3 ms·

Do you mean that people aren't concerned, or shouldn't be concerned?

nickysielicki 9y ago
Both. I don't think anyone (reasonable) should be concerned and I think most people, developer or not, are not concerned. This is just yet another example of this vocal minority on HN that regularly talks shit about every Google hardware product, where the argument against this specific product actually comes down to a larger argument against Google and how much access and gatekeeping they have with regards to your computer use. What irritates me is that this is Google's core business and if you're not interested in Google products because of that, then who the hell cares what you have to say about this product? It's like if Google launched a volleyball net and the top comment was something like, "Well, I don't have a house or a backyard and so I won't buy this because I won't have space for it!" Well then clearly you weren't going to buy this product in the first place, so what use is your opinion here? Why would Google make a laptop that has nothing to do with the rest of their business? Is the parent comment suggesting that Google should make a general purpose laptop that doesn't integrate with Google accounts? On top of all of this, it's not like the laptop becomes a brick in the event that your account would get locked. You can still use it in incognito mode, albeit without Android apps and such. Furthermore, doesn't this exact same argument apply to Windows 10 with a live.com account login, and Apple with iCloud account logins? Seems to me like the privacy zealots seem to come out stronger against Google.
- daxorid 9y ago
  I don't think you fully understand the risk model the "vocal minority" is talking about. It's not so much that Google might know about our searches for horse porn, it's that we could lose access to our entire digital life at the whim of an algorithm or a politically motivated employee. As others have pointed out, Google has capriciously cut off account access to numerous people. When they do that, you lose your email account, which is the de-facto access key to a very large number of other accounts. This is to say nothing of the documents, spreadsheets, photos, PURCHASED movies and music associated with that account. Bear in mind the Jordan Peterson case, on which Google has yet to answer, is only one we know about due to its high profile nature. How many other users without access to the ears of the media get rolled over in similar manner? When any other entity chooses not to do business with you, they don't show up to your house and make off with your DVD and CD collection, the home movies of your kids, as well as contents of your filing cabinet and a good number of the backup keys you have for other accounts. The parent is not worried about PRIVACY, they are worried, rightly so, of LOSING THEIR DIGITAL LIFE on a whim of a third party. The probability is low, sure, but the impact is very high. Evaluating risk is not just about likelihood, but also impact. The obvious objection, that one should use G Suite from a domain name they control, and do hour-by-hour snapshot backups of every document and photo they host with Google, is a fair one, but it puts the user in a position in which the very value Google services offers -- convenience -- is no longer there. So what's the point?
  - nickysielicki 9y ago
    > This is to say nothing of the documents, spreadsheets, photos, PURCHASED movies and music associated with that account. It would seriously surprise me to learn that this exact scenario does not apply to iTunes with iCloud and Microsoft with live.com accounts, azure, onedrive, and whatever xbox music store they have now. What sets Google apart here? I'd argue that the only thing that sets them apart is that they give users more opportunities to expose themselves to ToS violations via the fact that they own YouTube and other popular content sharing platforms (eg: gdrive), and also that many more people have Google accounts than have iCloud or Microsoft accounts. > Bear in mind the Jordan Peterson case, on which Google has yet to answer, is only one we know about due to its high profile nature. How many other users without access to the ears of the media get rolled over in similar manner? He's a YouTuber with nearly half a million subscribers and a ton of videos. The reason his account was likely flagged in the first place was due to his high profile nature, probably some kind of conflict with copyrighted content and/or adsense. I don't think Jordan Peterson's account lock should be taken as evidence that this is randomly happening to a lot of other ordinary Google users. (... and why is he uploading on YouTube with a personal Google account in the first place?) > The probability is low, sure, but the impact is very high. Evaluating risk is not just about likelihood, but also impact. I don't think that's right. The probability is low, and the impact is only as much as you allow it to be. I don't understand why it's all or nothing. You don't trust yourself to have a Google account and not overexpose yourself? > The obvious objection, that one should use G Suite from a domain name they control, and do hour-by-hour snapshot backups of every document and photo they host with Google, is a fair one, but it puts the user in a position in which the very value Google services offers -- convenience -- is no longer there. So what's the point? It doesn't have to be that dramatic, you download the really important stuff off of Google and save it on a USB stick or something. They make it absurdly easy to download all of your data with their exporter tool.
- calcifer 9y ago
  > You can still use it in incognito mode, albeit without Android apps and such. Actually, under "tech specs" on the product page, it says a Google account is required.

Both. I don't think anyone (reasonable) should be concerned and I think most people, developer or not, are not concerned. This is just yet another example of this vocal minority on HN that regularly talks shit about every Google hardware product, where the argument against this specific product actually comes down to a larger argument against Google and how much access and gatekeeping they have with regards to your computer use. What irritates me is that this is Google's core business and if you're not interested in Google products because of that, then who the hell cares what you have to say about this product? It's like if Google launched a volleyball net and the top comment was something like, "Well, I don't have a house or a backyard and so I won't buy this because I won't have space for it!" Well then clearly you weren't going to buy this product in the first place, so what use is your opinion here? Why would Google make a laptop that has nothing to do with the rest of their business? Is the parent comment suggesting that Google should make a general purpose laptop that doesn't integrate with Google accounts? On top of all of this, it's not like the laptop becomes a brick in the event that your account would get locked. You can still use it in incognito mode, albeit without Android apps and such. Furthermore, doesn't this exact same argument apply to Windows 10 with a live.com account login, and Apple with iCloud account logins? Seems to me like the privacy zealots seem to come out stronger against Google.

daxorid 9y ago
I don't think you fully understand the risk model the "vocal minority" is talking about. It's not so much that Google might know about our searches for horse porn, it's that we could lose access to our entire digital life at the whim of an algorithm or a politically motivated employee. As others have pointed out, Google has capriciously cut off account access to numerous people. When they do that, you lose your email account, which is the de-facto access key to a very large number of other accounts. This is to say nothing of the documents, spreadsheets, photos, PURCHASED movies and music associated with that account. Bear in mind the Jordan Peterson case, on which Google has yet to answer, is only one we know about due to its high profile nature. How many other users without access to the ears of the media get rolled over in similar manner? When any other entity chooses not to do business with you, they don't show up to your house and make off with your DVD and CD collection, the home movies of your kids, as well as contents of your filing cabinet and a good number of the backup keys you have for other accounts. The parent is not worried about PRIVACY, they are worried, rightly so, of LOSING THEIR DIGITAL LIFE on a whim of a third party. The probability is low, sure, but the impact is very high. Evaluating risk is not just about likelihood, but also impact. The obvious objection, that one should use G Suite from a domain name they control, and do hour-by-hour snapshot backups of every document and photo they host with Google, is a fair one, but it puts the user in a position in which the very value Google services offers -- convenience -- is no longer there. So what's the point?
- nickysielicki 9y ago
  > This is to say nothing of the documents, spreadsheets, photos, PURCHASED movies and music associated with that account. It would seriously surprise me to learn that this exact scenario does not apply to iTunes with iCloud and Microsoft with live.com accounts, azure, onedrive, and whatever xbox music store they have now. What sets Google apart here? I'd argue that the only thing that sets them apart is that they give users more opportunities to expose themselves to ToS violations via the fact that they own YouTube and other popular content sharing platforms (eg: gdrive), and also that many more people have Google accounts than have iCloud or Microsoft accounts. > Bear in mind the Jordan Peterson case, on which Google has yet to answer, is only one we know about due to its high profile nature. How many other users without access to the ears of the media get rolled over in similar manner? He's a YouTuber with nearly half a million subscribers and a ton of videos. The reason his account was likely flagged in the first place was due to his high profile nature, probably some kind of conflict with copyrighted content and/or adsense. I don't think Jordan Peterson's account lock should be taken as evidence that this is randomly happening to a lot of other ordinary Google users. (... and why is he uploading on YouTube with a personal Google account in the first place?) > The probability is low, sure, but the impact is very high. Evaluating risk is not just about likelihood, but also impact. I don't think that's right. The probability is low, and the impact is only as much as you allow it to be. I don't understand why it's all or nothing. You don't trust yourself to have a Google account and not overexpose yourself? > The obvious objection, that one should use G Suite from a domain name they control, and do hour-by-hour snapshot backups of every document and photo they host with Google, is a fair one, but it puts the user in a position in which the very value Google services offers -- convenience -- is no longer there. So what's the point? It doesn't have to be that dramatic, you download the really important stuff off of Google and save it on a USB stick or something. They make it absurdly easy to download all of your data with their exporter tool.
calcifer 9y ago
> You can still use it in incognito mode, albeit without Android apps and such. Actually, under "tech specs" on the product page, it says a Google account is required.