10 ms·

> No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's use

> No, they value their average user over you specifically. If the average user will gain more from Uber than from the feature you suggest, it is in Google's users' best interest to not implement that feature. No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. And I can't think of any way that preventing users from controlling there own data could be good for users. > Then you can certainly name all the other times? I can't name all the other times, but they misuse our data so often, they publish statistics about it: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?user_requests_report_period=authority:US https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?use...

joshuamorton 9y ago
>No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature. I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked. So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist. What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android users"? I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their data "harms the ecosystem". > I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. Yeah. I did. It doens't matter why they lie, it matters that they lie. Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to it's users about what it does with that data.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    You haven't actually shown an example of them lying though. Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? I find that difficult to believe.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used. They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to. Not exactly the actions of a company that I would consider trustworthy.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        >By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used. But they do notify the user unless doing so is illegal (and then, they do so when it becomes legal). You still haven't substantiated this claim of lying, unless you are claiming that "obeying the law" is lying about how data is being used. But again, Google is clear that they will obey court orders. > They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to. This is also one of those things that appeals to a small group of privacy enthusiasts, but isn't actually a good thing for the average user. The same set of changes that make it impossible to as you describe it "mishandle" data, also make it impossible to recover data in the case of user error. If you're willing to make that tradeoff that's fine, but for most people, the looming spectre of a court order is a much less worrying issue than forgetting one's password. That may not be the case for you, and that's fine. But to say that not doing that is unethical is a stretch. See this thread[1], where a number of security professionals who to my knowledge aren't Google-affiliated (and me, who is neither a security professional, nor independent) discuss this. It comes down to the average user's threat model not involving state level actors. Designing a broadly appealing service to respond to that threat is a disservice to the average user, because it comes at the cost of other features. You personally may have a different threat model, and that's ok. But to claim that anyone who does not follow your exact threat model is lying or mishandling data is disingenuous and potentially harmful. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477

joshuamorton 9y ago

>No, they don't. They could make this an optional feature, and they choose not to. If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature. I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked. So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?

CaptSpify 9y ago
> If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here. That's a big if. I highly suspect that Uber wouldn't want to leave one of the biggest platforms just because of a simple option that might already exist. What if Uber demanded to be able to have root on Android phones? Would Google be willing to bow to that because losing them would be a "net loss to Android users"? I'd have to ask you to point out why giving user's more ways to manage their data "harms the ecosystem". > I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests. Yeah. I did. It doens't matter why they lie, it matters that they lie. Especially If they are willing to lie to me about how they use my data, they why wouldn't they be willing to lie to me about how they collect my data? And I fully admit that I have no direct proof of them lying about how they collect data, but I don't see why you would trust a company that regularly lies to it's users about what it does with that data.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  You haven't actually shown an example of them lying though. Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? I find that difficult to believe.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > Are you saying that complying with lawful requests for data, as Google explicitly stares it will do and then publicly announcing the ways it complied, as well as when lawful, announcing to the affected users, is lying? By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used. They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to. Not exactly the actions of a company that I would consider trustworthy.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      >By not notifying their users that their data was breached they aren't being honest about how how data is being used. But they do notify the user unless doing so is illegal (and then, they do so when it becomes legal). You still haven't substantiated this claim of lying, unless you are claiming that "obeying the law" is lying about how data is being used. But again, Google is clear that they will obey court orders. > They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to. This is also one of those things that appeals to a small group of privacy enthusiasts, but isn't actually a good thing for the average user. The same set of changes that make it impossible to as you describe it "mishandle" data, also make it impossible to recover data in the case of user error. If you're willing to make that tradeoff that's fine, but for most people, the looming spectre of a court order is a much less worrying issue than forgetting one's password. That may not be the case for you, and that's fine. But to say that not doing that is unethical is a stretch. See this thread[1], where a number of security professionals who to my knowledge aren't Google-affiliated (and me, who is neither a security professional, nor independent) discuss this. It comes down to the average user's threat model not involving state level actors. Designing a broadly appealing service to respond to that threat is a disservice to the average user, because it comes at the cost of other features. You personally may have a different threat model, and that's ok. But to claim that anyone who does not follow your exact threat model is lying or mishandling data is disingenuous and potentially harmful. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15853477