May 15, 2008 10:59 PM PDT

This VC forecast scares the pants off of me

After the list of losers they pawned off in the lead-up to the Internet bust, I nearly always distrust the pronouncements of venture capitalists about the future. Of course, why hold a grudge? Isn't that the price you pay in a hit-and-miss business? For every few Webvans, there's always a Google to convince the world that these guys really know how to read the tea leaves better than most folks. I suppose so.

So it was that I was especially curious when the Churchill Club earlier this week invited some of the A-List venture capitalists in Silicon Valley for a panel discussion on the top ten tech trends. (Eric Savitz kept good notes in his recap of the evening.) Most of what got offered up was unexceptional, but one comment in particular from Josh Kopelman may turn out to be one of the most prescient forecasts of the year. I'm actually hoping he's wrong because Kopelman's prediction scares the pants off me.

Vinod Khosla: Privacy is a red herring

Kopelman presented a scenario for the rise of the "implicit" Internet. I'm simplifying, but he was referring to the vast web of personal data that until now has existed relatively undisturbed in different corners of the data world. For example, you may have made a reservation over the Internet one day, or bought a book from an online reseller on another. But that that data is going to get collected from heretofore separate "silos" as companies that figure out ways to break through the barriers and deliver information based on that implicit cyber data.

That shouldn't strike anybody as a pipe dream. It's already happening in small ways and it's an idea that VCs will be in a hurry to fund. Some, though perhaps not all. Roger McNamee, who also participated in the panel, pointed out the obvious elephant in the room. Not only might Facebook know what I'm doing, he said, "but the Chinese government also knows." True enough. And not just the Chinese. Any government.

Vinod Khosla, who also took part in the discussion, was less impressed by the obvious privacy objections. Sounding a lot like his former partner in arms at Sun Microsystems, Scott McNealy, he described this as a big opportunity, giving short shrift to nitpickers like me. "Privacy is a red herring," he said. "There are rules and laws and ways to address the privacy issue."

Maybe he'll be proved right, but that's still one helluva leap of faith. If the experience of the last several years teaches anything, it's that the best of intentions often get sacrificed to political expediency. I know what Khosla wants to sell, but isn't it better to take a hard second look at the price before committing? Of course, good luck trying to tell that to the herd once it picks up the scent.

Recent posts from Coop's Corner
Forecasting a dead end for chips
Israel's high-tech culture must rejigger, VC says
Will Andreessen befriend Zuckerberg?
Stef Wertheimer's tech road to Mideast peace
Making sense of Israel: A 60-year-old start-up
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 16 comments (Page 1 of 2)
by Worf101 May 16, 2008 4:33 AM PDT
Nice to read something that makes sense for a change. You can't just assume, as many have, that laws written or weakend by contribution seeking self serving politicians will protect you from foreign or domestic buisnesses or their governmental counterparts. Soon they'll not only have your entire internet history but your genetic predispositions as well. You're absolutely right to be scared and so am I. D. Macks
Reply to this comment
by Schratboy May 16, 2008 7:19 AM PDT
This is entirely doable and is probably already being done by the CIA and other quasi-governmental entities. We have developed a commercial software tool that is lightweight, and easily installed which does content analysis on email, http and files creating a vectorized profile of on-line communications. We can see who goes where and what they do. Who is the source and who was the destination--everything. So the idea that someone could drop in a small footprint applet or inconspicuous device somewhere with an AT&T POP....let's get real. The administration has already been accused of spying on the citizenry with the help of the TELCOs so why should any of this come as a surprise? Big brother has been alive and well since J. Edgar Hoover tried on his first pair of women's stockings.
Reply to this comment
by protagonistic May 16, 2008 7:38 AM PDT
This is one of the reasons I do not do all my shopping over the internet. The easiest way to avoid a lot of data tracking is to use cash. Until they start using in store cameras to tie cash purchases to a face you will be reasonably safe. But it is probably just a matter of time intil they start doing that.
Reply to this comment
by ghostofitpast May 16, 2008 9:50 AM PDT
I found this so interesting that I reflected on it at length on my own blog at: http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/05/privacy-is-red-herring.html
Reply to this comment
by private user 2 May 16, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
Throw enough rocks your bound to hit something eventually. These "A List" VC's are just the ones that managed to hit something with one, it doesn't mean they are any smarter than the next guy. You want to get a realistic idea of what the future may hold, talk to engineers that have been in the game 10 or more years. What really scares me about this is the attitude of "there are laws to deal with privacy". Just because something is legal, that does NOT mean it is ethical or moral.
Reply to this comment View reply
by willdryden May 16, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
Laws do nothing without enforcement and the crooks know that inforcement is very difficult. That is why only a few of the people using stolen credit cards ever get caught.
Reply to this comment
by i_made_this May 16, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
Point well taken, Charlie. But I bear in mind that 9 out of 10 Internet VC's that fund these tons of useless little "Web 2.0" operations lose money on their investnments and it's no sweat for these VC's to use these faulures as write-off's against their one or two huge smash hit successes. Second, about the data non-privacy movement that caught fire post-9/11, I maybe a dreamer on this but sense that an upcoming Dem admin might nip that horrifying possibility in the bud.
Reply to this comment View reply
by petercranstone May 16, 2008 11:47 AM PDT
It's always interesting to ignore privacy until "yours" is compromised and then all of a sudden it becomes personal. In meeting with mobile users we've learned three things. They want: 1. Convenience 2. Privacy 3. Control In meeting Enterprise customers who deliver services to mobile customers they want: 1. To make money What is required is a solution that aligns these objectives. It's not hard to do "IF" you design for it from the beginning - however layering in Privacy cannot be done like tinsel on a Christmas tree. Peter 5o9 Inc.
Reply to this comment
by catbutt5 May 16, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
"There are rules and laws and ways to address the privacy issue." Unfortunately, the only ones constrained by such laws seem to be Government bodies. But if you go to Joe Shmoe on the street or Joe VC for example, they'd sell you out for a pittance. Heck, they'd probably set your house on fire for the right price. Your privacy means absolutely nothing to them. Greed plain and simple. And now Government bodies can get around those laws too because, since your private info is available to the public at large, or being sold by some service without your permission, they can use it too. Since the Gov. didn't amass the data themselves, they're not breaking the law now. Ethics and morals? Sorry, not profitable.
Reply to this comment
by aintnorainbowdorothy May 16, 2008 2:26 PM PDT
The one thing I know, after 40 years using Computers and then in IT and Security Consulting, is that nothing is sacred; Those many years ago when I was in Intelligence Operatons in the military, we knew what the Russians and Chinese (then the enemies) were doing and also knew that they knew what we were doing. And that was in the days of still using punch cards and paper and magntic tape. One thing I know is certain. Information is not secret if put to paper, into the ether or somewhere else. If a person wants no one to know anything about her/him, then that person has to completly destroy his/her present identity and create a new one, keeping the old one a secret. And a secret by its' very nature is only a secret as long as only a single person knows it. Put it out there in the public, and I mean to a second person, perhaps a third, it's no longer secret. Use a computer and someone knows about you and your computer self. There is no guarantee of privacy. Never has been, never will be.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About Coop's Corner

  • Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for over 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper began his career in journalism at the Associated Press before moving to technology coverage. Over the years, he has worked at Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, ZDNet News and now, CNET News.com. He received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. Photos: Top 10 newly discovered species

  2. Photos: Army designates year's best inventions

  3. Photos: Cracking Open the Apple Macintosh Classic

  4. Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week

  5. Source: Protective order will keep Viacom out of sensitive YouTube user data

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

advertisement
On TV.com: ANGELINA JOLIE looks stunning as usual
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CBS Interactive sites