers and itself a favour if it continues trying to define the rules for the internet generation. Otherwise it, too, may end up having to change its name, for fear of being associated with an era of digital irresponsibility.
As Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggests young people may need to change their    names to escape their online past, web users are coming to terms with how    careful they need to be online