3 ms·

> This is people being in charge of their behavioral and historical data that google has locked up in their data silos. Why are you using intentionally strongl

by wyager 10y ago

> This is people being in charge of their behavioral and historical data that google has locked up in their data silos. Why are you using intentionally strongly connoted language like "be in charge", "locked up", and "silo"? A more accurate version of this statement is "This is people wanting to make someone else delete data that they have on their servers." You're also presuming that someone "owns" any and all data that pertains to them.

slindz 10y ago
I think the strongly connoted language is warranted. If it becomes effectively legal to surveil and store everything about anyone because you own servers, what kind of world does that lead to? These are important questions that should be in the forefront before we're too far gone, which we're certainly flirting with.
- Rangi42 10y ago
  Effectively legal? It is legal. I can privately crawl the web for all references to "John Doe", "johndoe.com", "/u/johndoe28", etc, and save them, because it's all content that John Doe chose to make publically available, whether on his own website or on forum posts or Facebook or what. There's probably some point at which the ways I use that data can be classified as stalking or harassment, but simply collecting it is allowed.
  - slindz 10y ago
    There are far more sources of information than what John Doe explicitly puts out there. Those are probably the least of his worries. What about the embarrassing things other people post about John Doe? What if this harms his ability to provide for his family? What about things fabricated by others to silence or overtake John Doe? edit: (adding the point below) Just because it's legal to collect, manipulate, and profit from this mass of information 'somewhere' doesn't mean that concerned groups of people shouldn't try to make that process harder or impossible.
    - wyager 10y ago
      > What about the embarrassing things other people post about John Doe? Is "John Doe" a politician trying to suppress public discourse about a scandal? If you do something embarrassing, and people are talking about it, it is absolutely immoral to use government force to prevent people from disseminating information about it. > What if this harms his ability to provide for his family? Of course, think of the children. We must suppress any information that could negatively affect a hypothetical child!
- wyager 10y ago
  What Google does is not "surveillance", it's collation of public data (or data that you agreed to give to google via one of its private services, like gmail). What the NSA does is surveillance, which is collection of private data without consent. > what kind of world does that lead to? A world where public discourse is more conveniently indexed? Be explicit with your concerns.
dkarapetyan 10y ago
I think your version of the intent is correct but the post by the author makes it sound like google here is a champion of something virtuous when in reality they're just protecting their own business interests. If google was a publicly funded operation and their indexing/search algorithms were in the public domain then they might be able to make a convincing case but as it is there is clearly misdirection going on here. From where I stand they are trying to take advantage of the murky definitions around data retention and various policies applicable to personally identifiable information to side-step certain restrictions in various countries that have much stronger policies around use cases of such data.

by wyager 10y ago

slindz 10y ago

I think the strongly connoted language is warranted. If it becomes effectively legal to surveil and store everything about anyone because you own servers, what kind of world does that lead to? These are important questions that should be in the forefront before we're too far gone, which we're certainly flirting with.

Rangi42 10y ago
Effectively legal? It is legal. I can privately crawl the web for all references to "John Doe", "johndoe.com", "/u/johndoe28", etc, and save them, because it's all content that John Doe chose to make publically available, whether on his own website or on forum posts or Facebook or what. There's probably some point at which the ways I use that data can be classified as stalking or harassment, but simply collecting it is allowed.
- slindz 10y ago
  There are far more sources of information than what John Doe explicitly puts out there. Those are probably the least of his worries. What about the embarrassing things other people post about John Doe? What if this harms his ability to provide for his family? What about things fabricated by others to silence or overtake John Doe? edit: (adding the point below) Just because it's legal to collect, manipulate, and profit from this mass of information 'somewhere' doesn't mean that concerned groups of people shouldn't try to make that process harder or impossible.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > What about the embarrassing things other people post about John Doe? Is "John Doe" a politician trying to suppress public discourse about a scandal? If you do something embarrassing, and people are talking about it, it is absolutely immoral to use government force to prevent people from disseminating information about it. > What if this harms his ability to provide for his family? Of course, think of the children. We must suppress any information that could negatively affect a hypothetical child!
wyager 10y ago
What Google does is not "surveillance", it's collation of public data (or data that you agreed to give to google via one of its private services, like gmail). What the NSA does is surveillance, which is collection of private data without consent. > what kind of world does that lead to? A world where public discourse is more conveniently indexed? Be explicit with your concerns.

dkarapetyan 10y ago

I think your version of the intent is correct but the post by the author makes it sound like google here is a champion of something virtuous when in reality they're just protecting their own business interests. If google was a publicly funded operation and their indexing/search algorithms were in the public domain then they might be able to make a convincing case but as it is there is clearly misdirection going on here. From where I stand they are trying to take advantage of the murky definitions around data retention and various policies applicable to personally identifiable information to side-step certain restrictions in various countries that have much stronger policies around use cases of such data.