9 ms·

It's depressing how perfectly normal and natural the idea of tracking users has become. I know this isn't a popular opinion on Hacker News, but why should ther

It's depressing how perfectly normal and natural the idea of tracking users has become. I know this isn't a popular opinion on Hacker News, but why should there be any tracking whatsoever when using an OS? Are people saying that they're perfectly fine for their Windows/Mac/Linux distribution to track everything they do? The apps they use? The sites they visit? Because that's basically what ChromeOS does. It even tracks the documents you print to your desktop printer (routed through Google's cloud print service). You aren't even anonymous when you use ChromeOS - you must be signed into your Google account. Just as a reminder, your Google account = your name, your date of birth, your location and optional phone number. In other words, some of your most personal and private information all tied to the activity you conduct on ChromeOS. Google states that it does not read the content of your emails in GMail (emails are scanned by computer), but you could argue that your browsing habits are just as private and personal. No such assurances on how they handle this data. Does Google disassociate the identity of the user from their activity? If not, then who sees this data at Google? How long is this data kept for? These are important questions, but you won't find answers in Google's privacy policy. (And you're unlikely to find many in the tech community asking Google about them either.) I would never recommend an OS that tracked the activity of students so relentlessly, especially when many students are too young to understand the horrendous privacy implications of using ChromeOS. Other companies like Microsoft are rightfully criticised for their tracking in Windows 10, yet Google gets a completely free ride. It's just baffling.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
awqrre 11y ago
They don't read all emails because it is easier for a program to look for certain phrases/words/etc... but in the end, they are still looking at them even if it is indirectly (unless you encrypt everything).
Laaw 11y ago
What alarms me is how important privacy has suddenly become, despite a distinct lack of actualization on the "nightmare" scenarios we keep hearing.
- Joof 11y ago
  I'd like to give this some thought actually. For now here's an observation. Situations which produces large amounts of "externalities" seem to produce this strange scenario where we fight against potential nightmare scenarios. Externalities being defined as something that occurs as a result of the new process outside the expected system. Global warming from burning fossil fuels or secondhand smoke are prime examples although easier to think about because the outcomes are tangible. This brings up the question, "How do we handle this thing that effects people on a large scale?" It's useful to ask, "What's the worst outcome of this we can imagine" which might be along the lines of 1984. Terrifying because the government is normally the vehicle that is used to regulate large amounts of externalities and data collection could provide it with a large amount of power, something that the government often desires. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the government started to abuse this power very quickly and in secret; although to a lesser extent than 1984. It's limited largely by technology (which is improving at a rapid rate). How we deal with this problem now may help us avoid this dystopian situation once the technology catches up. On the other hand, we also have to look at what we get in exchange. Burning fossil fuels is so essential that maybe it's worth raising the temperature of the earth until we can develop something better. Or maybe it's just a large exercise in game theory. In the case of data collection we get a few extremely convenient services (search, automation, etc.) in exchange for lack of privacy in nearly all forms and the systems that are abstracted above us (businesses, government, economy, etc.) are shifted towards optimizing for their respective interests using the information they can glean from the collected data. These systems become arguably more efficient more powerful. These conversations effectively shape how we handle the new thing and are overall good. Privacy (and the effects of privacy) isn't really an easily quantifiable thing, but it does appear to be something that people think is worth having. The end result is most likely to be somewhere in the middle of the road; we can burn fossil fuels, but there are certain standards on the emissions to limit the externalities. So where exactly is the tradeoff "worth it"? It's different for everybody. For me, I think all my data that is seemingly private for me (I wouldn't let my friends read my email / texts; if it's a file in a password protected account) should be encrypted and impossible for anyone outside of that conversation to access; currently this is not the case. Facebook is a bit of a grey area because people seem to use it as if it was private and the friends feature implies that it is, but the reality is that it is not. All of this falls apart completely when everything we previously assumed was private is clearly not when it comes to organizations such as the NSA which is an organization that provides a very questionable amount of value.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

awqrre 11y ago

They don't read all emails because it is easier for a program to look for certain phrases/words/etc... but in the end, they are still looking at them even if it is indirectly (unless you encrypt everything).

Laaw 11y ago

What alarms me is how important privacy has suddenly become, despite a distinct lack of actualization on the "nightmare" scenarios we keep hearing.

Joof 11y ago
I'd like to give this some thought actually. For now here's an observation. Situations which produces large amounts of "externalities" seem to produce this strange scenario where we fight against potential nightmare scenarios. Externalities being defined as something that occurs as a result of the new process outside the expected system. Global warming from burning fossil fuels or secondhand smoke are prime examples although easier to think about because the outcomes are tangible. This brings up the question, "How do we handle this thing that effects people on a large scale?" It's useful to ask, "What's the worst outcome of this we can imagine" which might be along the lines of 1984. Terrifying because the government is normally the vehicle that is used to regulate large amounts of externalities and data collection could provide it with a large amount of power, something that the government often desires. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the government started to abuse this power very quickly and in secret; although to a lesser extent than 1984. It's limited largely by technology (which is improving at a rapid rate). How we deal with this problem now may help us avoid this dystopian situation once the technology catches up. On the other hand, we also have to look at what we get in exchange. Burning fossil fuels is so essential that maybe it's worth raising the temperature of the earth until we can develop something better. Or maybe it's just a large exercise in game theory. In the case of data collection we get a few extremely convenient services (search, automation, etc.) in exchange for lack of privacy in nearly all forms and the systems that are abstracted above us (businesses, government, economy, etc.) are shifted towards optimizing for their respective interests using the information they can glean from the collected data. These systems become arguably more efficient more powerful. These conversations effectively shape how we handle the new thing and are overall good. Privacy (and the effects of privacy) isn't really an easily quantifiable thing, but it does appear to be something that people think is worth having. The end result is most likely to be somewhere in the middle of the road; we can burn fossil fuels, but there are certain standards on the emissions to limit the externalities. So where exactly is the tradeoff "worth it"? It's different for everybody. For me, I think all my data that is seemingly private for me (I wouldn't let my friends read my email / texts; if it's a file in a password protected account) should be encrypted and impossible for anyone outside of that conversation to access; currently this is not the case. Facebook is a bit of a grey area because people seem to use it as if it was private and the friends feature implies that it is, but the reality is that it is not. All of this falls apart completely when everything we previously assumed was private is clearly not when it comes to organizations such as the NSA which is an organization that provides a very questionable amount of value.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]