6 ms·

> 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 use

> 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
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Im sorry, but I cant take any of what you are saying seriously. You can ignore the facts all you want, but an uncomfortable truth is still true.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        I'm not ignoring any facts. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations. You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with. If you want me to engage with facts, please provide some first! I can't ignore what isn't there.

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
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Im sorry, but I cant take any of what you are saying seriously. You can ignore the facts all you want, but an uncomfortable truth is still true.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      I'm not ignoring any facts. You haven't substantiated any of your accusations. You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with. If you want me to engage with facts, please provide some first! I can't ignore what isn't there.