3 ms·

(Tedious disclaimer: not speaking for anybody else, my opinion only, etc. I'm an SRE at Google. I can't respond to most of the things in this thread, so don't b

(Tedious disclaimer: not speaking for anybody else, my opinion only, etc. I'm an SRE at Google. I can't respond to most of the things in this thread, so don't bother asking.) "If Google were to provide real transparency into the information they track about me, that would be fantastic." "In no way do I believe that is all the data Google tracks about me." The second comment here is why there's no point in doing the first one. It doesn't matter how much information we release about this, when people are determined not to believe it. It is a frustrating experience for the people who work on them to pour time and effort into making sure a privacy policy is really precisely accurate about what is happening, and then see threads like this where people will go looking for loopholes that aren't there, and because English is fairly ambiguous they'll eventually find a way to misinterpret the words to support what they wanted to believe all along. Here's an interesting hypothetical question: if the primary effect of the conspiracy theorists is to throw bricks at the people who are trying really hard to make sure the bad things never happen, then which side are the conspiracy theorists really on? (I make no claims about whether this is what's happening, because I can offer no evidence, I just think it's an interesting question)

CaptSpify 11y ago
Honestly, I used to trust Google a lot. Then things like the NSA leaks happen, and other questionable Google changes, and I'm sorry, but I lost that trust. I use as little closed-source stuff as possible now. I'm sure it is frustrating, but you'd have to thank the people in charge for that distrust. I wasn't born with it, the cloud-providers earned it. I used to think this was tin-hat territory myself. IMO, the solution is to stop storing things in the cloud, and start giving me the tools to do it myself. I have no idea how to work that out financially. If google made a "maps app" that was open-source and I could run on my own server, but charged for it, I would probably buy that because I like the service so much. But as it stands, I try to avoid using it as much as possible, because I simply can't trust Google. EDIT: Forgot to answer this > if the primary effect of the conspiracy theorists is to throw bricks at the people who are trying really hard to make sure the bad things never happen, then which side are the conspiracy theorists really on? At the end of the day, Google just doesn't do enough to make me think that they are "making sure the bad things never happen". I'm sure there are a lot of people who are trying hard to make that true, but how can I know that is true for everyone? What can you offer me other than root access to your servers? I'd honestly like a good answer to this, because I just don't have one. And the amount of data/power that Google has is just too much for me to think that they won't "get greedy" some day. If up until today, Google was a good company and wasn't abusing anything in any way, and suddenly tomorrow they turned evil, why would they erase my data first? They still have it, and I have no control over whether or not Tomorrow-Google will keep it. > ...then which side are the conspiracy theorists really on? The side of trying to validate whether or not things are as they say on face-value. Whether thats Google's side or not is up to them.
- asuffield 11y ago
  > Then things like the NSA leaks happen So I don't think that's the cause here, because: https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what.html https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what.html "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." And you have chosen not to believe a statement made in the strongest possible terms. If you won't believe this, then I do not think there are any words that you would believe, so there's no point in trying to get more published. > What can you offer me other than root access to your servers? Indeed, and we can't do that because it would invalidate the very security that you want. > If up until today, Google was a good company and wasn't abusing anything in any way, and suddenly tomorrow they turned evil, why would they erase my data first? They still have it, and I have no control over whether or not Tomorrow-Google will keep it. The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening...
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    I'm not saying Google deliberately handed data over to the NSA. I'm saying the NSA (and others) are try getting to it one way other other. It's not necessarily that Google is untrustworthy, but that if the data does get out, however that happens, it will be quite devastating. > And you have chosen not to believe a statement made in the strongest possible terms. A) It's not in the "strongest possible term". Quite a bit of weasel-wording there IMO. B) How does a statement's strength validate it? I can strongly say any lie I want. > Indeed, and we can't do that because it would invalidate the very security that you want. I agree. And I would like a solution to this. There's just not a good way for me to trust cloud providers. > The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening... > The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening... I don't see how that's at all relevant. A) Just because one asshole on the internet doesn't believe the policy doesn't mean Google should just give up on it. B) That doesn't address my point. Tomorrow-Google will still get access to my data, unknown to me. I can't verify the "trustworthiness" of a company every day.

CaptSpify 11y ago

Honestly, I used to trust Google a lot. Then things like the NSA leaks happen, and other questionable Google changes, and I'm sorry, but I lost that trust. I use as little closed-source stuff as possible now. I'm sure it is frustrating, but you'd have to thank the people in charge for that distrust. I wasn't born with it, the cloud-providers earned it. I used to think this was tin-hat territory myself. IMO, the solution is to stop storing things in the cloud, and start giving me the tools to do it myself. I have no idea how to work that out financially. If google made a "maps app" that was open-source and I could run on my own server, but charged for it, I would probably buy that because I like the service so much. But as it stands, I try to avoid using it as much as possible, because I simply can't trust Google. EDIT: Forgot to answer this > if the primary effect of the conspiracy theorists is to throw bricks at the people who are trying really hard to make sure the bad things never happen, then which side are the conspiracy theorists really on? At the end of the day, Google just doesn't do enough to make me think that they are "making sure the bad things never happen". I'm sure there are a lot of people who are trying hard to make that true, but how can I know that is true for everyone? What can you offer me other than root access to your servers? I'd honestly like a good answer to this, because I just don't have one. And the amount of data/power that Google has is just too much for me to think that they won't "get greedy" some day. If up until today, Google was a good company and wasn't abusing anything in any way, and suddenly tomorrow they turned evil, why would they erase my data first? They still have it, and I have no control over whether or not Tomorrow-Google will keep it. > ...then which side are the conspiracy theorists really on? The side of trying to validate whether or not things are as they say on face-value. Whether thats Google's side or not is up to them.

asuffield 11y ago
> Then things like the NSA leaks happen So I don't think that's the cause here, because: https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what.html https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what.html "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." And you have chosen not to believe a statement made in the strongest possible terms. If you won't believe this, then I do not think there are any words that you would believe, so there's no point in trying to get more published. > What can you offer me other than root access to your servers? Indeed, and we can't do that because it would invalidate the very security that you want. > If up until today, Google was a good company and wasn't abusing anything in any way, and suddenly tomorrow they turned evil, why would they erase my data first? They still have it, and I have no control over whether or not Tomorrow-Google will keep it. The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening...
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I'm not saying Google deliberately handed data over to the NSA. I'm saying the NSA (and others) are try getting to it one way other other. It's not necessarily that Google is untrustworthy, but that if the data does get out, however that happens, it will be quite devastating. > And you have chosen not to believe a statement made in the strongest possible terms. A) It's not in the "strongest possible term". Quite a bit of weasel-wording there IMO. B) How does a statement's strength validate it? I can strongly say any lie I want. > Indeed, and we can't do that because it would invalidate the very security that you want. I agree. And I would like a solution to this. There's just not a good way for me to trust cloud providers. > The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening... > The easy solution here is to not keep any of that data in de-anonymised form for longer than is necessary, but then people don't want to believe the privacy policies which say this is happening... I don't see how that's at all relevant. A) Just because one asshole on the internet doesn't believe the policy doesn't mean Google should just give up on it. B) That doesn't address my point. Tomorrow-Google will still get access to my data, unknown to me. I can't verify the "trustworthiness" of a company every day.