5 ms·

Okay, let’s think about some side effects of having lots of potentially sensitive data nicely stored at one location: * Propaganda: Because you understand what

Okay, let’s think about some side effects of having lots of potentially sensitive data nicely stored at one location: * Propaganda: Because you understand what people need to hear, it’s a perfect tool to influence opinion. Of course, this doesn’t happen in your country (it never does). A recent popular example is the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Thankfully this evil cooperation does not exist any more (by changing its name). * Reinforcement of monopolies: You need to hit a critical mass to use data effectively. Therefore, big players will have an advantage over competitors and can provide better products. Therefore big players … * Reinforcement of dictatorships: If things turn bad they turn really bad. User data is gold in the hand of dictators. One reason is that is helps with propaganda, but it also helps to identify resistance. If for some reason your country ends up in a regime, it is going to be hard to get out of it. * Self-censorship / freedom of speech: There is plenty of evidence, that we constrain ourselves because we know nothing online is anonymous. This also depends on which country you live in. There must be a plethora of side effects I didn’t think of right now. You have to decide how “theoretical” these issues are for you. Maybe it is more a thing of “believing” – such as vegetarianism (although we all know eating meat is bad for the environment).

robbrown451 8y ago
I don't see how any of this applies to Google. Are you saying that dictators can steal my data from Google? I'd think they'd have an easier time breaking into my house and stealing my computer. By a factor of maybe a thousand.
- TheCabin 8y ago
  You don't see how "Reinforcement of monopolies" applies? You don't see how "Self-censorship" applies? The Cambridge Analytica scandal was involving facebook -- do you think they are really far apart from each other? The point "Reinforcement of dictatorships" would apply as soon as the government of the US would be in a less healthy state. The overall point is the following: Google might provide nice services for you as and individual, but there are larger-scale societal implications, which we should consider and weigh in as well.
  - robbrown451 8y ago
    Self-censorship certainly doesn't apply to me. Reinforcement of dictatorships? Uhhh.... I actually think Google is a force for good against dictatorships and would-be-autocrats such as the current US administration. That's just the impression I get. Monopolies is a different issue, it really has nothing to do with privacy. I do care about that one, but it's completely separate and it is not a self-interest issue, but a society at large one. In that sense, I suppose I'm being asked to participate in a boycott.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Not only can they, they already do it, via MLAT and via Google's voluntary disclosure. Google even makes money with it. On a voluntary basis, we may provide user data in response to valid legal process from non-U.S. government agencies, Just go to the Google transparency report, select Russia, Egypt, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and you'll get plenty of requests that Google has fulfilled.
- bennofs 8y ago
  But the payoff from breaking into Google is much larger than stealing your computer. One of those provides mass access to data and the other only involves data about a few persons. So comparing that is not really valid.

robbrown451 8y ago

I don't see how any of this applies to Google. Are you saying that dictators can steal my data from Google? I'd think they'd have an easier time breaking into my house and stealing my computer. By a factor of maybe a thousand.

TheCabin 8y ago
You don't see how "Reinforcement of monopolies" applies? You don't see how "Self-censorship" applies? The Cambridge Analytica scandal was involving facebook -- do you think they are really far apart from each other? The point "Reinforcement of dictatorships" would apply as soon as the government of the US would be in a less healthy state. The overall point is the following: Google might provide nice services for you as and individual, but there are larger-scale societal implications, which we should consider and weigh in as well.
- robbrown451 8y ago
  Self-censorship certainly doesn't apply to me. Reinforcement of dictatorships? Uhhh.... I actually think Google is a force for good against dictatorships and would-be-autocrats such as the current US administration. That's just the impression I get. Monopolies is a different issue, it really has nothing to do with privacy. I do care about that one, but it's completely separate and it is not a self-interest issue, but a society at large one. In that sense, I suppose I'm being asked to participate in a boycott.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
Not only can they, they already do it, via MLAT and via Google's voluntary disclosure. Google even makes money with it. On a voluntary basis, we may provide user data in response to valid legal process from non-U.S. government agencies, Just go to the Google transparency report, select Russia, Egypt, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and you'll get plenty of requests that Google has fulfilled.
bennofs 8y ago
But the payoff from breaking into Google is much larger than stealing your computer. One of those provides mass access to data and the other only involves data about a few persons. So comparing that is not really valid.