4 ms·

Threat model: "surveillance capitalism". Anyone in the ad business has a strong incentive to surveil you to sell or use the data. That's a difference between A

by mhneu 8y ago

Threat model: "surveillance capitalism". Anyone in the ad business has a strong incentive to surveil you to sell or use the data. That's a difference between Apple and Google - Apple is at least partially in the hardware business. Google is in the ad business - the surveillance business - full stop. And I say this as a fan of Google and someone who still uses their public DNS. But it's not surprising that people wonder how they use data. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_ca.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_... But for every article about Facebook's creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it's Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit. Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff calls it "surveillance capitalism."

mehrdadn 8y ago
No, surveillance and ads aren't "threats" in and of themselves. Being surveilled or shown ads doesn't itself harm you (modulo wasting your time/brainpower, but by that logic getting an email or a phone call is also a threat). What would be a "threat" is potential harm occurring as their consequence. In the case of NSA surveillance, for example, people are worried about innocent people getting caught for the wrong reasons and due process not being followed, resulting in wrongful legal/physical/etc. harm to the wrong person. Or in the case of Equifax, one possible harm is your SSN leaking and being used for ID theft (financial harm, until if/when you prove your innocent). Now what I'm not seeing is exactly which company's DNS is avoiding what credible harm that people here believe is potentially likely to result from using Google DNS. As far as Google (or any company, really) internally is concerned, the fact that they are merely "using" the data for themselves (to show you ads, or whatever) is not itself a harm to you. (And maybe worth mentioning, they have used a lot of information to make life a lot better for everyone, like location for traffic data.) The harm would be if they used it to (say) discriminate against you in advertising goods/services, or to harass you, or if they did not secure it properly and your data leaked, etc. None of these are things I'm aware of happening inside Google, but if you know of evidence of this happening, I would love to know. As far as Google is concerned externally, the only threat you seem to have hinted at here is that you believe they are likely to sell your data to other parties who are then likely to abuse them (such as by harassing you directly, or sharing/exposing your data online to others who might harm you). I have seen no evidence that this has been the case with Google (or Facebook) either -- which should make sense given that you believe user data is their most important asset -- but again, if you have any, by all means do share. Given the above, combined with the facts that (a) so many people here seem to be disregarding the actual privacy policy, and (b) for most people Google probably already has more information to screw you with than your third-party DNS provider ever will, I'm led to believe there isn't really anything to be gained by avoiding Google DNS. But to each their own...
- mhneu 8y ago
  Cory Doctorow on how surveillance capitalism harms you and harms societies. http://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oily-rags/ http://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oi...
- gaius 8y ago
  threats" in and of themselves. Being surveilled or shown ads doesn't itself harm you But it does. If you need a product generally you would just go out and buy it. Ads are psychologically manipulating you to buy things you don’t need and spend your limited time on this Earth doing things that aren’t beneficial to you. It wasn’t too bad when it was just billboards and TV slots but now it’s you vs the algorithms on a personal level.
  - euyyn 8y ago
    One of the things that has had the most profound influence in my life was to apply for and get a fellowship that paid me graduate studies in the US. The only reason I learned of its existence was my mom seeing an ad of it on the newspaper.
    - teddyh 8y ago
      Ah, anecdotes. “My grandfather smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, and he lived to be a 110.”
      - euyyn 8y ago
        What a ridiculous argument. I didn't get that fellowship despite the ad, unlike your grandfather who reached an old age despite smoking. I got it thanks to the ad.
        teddyh 8y ago
        You got the fellowship from the ad despite the vanishingly small chance that anyone would see it.

by mhneu 8y ago

mehrdadn 8y ago

No, surveillance and ads aren't "threats" in and of themselves. Being surveilled or shown ads doesn't itself harm you (modulo wasting your time/brainpower, but by that logic getting an email or a phone call is also a threat). What would be a "threat" is potential harm occurring as their consequence. In the case of NSA surveillance, for example, people are worried about innocent people getting caught for the wrong reasons and due process not being followed, resulting in wrongful legal/physical/etc. harm to the wrong person. Or in the case of Equifax, one possible harm is your SSN leaking and being used for ID theft (financial harm, until if/when you prove your innocent). Now what I'm not seeing is exactly which company's DNS is avoiding what credible harm that people here believe is potentially likely to result from using Google DNS. As far as Google (or any company, really) internally is concerned, the fact that they are merely "using" the data for themselves (to show you ads, or whatever) is not itself a harm to you. (And maybe worth mentioning, they have used a lot of information to make life a lot better for everyone, like location for traffic data.) The harm would be if they used it to (say) discriminate against you in advertising goods/services, or to harass you, or if they did not secure it properly and your data leaked, etc. None of these are things I'm aware of happening inside Google, but if you know of evidence of this happening, I would love to know. As far as Google is concerned externally, the only threat you seem to have hinted at here is that you believe they are likely to sell your data to other parties who are then likely to abuse them (such as by harassing you directly, or sharing/exposing your data online to others who might harm you). I have seen no evidence that this has been the case with Google (or Facebook) either -- which should make sense given that you believe user data is their most important asset -- but again, if you have any, by all means do share. Given the above, combined with the facts that (a) so many people here seem to be disregarding the actual privacy policy, and (b) for most people Google probably already has more information to screw you with than your third-party DNS provider ever will, I'm led to believe there isn't really anything to be gained by avoiding Google DNS. But to each their own...

mhneu 8y ago
Cory Doctorow on how surveillance capitalism harms you and harms societies. http://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oily-rags/ http://locusmag.com/2018/07/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oi...
gaius 8y ago
threats" in and of themselves. Being surveilled or shown ads doesn't itself harm you But it does. If you need a product generally you would just go out and buy it. Ads are psychologically manipulating you to buy things you don’t need and spend your limited time on this Earth doing things that aren’t beneficial to you. It wasn’t too bad when it was just billboards and TV slots but now it’s you vs the algorithms on a personal level.
- euyyn 8y ago
  One of the things that has had the most profound influence in my life was to apply for and get a fellowship that paid me graduate studies in the US. The only reason I learned of its existence was my mom seeing an ad of it on the newspaper.
  - teddyh 8y ago
    Ah, anecdotes. “My grandfather smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, and he lived to be a 110.”
    - euyyn 8y ago
      What a ridiculous argument. I didn't get that fellowship despite the ad, unlike your grandfather who reached an old age despite smoking. I got it thanks to the ad.
      - teddyh 8y ago
        You got the fellowship from the ad despite the vanishingly small chance that anyone would see it.