10 ms·

Not true. Google collects your searches. They don't sell your searches, they sell whatever they infer from your searches (your compiled and quite vague profile

Not true. Google collects your searches. They don't sell your searches, they sell whatever they infer from your searches (your compiled and quite vague profile and I know, because I interacted with their AdSense platform), because they'd be stupid to sell your actual searches, since that's their most valuable property. Does anybody else know your search history? Besides the NSA, whom I assume have access to all US-hosted data, no. And not even Google knows my most sensitive searches, because my private mode is a Tor Browser connecting to DuckDuckGo, answering for my porn needs mostly. And I trust Google to keep my data safe more than I trust shady AV companies, because Google has hired a lot of security researchers, at their size all eyes are watching them and their behavior has been acceptable compared with that of others like Facebook. Information security is all about compartmentalization ;-)

Inconel 10y ago
>and their behavior has been acceptable compared with that of others like Facebook. If you have the time, would you mind expanding on why you consider Google's behavior better than Facebook's? I find myself very wary of FB but much less so of Google, but I can't really explain why.
- illys 10y ago
  I have the same feeling but I cannot find arguments: they make money by selling very similar materials. I think Google only better markets its intrusions than Facebook... Something to do with the public sentence "don't be evil". Indeed "evil" is like "common sense": everybody has its own and understands what comforts him/herself. Seems like pure marketing. Maybe someone has any argument about the reality of this different Google/Facebook privacy intrusion/protection feeling?
- bad_user 10y ago
  You're just biased, because Facebook has way more potential for doing you harm and has used your data against your interests already. Facebook manipulates the emotions of its users: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/#69ae7561704d http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-... MasterCard to access Facebook user data in order to make you spend more: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/mastercard-to-access-facebook-user-data-20141006-10qrqy.html http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/mastercard-to-ac... Facebook ads use your face for free: http://www.itworld.com/article/2746556/networking-hardware/facebook-ads-use-your-face-for-free.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2746556/networking-hardware/f... Facebook is inventing phony likes to promote stories you've never seen to your friends: https://web.archive.org/web/20161215092610/http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/21/facebook-is-recycling-your-likes-to-promote-stories-youve-never-seen-to-all-your-friends/#c29cc58596bd https://web.archive.org/web/20161215092610/http://www.forbes... Facebook guesses your race and uses it for targeting: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/facebooks-ad-platform-now-guesses-at-your-race-based-on-your-behavior/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/faceb... Facebook has been the main promoter of bogus news and misinformation in 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-trending-false-news-stories https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-... Facebook has started to collect WhatsApp data, in spite of the app's original policy: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-... Facebook collects the texts that you don't send: https://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/facebook-collects-conducts-research-on-status-updates-you-never-post/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/facebook-collects-c... Facebook tracks and builds user profiles for people without accounts: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-... Facebook's privacy settings have been designed with black patterns, making it easy to publish by mistake: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/29/facebook-privacy-secret-profile-exposed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/29/facebook-... Facebook makes it easy to tell when you're asleep: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/24/why-a-privacy-advocate-made-it-easy-to-track-when-your-facebook-friends-sleep/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/2...
  - Inconel 10y ago
    Thanks for the links. I had heard of some of those issues but the sleep tracking and unsent text collection were new to me.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    Short story to support your articles. I used a fake name on FB since the first day I signed up along with a photo of my favorite rock star. About a year ago, someone outed me and FB locked my account and said unless I emailed them a copy of my drivers license or some form of identification that proved who I was, they would keep my account locked. I thought, "Whatever, I'll just fire up a new one." This past month I signed up a new account under a very generic name like "John Johnson". No problems. I never uploaded a photo, just connected with the handful of people (less than 5) and felt like, "ok, we're cool now". Yesterday, I got the same message and now the links you provided make a lot of sense as to why. FB really is after all of your data and essentially force you to give it to them, otherwise they hold your account hostage. Both times, I really felt like my privacy was being stampeded and this was a big intrusion to get at my personal information. No way am I going to give you an identifiable information about me. I already gave up an account I had used more or less for a decade instead of coughing up my personal information and photo. So yeah, I'm done with FB - not that I was ever a huge fan, but this past week just confirmed what I always suspected.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Sure that's scary. But it also sounds like 'anti-fraud'. How could we distinguish the two? They're slammed if they want authentic accounts; they're slammed if folks create large numbers of spam accounts. How do we suppose they could win in this scenario?
      - at-fates-hands 10y ago
        Just do like most of the social media accounts do. Have algorithms that detect spam? Let users report on accounts being used to spam other users? Sure, if I'm someone abusing the system, this should be easy to ferret out without having to surrender all your personal information and identifying markers just to make a SOCIAL MEDIA platform free of spam.
illys 10y ago
Actually, I still have a problem when all my "actual searches" becomes someone else's "most valuable property". Of course there are some other less intrusive search engines (DuckDuckGo, maybe Qwant), but unfortunately they still are less efficient than Google for fine or rare searches.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Well, I have a problem with that too, but then I'm talking about the average user, which is never going to install Tor in order to connect to DuckDuckGo. And to tell you the truth, I don't trust DuckDuckGo that much either, as they can always turn around and start collecting data without me knowing it. But for us, the technically inclined and privacy aware, there are always solutions. But for the average user, until a better Google comes along, I think it's OK to trust Google with their searches. And compartmentalization is paramount to information security, my point being that trusting some other company besides Google with that data is not acceptable, which is why I find that intercepting HTTPS connections is simply wrong and evil, regardless of reasons. This besides the fact that intercepting HTTPS traffic increases the attack surface, making users less secure.
  - __jal 10y ago
    I see a distinct difference between DDG and Google. We know Google does what it does. DDG's reason for existence is predicated on not doing so. If DDG were found to be lying, I'd guess >80% of its customer base would evaporate overnight. It would mean destroying many years of branding, trust and relatively difficult cultivation of user browser defaults. But that's worth gaming out - what would make it worth it to light all that on fire? About the only thing I can think of is a Lavabit-style conundrum, wherein our intelligence-overlords threaten someone's freedom. So, absolutely could happen, absolutely would come out. So that's why I trust DDG to be less forthcoming with their logs.
- kofejnik 10y ago
  you are not paying for search service; ergo, your searches are the product and your search results are but a byproduct of that product
soylentcola 10y ago
It often irks me when people say things like "Google sells all of your data to advertisers and you are the product!" Not because there are no potential issues to discuss around ad-funded free services and data aggregation, but more because it's like clickbait (in that it oversimplifies a complex issue for emotional effect and makes discussion of actual issues more difficult). Using algorithms to build a general profile in order to increase relevance is not the same as "selling your data". They sell access to your eyeballs in much the same way as a broadcast TV station or free alt-weekly does. The main difference is that by getting some sense of who you are and what you might be interested in, they can decrease (in theory) the amount of irrelevant ads that end up on your screen versus the traditional methods of just blanketing things with general ads or using cruder demographic info. Lots of companies flat-out do sell your data, either in aggregate and somewhat anonymized or in full. I've not found anything yet that leads me to believe this is how Google runs their advertising business. To this day, my main concern with Google isn't so much with Google as it is with a malicious third party somehow gaining access to the info Google has on me.
- nerdponx 10y ago
  You're right, Google hoards your data, instead of selling it. They are the ones buying. That's not the point. The point is there is a dark market trade in your personal identifying data and metadata, with the ultimate goal of knowing everything about you. The more they know about you, the better they can advertise to you. Advertisements on the Internet are bought and sold algorithmically on high speed marketplaces. Omniscience leads to better decisions in this environment. Therefore your data is precious to whomever owns it.
- dublinben 10y ago
  It's disingenuous to compare the targeting that Google allows with the largely untargeted advertising on TV or in a newspaper. These traditional advertising media also don't perform the same intensive tracking that online advertising does. There is really no similarity, other than the fact they both result in ad impressions.
- drinkjuice 10y ago
  > Google sells all of your data to advertisers I totally agree with that part, including the last sentence of your post. However, I don't quite see the difference between "you are the product" and "access to your eyeballs is the product", it's just describing the same thing differently. That others are worse doesn't really change that, the ones who are better are the standard as far as I'm concerned.
emodendroket 10y ago
What kind of porn are you looking at that you feel the need to use Tor and anonymized search, is my question.

Inconel 10y ago

>and their behavior has been acceptable compared with that of others like Facebook. If you have the time, would you mind expanding on why you consider Google's behavior better than Facebook's? I find myself very wary of FB but much less so of Google, but I can't really explain why.

illys 10y ago
I have the same feeling but I cannot find arguments: they make money by selling very similar materials. I think Google only better markets its intrusions than Facebook... Something to do with the public sentence "don't be evil". Indeed "evil" is like "common sense": everybody has its own and understands what comforts him/herself. Seems like pure marketing. Maybe someone has any argument about the reality of this different Google/Facebook privacy intrusion/protection feeling?
bad_user 10y ago
You're just biased, because Facebook has way more potential for doing you harm and has used your data against your interests already. Facebook manipulates the emotions of its users: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-manipulated-689003-users-emotions-for-science/#69ae7561704d http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook-... MasterCard to access Facebook user data in order to make you spend more: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/mastercard-to-access-facebook-user-data-20141006-10qrqy.html http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/mastercard-to-ac... Facebook ads use your face for free: http://www.itworld.com/article/2746556/networking-hardware/facebook-ads-use-your-face-for-free.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2746556/networking-hardware/f... Facebook is inventing phony likes to promote stories you've never seen to your friends: https://web.archive.org/web/20161215092610/http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/21/facebook-is-recycling-your-likes-to-promote-stories-youve-never-seen-to-all-your-friends/#c29cc58596bd https://web.archive.org/web/20161215092610/http://www.forbes... Facebook guesses your race and uses it for targeting: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/facebooks-ad-platform-now-guesses-at-your-race-based-on-your-behavior/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/faceb... Facebook has been the main promoter of bogus news and misinformation in 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-trending-false-news-stories https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-... Facebook has started to collect WhatsApp data, in spite of the app's original policy: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-... Facebook collects the texts that you don't send: https://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/facebook-collects-conducts-research-on-status-updates-you-never-post/ https://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/facebook-collects-c... Facebook tracks and builds user profiles for people without accounts: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-... Facebook's privacy settings have been designed with black patterns, making it easy to publish by mistake: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/29/facebook-privacy-secret-profile-exposed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/29/facebook-... Facebook makes it easy to tell when you're asleep: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/24/why-a-privacy-advocate-made-it-easy-to-track-when-your-facebook-friends-sleep/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/2...
- Inconel 10y ago
  Thanks for the links. I had heard of some of those issues but the sleep tracking and unsent text collection were new to me.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Short story to support your articles. I used a fake name on FB since the first day I signed up along with a photo of my favorite rock star. About a year ago, someone outed me and FB locked my account and said unless I emailed them a copy of my drivers license or some form of identification that proved who I was, they would keep my account locked. I thought, "Whatever, I'll just fire up a new one." This past month I signed up a new account under a very generic name like "John Johnson". No problems. I never uploaded a photo, just connected with the handful of people (less than 5) and felt like, "ok, we're cool now". Yesterday, I got the same message and now the links you provided make a lot of sense as to why. FB really is after all of your data and essentially force you to give it to them, otherwise they hold your account hostage. Both times, I really felt like my privacy was being stampeded and this was a big intrusion to get at my personal information. No way am I going to give you an identifiable information about me. I already gave up an account I had used more or less for a decade instead of coughing up my personal information and photo. So yeah, I'm done with FB - not that I was ever a huge fan, but this past week just confirmed what I always suspected.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Sure that's scary. But it also sounds like 'anti-fraud'. How could we distinguish the two? They're slammed if they want authentic accounts; they're slammed if folks create large numbers of spam accounts. How do we suppose they could win in this scenario?
    - at-fates-hands 10y ago
      Just do like most of the social media accounts do. Have algorithms that detect spam? Let users report on accounts being used to spam other users? Sure, if I'm someone abusing the system, this should be easy to ferret out without having to surrender all your personal information and identifying markers just to make a SOCIAL MEDIA platform free of spam.

illys 10y ago

Actually, I still have a problem when all my "actual searches" becomes someone else's "most valuable property". Of course there are some other less intrusive search engines (DuckDuckGo, maybe Qwant), but unfortunately they still are less efficient than Google for fine or rare searches.

bad_user 10y ago
Well, I have a problem with that too, but then I'm talking about the average user, which is never going to install Tor in order to connect to DuckDuckGo. And to tell you the truth, I don't trust DuckDuckGo that much either, as they can always turn around and start collecting data without me knowing it. But for us, the technically inclined and privacy aware, there are always solutions. But for the average user, until a better Google comes along, I think it's OK to trust Google with their searches. And compartmentalization is paramount to information security, my point being that trusting some other company besides Google with that data is not acceptable, which is why I find that intercepting HTTPS connections is simply wrong and evil, regardless of reasons. This besides the fact that intercepting HTTPS traffic increases the attack surface, making users less secure.
- __jal 10y ago
  I see a distinct difference between DDG and Google. We know Google does what it does. DDG's reason for existence is predicated on not doing so. If DDG were found to be lying, I'd guess >80% of its customer base would evaporate overnight. It would mean destroying many years of branding, trust and relatively difficult cultivation of user browser defaults. But that's worth gaming out - what would make it worth it to light all that on fire? About the only thing I can think of is a Lavabit-style conundrum, wherein our intelligence-overlords threaten someone's freedom. So, absolutely could happen, absolutely would come out. So that's why I trust DDG to be less forthcoming with their logs.
kofejnik 10y ago
you are not paying for search service; ergo, your searches are the product and your search results are but a byproduct of that product

soylentcola 10y ago

It often irks me when people say things like "Google sells all of your data to advertisers and you are the product!" Not because there are no potential issues to discuss around ad-funded free services and data aggregation, but more because it's like clickbait (in that it oversimplifies a complex issue for emotional effect and makes discussion of actual issues more difficult). Using algorithms to build a general profile in order to increase relevance is not the same as "selling your data". They sell access to your eyeballs in much the same way as a broadcast TV station or free alt-weekly does. The main difference is that by getting some sense of who you are and what you might be interested in, they can decrease (in theory) the amount of irrelevant ads that end up on your screen versus the traditional methods of just blanketing things with general ads or using cruder demographic info. Lots of companies flat-out do sell your data, either in aggregate and somewhat anonymized or in full. I've not found anything yet that leads me to believe this is how Google runs their advertising business. To this day, my main concern with Google isn't so much with Google as it is with a malicious third party somehow gaining access to the info Google has on me.

nerdponx 10y ago
You're right, Google hoards your data, instead of selling it. They are the ones buying. That's not the point. The point is there is a dark market trade in your personal identifying data and metadata, with the ultimate goal of knowing everything about you. The more they know about you, the better they can advertise to you. Advertisements on the Internet are bought and sold algorithmically on high speed marketplaces. Omniscience leads to better decisions in this environment. Therefore your data is precious to whomever owns it.
dublinben 10y ago
It's disingenuous to compare the targeting that Google allows with the largely untargeted advertising on TV or in a newspaper. These traditional advertising media also don't perform the same intensive tracking that online advertising does. There is really no similarity, other than the fact they both result in ad impressions.
drinkjuice 10y ago
> Google sells all of your data to advertisers I totally agree with that part, including the last sentence of your post. However, I don't quite see the difference between "you are the product" and "access to your eyeballs is the product", it's just describing the same thing differently. That others are worse doesn't really change that, the ones who are better are the standard as far as I'm concerned.

emodendroket 10y ago

What kind of porn are you looking at that you feel the need to use Tor and anonymized search, is my question.