13 ms·

The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

303 points by j32fun 8y ago

dwighttk 8y ago
https://duckduckgo.com https://duckduckgo.com https://protonmail.com https://protonmail.com https://apple.com https://apple.com
- caymanjim 8y ago
  One of these things is not like the other. DuckDuckGo and Proton were founded on the basis of protecting privacy and not sharing personal data. The other is part of the cabal.
  - revscat 8y ago
    What makes you believe Apple sells their customer’s data?
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      Facts? I mean we have. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ... Apple gave up their user data in China so they could make a buck and Google instead chose to leave China instead of giving up the data to make a buck. Apple it is more data and more money made and therefore believe the largest selling data example we have had in my lifetime? Do you know any examples that are bigger? This is also actually giving the data instead of targeting an ad.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      Closed source, with many anti-user mechanisms. It's extraordinarily hard to investigate what your mobile device is doing at any time. One would require a Stingray and networking analysis gear to determine whom the packets are meant for - and even that is defeated with Pinned certs. Primarily, the onus is on them to show that they do not have contractual allowances to sell data to internal or 3rd parties.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Insofar as we have limited options on mobile phones: Currently between a company built around profiting from data collection and a company built around profiting from selling hardware, the latter is the best possible choice. (Android is mostly a lost cause even if you try and strip Google out of it, and doing so in an even mildly secure fashion is beyond most people's competency. Most other OSes are more or less toys without even basic ability to replace a modern smartphone.)
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Exactly. Apple is also one of the participants in the NSA's PRISM [1] domestic surveillance program. Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself, but more tellingly it's also indicative of the NSA's appreciation for the amount and quality of unique and identifiable data that Apple has or can readily obtain on their users. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      What I hate about Apple is no transparency. Google has a dashboard with everything they collect in one place and can remove and even download. Apple terms let them collect tons but no dashboard. No transparency. No way to download.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself Why? Apple is legally required to hand over the court ordered data whether or not they participate in the FBI's data integration program. By implementing a proper data integration system, Apple can standardize audits and alerts and make sure the FBI gets only what is required and not somebody else's data by accident as might happen if the data were sent by hand each time.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        I'd recommend checking out the article and other reading on PRISM. PRISM is operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal privacy including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data retrieval in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently collected data" and more. This entire period of extreme surveillance and secret courts, which are in effect kangaroo courts, will likely be looked at in the history books similar to how you look at things like the Stasi. Keep in mind that the Stasi was founded in 1950 and prosecutions only began once East Germany fell, some 40 years later.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Or is that more marketing? How do we really know what they are doing with our data?
- krizzo 8y ago
  The mail is only as secure as who you send it too. If you email a Yahoo or Gmail account the email may be secure on your proton server but open to the others. The thing about security is everyone else has to do it or it breaks down. Gmail and other free email providers make it so easy people don't want to change.
  - amelius 8y ago
    You could send a link to a secure pastebin instead of the actual message.
  - sfotm 8y ago
    Protonmail does have the ability to send emails in a secure fashion regardless of the receiver’s provider via a link. Obviously it’s inconvenient and I wouldn’t use it for the lion’s share of my emails, but if I were sending something like a password or a code I certainly would.
redm 8y ago
Just some of the ways Google collects data [1]: Google Search, Google Fiber, Google Recaptcha, Google Translate, Google Adsense, Google Chrome (Safe Browsing checks etc.), Google DNS (8.8.4.4 etc.), Google Mail, Android Integrations, Google GSuite (Sheets, Docs, etc.), Google Drive, Google Analytics, Google AMP, YouTube So on and so forth. Of course, Google keeps most of this data to themselves to improve products and sell ads, but it's scary how much they have especially since they broke down the firewall between services. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products [2] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-terms.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy...
- baud147258 8y ago
  Plus all the data gathered from their discontinued Tools. Also even if you're not using gmail/Android/Gsuite, if you're working/communicating with someone who does, Google still get your information.
- secure 8y ago
  The data collected for Google Public DNS is actually very reasonable. Have a look at https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy. I haven’t checked the other products, just wanted to point this out since people seem to assume worse than what’s actually happening (for Google Public DNS, at least).
  - dualboot 8y ago
    It's not just what they collect with a single service. It's the amount of clarity that comes from a linkage with their other collected data sets.
    - delroth 8y ago
      On that same web page: > We don't correlate or combine information from our temporary or permanent logs with any personal information that you have provided Google for other services. Of course, all of that is meaningless if you want to think that Google is lying in its privacy policies. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on 8888).
dannyw 8y ago
I think Google is a lot less creepy than Facebook. Yes, they vacuum a lot of data, but I do get directly related benefits from it, as well as controls that I trust. Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. I chose to turn it on, so I can know places I’ve been to previously (if I forget the name). It’s like a journal that writes itself. Google has its privacy issues, but on a whole I voluntarily choose to give them permission to collect my data, because I get direct value from it.
- lucideer 8y ago
  > controls that I trust. I think this trust might be misplaced. > Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Displaying your location history to you is turned off by default. Google's own recording of your location, for their purposes, cannot be turned off.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    > Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Do you want to turn Location History on? Are you suuuuure you don't want to turn location history on? To use maps effectively you need location history on. Turn on? Location history may affect ____ you wanna turn it on? How about now, location history is a great thing to turn on.... EDIT: for those of you who downmodded this, the point was that if you have location history off, Google spams you constantly with requests to turn it on. You'll get this request for opening up maps, using Google Now, or a dozen other things generated from many apps. There is also no option to temporarily turn on for app. Not so nice uses of LocHis: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-location-history-tracking-832849/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-location-his... Explains how LocHis tendrils are everywhere: https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-google-may-be-tracking-every-move-you-make/ https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-googl...
    - majormajor 8y ago
      I couldn't set a fucking timer with the Assistant on my Pixel without being told I need location history. Seemed like a low enough bar.
uasnew 8y ago
Solution: Ban Lobbying?
sqdbps 8y ago
I guess it's cheaper to try and extend this whole facebook/cambridge analytica story than to do actual journalism. What's more you get to attack a business rival (doubly true for wsj v google).
- baud147258 8y ago
  Also when writing about facebook/cambridge analytica story, you can easily add a few lines about the election, which makes the story more shared, generating more clicks (~engagement), so the story is much more talked about. If the cambridge analytica story was about selling cars or home appliance, it would have been forgotten in a few days. Edit: And perhaps it's a good thing that it was about the elections? It would mean that it might force a change on first Facebook, then maybe other internet companies
lamename 8y ago
On one hand, I'm glad to see popular concern for (or at least media coverage of) personal data privacy issues. On the other hand, I can't imagine this is news to anyone at HN, or anyone who's been following such issues for years. Ok ok, maybe the mass public is finally becoming more aware of these issues, but they're also even more heavily invested in the services Google/FB provide than when these revelations were first known to a more niche online community. I find it hard to believe that all this media attention is anything other than too little too late.
- 40acres 8y ago
  I'm of an opposite mind. The tech world has known about these issues for years and nothing has happened. When the Verge or Wired write about these privacy issues the outside world really is not of much concern. But when the NYT and WaPo write about it, and when there are Congressional hearings about it changes is much more likely to occur.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    Because many of us are employed to take advantage of the current situation of data proliferation. I am. I take your information and I pass it along to our marketing partners. I am a professional spammer. Your data is worth a couple bucks to us. We provide no real value (working on fixing this, atm). I get to feed my kids and take vacations as a result. I guess I will continue to float the moral line until actual harm comes out of this. We take data security seriously. We've straight up refused to partner with people who don't, even if it meant passing a lucrative deal. I have hope that as long as there are people like me out there, it will be OK, but I think the worst thing we can do is not talk about it / shame those that do make a living on ad tech to flee the work.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > changes is much more likely to occur. Be careful what you wish for. Weighing all of the possibilities I can imagine and the likeliness of their occurrence (regardless of intent), I'll take the status quo.
thisisit 8y ago
This is disappointing from WSJ. Google's data collection is a good story but pulling Facebook in and then devolving into what-about-ism is not. This is toeing the what-about-Google/twitter stance Facebook took in it's release. > Google gathers more personal data than Facebook does, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it? Because one problem at a time. If we are going down this path, how about, > Many people die of hunger every year more than Facebook, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?
- dqpb 8y ago
  I think your getting the "what-about-ism" argument backwards. This isn't avoiding talking about Google by saying "What about Facebook". This is comparing the two to highlight it's point about Google, the subject of the article.
  - thisisit 8y ago
    Maybe I have it wrong but what-about-ism isn't only about avoidance. It is also about drawing an equivalence saying - "Yes, X is bad but what about Y?" The idea being if everyone does it then X hasn't done anything wrong.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Noone is saying Facebook hasn't done anything wrong. We just don't want Google to get away with it. Whataboutism would be if we were to suggest Facebook isn't that bad because Google does it too. But articles like this are trying to point out that both companies are doing bad things: We should be going after both of them.
- 908087 8y ago
  > Because one problem at a time This is dealing with one problem at a time. The problem is unchecked commercialized mass surveillance, and any laws that come out of this should apply to Google, Facebook, and every other company that has been engaging in these practices. Your attempt to spin these as unrelated with that last line doesn't even make sense.
reacharavindh 8y ago
Haven't read the article because it is behind paywall, but it is not that hard to stay away from Google if you really care for it. Search - Use DuckDuckGo or startpage. Use Fastmail or any other email provider that is not Google. Watch Youtube videos without creating an account and clear out cookies regularly. Use Vimeo or some other service to host your videos for private use. Use Google Translate without a Google Account, and make sure you're not logged into a Google account in another tab or even the same browser. Use Firefox instead of Google Chrome. Google Adsense - Block ads using adblocker, Ghostery, and if you're up for it, use Adnauseum. Again, make sure to not leave a trace of a Google account in that browser. Google DNS - Use your carrier's DNS or even better something like Quad9 instead. Keep changing it among the open ones if you dont want a single DNS provider getting all your history. Android Integrations - Use iPhone :-) But, if you have something against Apple or dont like it, Use as plain Android as possible. Check if you can live without the Play store. Rooting? GSuite - Use local Office programs with files living in Nextcloud or something. Google Drive - Use Nextcloud instead. Google Analytics - Adblock/Ghostery it. Google AMP - Note sure what you reveal if you can avoid a Google account. Clear out cookies frequently. The point being, do NOT use a Google account in the browser, clear out cookies as often as reasonable.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  To read past WSJ paywall, rename wsj.com to fullwsj.com, which redirects through Facebook and displays the full article.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  You might be able to dislodge yourself from certain datasets, but good luck getting out of all of them. For example: https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-credit-card-purchases-track-online-ads.html https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-credit-card-purchases...
- terminalcommand 8y ago
  An easy way to bypass the wsj paywall is to use a facebook redirect. http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-has-more-of-your-personal-data-than-facebook-try-google-1524398401 http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/who... works as usual. Putting "http://facebook.com/l.php?u=" http://facebook.com/l.php?u=" before the url does the trick. I've had picked up this technique from a fellow HN user, wanted to share.
kodablah 8y ago
Didn't read the article, but does anyone see some media narrative happening here? One part of me would like to think that they are just publishing what readers want. But another part says there is an underlying narrative. I can almost predict the news cycle wrt tech, data collection, privacy, etc. Does anyone stop to think, why now? I fear this is a rolling snowball started during the election and it won't end until those with pitchforks get the laws the rest who are quieter may not want. This media-built furor, while it may have legitimate roots, has me seeing deja vu. I fear the internet equivalent of the patriot act. Just know when we get things like the cloud act, the next sopa, or the next government-over-tech bill, we asked for it by building this furor. Seems quite unbalanced to me. I wonder how I or others can stop feeding this growing furor.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > but does anyone see some media narrative happening here? WSJ is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. He has been in a anti-Google crusade for a while. 2009: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google.html https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google... 2014: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says_google_is_worse_than_the_nsa/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says...
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Why is it that no one ever suggests articles about Facebook's privacy violations are part of some anti-Facebook conspiracy?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - cromwellian 8y ago
      Because there are very specific reasons to be suspicious of Fox or WSJ articles and if this anti-Google article had appeared in the NYT it would have been better and free of suspicion. Anti-Tesla articles are another example of places to be suspicious of the source because a) day traders trying to short the stock have deliberately tried to spread damaging information and b) fossil fuel companies and regular car manufacturers have a vested interest. That’s not to say all anti-Tesla articles are wrong, just one should be careful that you aren’t being a rube to propaganda. Also, Facebook wasn’t dinged for collecting data, they were dinged for allowing a third party to scrape it. The people using Facebook are quite aware of all of the stuff they’re telling FB interests, likes, groups they join, what they don’t want is third parties who shouldn’t know, to know. I don’t care that Facebook knows what articles I liked. But I don’t want Cambridge Analytica to know in an individually identifiable manner.
weakgeek 8y ago
i find it interesting that no one points out how much data AT&T and Verizon have collected ... they know the location of your phone, which cell tower you are connected to, which stores you've been in and when, who you've called, who has called you, all of which can be cross referenced ... and there is no reason to think they don't where the IP they supplied you has been, to which websites you've visited, etc ... same with Comcast for broadband ... and the GOP last year repealed what privacy was in place on this ... if you combine that with the media properties they own, they also get a pretty good picture, across android, iOS and your desktop, of what a person does ... they also have payment data, a credit profile, possibly health info, possibly data on your kids, etc, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-trump/trump-signs-repeal-of-u-s-broadband-privacy-rules-idUSKBN1752PR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-trump/trump-...
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  ISPs present a tiny footprint compared to the global tech behemoths (they're regional), and they already actually are significantly regulated even with the loosening of various restrictions over the past year or so. Contrary to popular belief, ISPs can't sell your browsing history legally, whereas tech companies generally can.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Why is Apple given a pass? They gave all their China user data to the China government so they could stay in China to make a buck. Is that not selling users data? Versus Google chose to leave China instead of handing over the data. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...
- thisacctforreal 8y ago
  They make an effort to design their products and services with privacy and security in mind, and are much more transparent about what data is collected and how it's used. The iCloud-China situation is unfortunate. The situation is very different from Google, both in the opportunity costs, and the fact Apple's products are dependent on China to be manufactured. Additionally, if you forego iCloud services (namely iCloud backup), then the data that the CCP can access is actually quite limited. All of their phones since the 5s in 2013 have been leaders in security, and if you use a passphrase or 10-digit pin as a passcode then not even the most recent iPhone cracking tools could brute-force your phone (within a dozen years, within a century for 11-digits). I'm miffed about China, but I still believe Apple is the best option because I don't think there's much that can be done in their position and the impact is limited. For me that would change the instant an actual iOS backdoor is made for any gov't.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Not following. There were billions to be made by Google in China and they decided giving up their user data was a bridge too far. So basically chose to not sell their user data. Versus Apple handed over all there user data to make a buck. Plus this is actual data not a targeted ad. Do I have this correct?
    - awakeasleep 8y ago
      You're missing facts that change the whole picture. Cloud services are required to use Google services & devices. G had to choose between giving China everything or withdrawing from the market. Cloud services are an add-on to Apple's products. The iPhone is still useful without enabling anything from iCloud. Cloud services are optional with the iPhone.
Nadya 8y ago
44 blocked scripts loading the article - nearly half of which was tracking related. Surely the irony of that isn't lost on people? Google's ability to track users is 99% entirely due to companies like the WSJ using them for tracking users. These companies are just as much to blame, if not more, than Google itself. E: What I mean by that is Google provides the means, but Google couldn't track nearly half of all sites if nearly half of all sites weren't complicit in the tracking.
- laythea 8y ago
  The whole tracking thing should be outlawed in my opinion. It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of curtains. In a world where that is clearly not ok, then why is it that this kind of thing (tracking) is deemed ok? What we need is something that does to our online privacy, what curtains did for peoples real privacy. And, although I fear that this is not technically possible, the absence of the possibility of such protections, still does not make tracking right.
  - downandout 8y ago
    It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of curtains. Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy. These websites belong to private entities. So it’s more like saying that because you voluntarily walked into my store, it’s ok for me to observe your behavior while you’re there. Which, of course, is completely logical and acceptable to most people. Don’t want me to track your behavior while you’re in my store? There’s a very simple, 100% effective solution for that: don’t enter my store. Because if you do enter, you have no right to complain that I’m observing you.
    - oldcynic 8y ago
      You're effectively suggesting people take all their business offline again. When I walk into store (a) it's reasonable to assume that store (a) might be observing my behaviour, along with perhaps a sub-contracted security company etc. It's less reasonable to assume that walking into store (a) gets me observed by stores b-z and subcontractor 1-255 which is more like what happens on the web. They don't generally follow around town for the rest of the week either. Go to web site or store and get observed by Google, Facebook, and dozens of assorted analytics companies who will then endeavour to track you wherever you go next, for as long as possible. Now then, ignoring JS and adblocking for a moment, which mainstream ecommerce or news sites can one frequent in order to adopt the "100% effective solution" of not being tracked?
textmode 8y ago
"Recent controversy over Facebook Inc.'s hunger for personal data has surfaced the notion that the online advertising industry could be hazardous to our privacy and well-being." The NYT can publish stories centering on this notion despite being ??% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business. Would Google (or Facebook) publish similar warnings against the annoyances and harms of online advertising despite being 98% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business? How strong an argument is "Newspapers use trackers in their online editions therefore any news they publish about tracking has no educational value." (or is somehow compromised in some way) Did newspapers have a choice in whether they chose to participate in the www as we see it today (overrun with advertising and fraudulent, insidious tactics)? If yes, what was the choice? What would happen to these newspapers if they failed to "cooperate" with Google?
- soared 8y ago
  They'd lose massive amounts of revenue and cease to exist. Even with digital advertising most newspapers are dead or barely staying afloat. They all struggled to convert to digital and tracking-based advertising was just one of many life boats they tried to save themselves with.
z3t4 8y ago
and yet most ads I see on the internet are almost less targeted then tv ads. what are they doing with all this data i wonder. to be fair though i dont even know myself what i might be interested in.
sayhello 8y ago
(Disclaimer: I work at Google, though on unrelated things. Opinions my own, yada, yada) Worked at a privacy obsessed place before (Mozilla) where I worked on building privacy-preserving ad infrastructure. I think we've more to fear about the other data brokers (so-called DMP's and their sources of data, e.g. your bank) than Google. At the very least, we have some assurance Google is competent with handling the data. Google is a big well-known target and definitely poses a central point of failure for our data, but this piece could've been more than a dig at Google and rather, could have explored how private information is handled in the Ad industry in general.
rdlecler1 8y ago
I don’t see Google getting the same kind of backlash as Facebook even though Google probably knows far more about me. For most people Google has real utility while Facebook is an indulgence.

303 points by j32fun 8y ago

https://duckduckgo.com https://duckduckgo.com https://protonmail.com https://protonmail.com https://apple.com https://apple.com

caymanjim 8y ago
One of these things is not like the other. DuckDuckGo and Proton were founded on the basis of protecting privacy and not sharing personal data. The other is part of the cabal.
- revscat 8y ago
  What makes you believe Apple sells their customer’s data?
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Facts? I mean we have. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ... Apple gave up their user data in China so they could make a buck and Google instead chose to leave China instead of giving up the data to make a buck. Apple it is more data and more money made and therefore believe the largest selling data example we have had in my lifetime? Do you know any examples that are bigger? This is also actually giving the data instead of targeting an ad.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Closed source, with many anti-user mechanisms. It's extraordinarily hard to investigate what your mobile device is doing at any time. One would require a Stingray and networking analysis gear to determine whom the packets are meant for - and even that is defeated with Pinned certs. Primarily, the onus is on them to show that they do not have contractual allowances to sell data to internal or 3rd parties.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Insofar as we have limited options on mobile phones: Currently between a company built around profiting from data collection and a company built around profiting from selling hardware, the latter is the best possible choice. (Android is mostly a lost cause even if you try and strip Google out of it, and doing so in an even mildly secure fashion is beyond most people's competency. Most other OSes are more or less toys without even basic ability to replace a modern smartphone.)
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Exactly. Apple is also one of the participants in the NSA's PRISM [1] domestic surveillance program. Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself, but more tellingly it's also indicative of the NSA's appreciation for the amount and quality of unique and identifiable data that Apple has or can readily obtain on their users. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    What I hate about Apple is no transparency. Google has a dashboard with everything they collect in one place and can remove and even download. Apple terms let them collect tons but no dashboard. No transparency. No way to download.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself Why? Apple is legally required to hand over the court ordered data whether or not they participate in the FBI's data integration program. By implementing a proper data integration system, Apple can standardize audits and alerts and make sure the FBI gets only what is required and not somebody else's data by accident as might happen if the data were sent by hand each time.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I'd recommend checking out the article and other reading on PRISM. PRISM is operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal privacy including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data retrieval in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently collected data" and more. This entire period of extreme surveillance and secret courts, which are in effect kangaroo courts, will likely be looked at in the history books similar to how you look at things like the Stasi. Keep in mind that the Stasi was founded in 1950 and prosecutions only began once East Germany fell, some 40 years later.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Or is that more marketing? How do we really know what they are doing with our data?
krizzo 8y ago
The mail is only as secure as who you send it too. If you email a Yahoo or Gmail account the email may be secure on your proton server but open to the others. The thing about security is everyone else has to do it or it breaks down. Gmail and other free email providers make it so easy people don't want to change.
- amelius 8y ago
  You could send a link to a secure pastebin instead of the actual message.
- sfotm 8y ago
  Protonmail does have the ability to send emails in a secure fashion regardless of the receiver’s provider via a link. Obviously it’s inconvenient and I wouldn’t use it for the lion’s share of my emails, but if I were sending something like a password or a code I certainly would.

redm 8y ago

Just some of the ways Google collects data [1]: Google Search, Google Fiber, Google Recaptcha, Google Translate, Google Adsense, Google Chrome (Safe Browsing checks etc.), Google DNS (8.8.4.4 etc.), Google Mail, Android Integrations, Google GSuite (Sheets, Docs, etc.), Google Drive, Google Analytics, Google AMP, YouTube So on and so forth. Of course, Google keeps most of this data to themselves to improve products and sell ads, but it's scary how much they have especially since they broke down the firewall between services. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products [2] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-terms.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy...

baud147258 8y ago
Plus all the data gathered from their discontinued Tools. Also even if you're not using gmail/Android/Gsuite, if you're working/communicating with someone who does, Google still get your information.
secure 8y ago
The data collected for Google Public DNS is actually very reasonable. Have a look at https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy. I haven’t checked the other products, just wanted to point this out since people seem to assume worse than what’s actually happening (for Google Public DNS, at least).
- dualboot 8y ago
  It's not just what they collect with a single service. It's the amount of clarity that comes from a linkage with their other collected data sets.
  - delroth 8y ago
    On that same web page: > We don't correlate or combine information from our temporary or permanent logs with any personal information that you have provided Google for other services. Of course, all of that is meaningless if you want to think that Google is lying in its privacy policies. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on 8888).

dannyw 8y ago

I think Google is a lot less creepy than Facebook. Yes, they vacuum a lot of data, but I do get directly related benefits from it, as well as controls that I trust. Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. I chose to turn it on, so I can know places I’ve been to previously (if I forget the name). It’s like a journal that writes itself. Google has its privacy issues, but on a whole I voluntarily choose to give them permission to collect my data, because I get direct value from it.

lucideer 8y ago
> controls that I trust. I think this trust might be misplaced. > Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Displaying your location history to you is turned off by default. Google's own recording of your location, for their purposes, cannot be turned off.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Do you want to turn Location History on? Are you suuuuure you don't want to turn location history on? To use maps effectively you need location history on. Turn on? Location history may affect ____ you wanna turn it on? How about now, location history is a great thing to turn on.... EDIT: for those of you who downmodded this, the point was that if you have location history off, Google spams you constantly with requests to turn it on. You'll get this request for opening up maps, using Google Now, or a dozen other things generated from many apps. There is also no option to temporarily turn on for app. Not so nice uses of LocHis: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-location-history-tracking-832849/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-location-his... Explains how LocHis tendrils are everywhere: https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-google-may-be-tracking-every-move-you-make/ https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-googl...
  - majormajor 8y ago
    I couldn't set a fucking timer with the Assistant on my Pixel without being told I need location history. Seemed like a low enough bar.

uasnew 8y ago

Solution: Ban Lobbying?

sqdbps 8y ago

I guess it's cheaper to try and extend this whole facebook/cambridge analytica story than to do actual journalism. What's more you get to attack a business rival (doubly true for wsj v google).

baud147258 8y ago
Also when writing about facebook/cambridge analytica story, you can easily add a few lines about the election, which makes the story more shared, generating more clicks (~engagement), so the story is much more talked about. If the cambridge analytica story was about selling cars or home appliance, it would have been forgotten in a few days. Edit: And perhaps it's a good thing that it was about the elections? It would mean that it might force a change on first Facebook, then maybe other internet companies

lamename 8y ago

On one hand, I'm glad to see popular concern for (or at least media coverage of) personal data privacy issues. On the other hand, I can't imagine this is news to anyone at HN, or anyone who's been following such issues for years. Ok ok, maybe the mass public is finally becoming more aware of these issues, but they're also even more heavily invested in the services Google/FB provide than when these revelations were first known to a more niche online community. I find it hard to believe that all this media attention is anything other than too little too late.

40acres 8y ago
I'm of an opposite mind. The tech world has known about these issues for years and nothing has happened. When the Verge or Wired write about these privacy issues the outside world really is not of much concern. But when the NYT and WaPo write about it, and when there are Congressional hearings about it changes is much more likely to occur.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Because many of us are employed to take advantage of the current situation of data proliferation. I am. I take your information and I pass it along to our marketing partners. I am a professional spammer. Your data is worth a couple bucks to us. We provide no real value (working on fixing this, atm). I get to feed my kids and take vacations as a result. I guess I will continue to float the moral line until actual harm comes out of this. We take data security seriously. We've straight up refused to partner with people who don't, even if it meant passing a lucrative deal. I have hope that as long as there are people like me out there, it will be OK, but I think the worst thing we can do is not talk about it / shame those that do make a living on ad tech to flee the work.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > changes is much more likely to occur. Be careful what you wish for. Weighing all of the possibilities I can imagine and the likeliness of their occurrence (regardless of intent), I'll take the status quo.

thisisit 8y ago

This is disappointing from WSJ. Google's data collection is a good story but pulling Facebook in and then devolving into what-about-ism is not. This is toeing the what-about-Google/twitter stance Facebook took in it's release. > Google gathers more personal data than Facebook does, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it? Because one problem at a time. If we are going down this path, how about, > Many people die of hunger every year more than Facebook, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?

dqpb 8y ago
I think your getting the "what-about-ism" argument backwards. This isn't avoiding talking about Google by saying "What about Facebook". This is comparing the two to highlight it's point about Google, the subject of the article.
- thisisit 8y ago
  Maybe I have it wrong but what-about-ism isn't only about avoidance. It is also about drawing an equivalence saying - "Yes, X is bad but what about Y?" The idea being if everyone does it then X hasn't done anything wrong.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Noone is saying Facebook hasn't done anything wrong. We just don't want Google to get away with it. Whataboutism would be if we were to suggest Facebook isn't that bad because Google does it too. But articles like this are trying to point out that both companies are doing bad things: We should be going after both of them.
908087 8y ago
> Because one problem at a time This is dealing with one problem at a time. The problem is unchecked commercialized mass surveillance, and any laws that come out of this should apply to Google, Facebook, and every other company that has been engaging in these practices. Your attempt to spin these as unrelated with that last line doesn't even make sense.

reacharavindh 8y ago

Haven't read the article because it is behind paywall, but it is not that hard to stay away from Google if you really care for it. Search - Use DuckDuckGo or startpage. Use Fastmail or any other email provider that is not Google. Watch Youtube videos without creating an account and clear out cookies regularly. Use Vimeo or some other service to host your videos for private use. Use Google Translate without a Google Account, and make sure you're not logged into a Google account in another tab or even the same browser. Use Firefox instead of Google Chrome. Google Adsense - Block ads using adblocker, Ghostery, and if you're up for it, use Adnauseum. Again, make sure to not leave a trace of a Google account in that browser. Google DNS - Use your carrier's DNS or even better something like Quad9 instead. Keep changing it among the open ones if you dont want a single DNS provider getting all your history. Android Integrations - Use iPhone :-) But, if you have something against Apple or dont like it, Use as plain Android as possible. Check if you can live without the Play store. Rooting? GSuite - Use local Office programs with files living in Nextcloud or something. Google Drive - Use Nextcloud instead. Google Analytics - Adblock/Ghostery it. Google AMP - Note sure what you reveal if you can avoid a Google account. Clear out cookies frequently. The point being, do NOT use a Google account in the browser, clear out cookies as often as reasonable.

peterwwillis 8y ago
To read past WSJ paywall, rename wsj.com to fullwsj.com, which redirects through Facebook and displays the full article.
Skunkleton 8y ago
You might be able to dislodge yourself from certain datasets, but good luck getting out of all of them. For example: https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-credit-card-purchases-track-online-ads.html https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-credit-card-purchases...
terminalcommand 8y ago
An easy way to bypass the wsj paywall is to use a facebook redirect. http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-has-more-of-your-personal-data-than-facebook-try-google-1524398401 http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/who... works as usual. Putting "http://facebook.com/l.php?u=" http://facebook.com/l.php?u=" before the url does the trick. I've had picked up this technique from a fellow HN user, wanted to share.

kodablah 8y ago

Didn't read the article, but does anyone see some media narrative happening here? One part of me would like to think that they are just publishing what readers want. But another part says there is an underlying narrative. I can almost predict the news cycle wrt tech, data collection, privacy, etc. Does anyone stop to think, why now? I fear this is a rolling snowball started during the election and it won't end until those with pitchforks get the laws the rest who are quieter may not want. This media-built furor, while it may have legitimate roots, has me seeing deja vu. I fear the internet equivalent of the patriot act. Just know when we get things like the cloud act, the next sopa, or the next government-over-tech bill, we asked for it by building this furor. Seems quite unbalanced to me. I wonder how I or others can stop feeding this growing furor.

ucaetano 8y ago
> but does anyone see some media narrative happening here? WSJ is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. He has been in a anti-Google crusade for a while. 2009: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google.html https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google... 2014: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says_google_is_worse_than_the_nsa/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says...
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Why is it that no one ever suggests articles about Facebook's privacy violations are part of some anti-Facebook conspiracy?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    Because there are very specific reasons to be suspicious of Fox or WSJ articles and if this anti-Google article had appeared in the NYT it would have been better and free of suspicion. Anti-Tesla articles are another example of places to be suspicious of the source because a) day traders trying to short the stock have deliberately tried to spread damaging information and b) fossil fuel companies and regular car manufacturers have a vested interest. That’s not to say all anti-Tesla articles are wrong, just one should be careful that you aren’t being a rube to propaganda. Also, Facebook wasn’t dinged for collecting data, they were dinged for allowing a third party to scrape it. The people using Facebook are quite aware of all of the stuff they’re telling FB interests, likes, groups they join, what they don’t want is third parties who shouldn’t know, to know. I don’t care that Facebook knows what articles I liked. But I don’t want Cambridge Analytica to know in an individually identifiable manner.

weakgeek 8y ago

i find it interesting that no one points out how much data AT&T and Verizon have collected ... they know the location of your phone, which cell tower you are connected to, which stores you've been in and when, who you've called, who has called you, all of which can be cross referenced ... and there is no reason to think they don't where the IP they supplied you has been, to which websites you've visited, etc ... same with Comcast for broadband ... and the GOP last year repealed what privacy was in place on this ... if you combine that with the media properties they own, they also get a pretty good picture, across android, iOS and your desktop, of what a person does ... they also have payment data, a credit profile, possibly health info, possibly data on your kids, etc, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-trump/trump-signs-repeal-of-u-s-broadband-privacy-rules-idUSKBN1752PR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-trump/trump-...

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
ISPs present a tiny footprint compared to the global tech behemoths (they're regional), and they already actually are significantly regulated even with the loosening of various restrictions over the past year or so. Contrary to popular belief, ISPs can't sell your browsing history legally, whereas tech companies generally can.

jacksmith21006 8y ago

Why is Apple given a pass? They gave all their China user data to the China government so they could stay in China to make a buck. Is that not selling users data? Versus Google chose to leave China instead of handing over the data. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

thisacctforreal 8y ago
They make an effort to design their products and services with privacy and security in mind, and are much more transparent about what data is collected and how it's used. The iCloud-China situation is unfortunate. The situation is very different from Google, both in the opportunity costs, and the fact Apple's products are dependent on China to be manufactured. Additionally, if you forego iCloud services (namely iCloud backup), then the data that the CCP can access is actually quite limited. All of their phones since the 5s in 2013 have been leaders in security, and if you use a passphrase or 10-digit pin as a passcode then not even the most recent iPhone cracking tools could brute-force your phone (within a dozen years, within a century for 11-digits). I'm miffed about China, but I still believe Apple is the best option because I don't think there's much that can be done in their position and the impact is limited. For me that would change the instant an actual iOS backdoor is made for any gov't.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Not following. There were billions to be made by Google in China and they decided giving up their user data was a bridge too far. So basically chose to not sell their user data. Versus Apple handed over all there user data to make a buck. Plus this is actual data not a targeted ad. Do I have this correct?
  - awakeasleep 8y ago
    You're missing facts that change the whole picture. Cloud services are required to use Google services & devices. G had to choose between giving China everything or withdrawing from the market. Cloud services are an add-on to Apple's products. The iPhone is still useful without enabling anything from iCloud. Cloud services are optional with the iPhone.

Nadya 8y ago

44 blocked scripts loading the article - nearly half of which was tracking related. Surely the irony of that isn't lost on people? Google's ability to track users is 99% entirely due to companies like the WSJ using them for tracking users. These companies are just as much to blame, if not more, than Google itself. E: What I mean by that is Google provides the means, but Google couldn't track nearly half of all sites if nearly half of all sites weren't complicit in the tracking.

laythea 8y ago
The whole tracking thing should be outlawed in my opinion. It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of curtains. In a world where that is clearly not ok, then why is it that this kind of thing (tracking) is deemed ok? What we need is something that does to our online privacy, what curtains did for peoples real privacy. And, although I fear that this is not technically possible, the absence of the possibility of such protections, still does not make tracking right.
- downandout 8y ago
  It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of curtains. Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy. These websites belong to private entities. So it’s more like saying that because you voluntarily walked into my store, it’s ok for me to observe your behavior while you’re there. Which, of course, is completely logical and acceptable to most people. Don’t want me to track your behavior while you’re in my store? There’s a very simple, 100% effective solution for that: don’t enter my store. Because if you do enter, you have no right to complain that I’m observing you.
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    You're effectively suggesting people take all their business offline again. When I walk into store (a) it's reasonable to assume that store (a) might be observing my behaviour, along with perhaps a sub-contracted security company etc. It's less reasonable to assume that walking into store (a) gets me observed by stores b-z and subcontractor 1-255 which is more like what happens on the web. They don't generally follow around town for the rest of the week either. Go to web site or store and get observed by Google, Facebook, and dozens of assorted analytics companies who will then endeavour to track you wherever you go next, for as long as possible. Now then, ignoring JS and adblocking for a moment, which mainstream ecommerce or news sites can one frequent in order to adopt the "100% effective solution" of not being tracked?

textmode 8y ago

"Recent controversy over Facebook Inc.'s hunger for personal data has surfaced the notion that the online advertising industry could be hazardous to our privacy and well-being." The NYT can publish stories centering on this notion despite being ??% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business. Would Google (or Facebook) publish similar warnings against the annoyances and harms of online advertising despite being 98% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business? How strong an argument is "Newspapers use trackers in their online editions therefore any news they publish about tracking has no educational value." (or is somehow compromised in some way) Did newspapers have a choice in whether they chose to participate in the www as we see it today (overrun with advertising and fraudulent, insidious tactics)? If yes, what was the choice? What would happen to these newspapers if they failed to "cooperate" with Google?

soared 8y ago
They'd lose massive amounts of revenue and cease to exist. Even with digital advertising most newspapers are dead or barely staying afloat. They all struggled to convert to digital and tracking-based advertising was just one of many life boats they tried to save themselves with.

z3t4 8y ago

and yet most ads I see on the internet are almost less targeted then tv ads. what are they doing with all this data i wonder. to be fair though i dont even know myself what i might be interested in.

sayhello 8y ago

(Disclaimer: I work at Google, though on unrelated things. Opinions my own, yada, yada) Worked at a privacy obsessed place before (Mozilla) where I worked on building privacy-preserving ad infrastructure. I think we've more to fear about the other data brokers (so-called DMP's and their sources of data, e.g. your bank) than Google. At the very least, we have some assurance Google is competent with handling the data. Google is a big well-known target and definitely poses a central point of failure for our data, but this piece could've been more than a dig at Google and rather, could have explored how private information is handled in the Ad industry in general.

rdlecler1 8y ago

I don’t see Google getting the same kind of backlash as Facebook even though Google probably knows far more about me. For most people Google has real utility while Facebook is an indulgence.