4 ms·

You can't think up a single reason why you might not want every purchase you've made in your entire life to be logged in a centralized database completely outsi

by ve55 8y ago

You can't think up a single reason why you might not want every purchase you've made in your entire life to be logged in a centralized database completely outside of your control and view which will be kept forever and shared with an unknowable amount of unknown powerful entities that do not care about your well-being? Some people are going to have a very rough time when reality finally strikes them with all of its might. Perhaps it won't be you, but it will happen.

beaner 8y ago
They already have my email receipts, what's the difference? I use venmo - they have it too. My credit card companies are private companies. Where's the outrage regarding them? Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news.
- ve55 8y ago
  >Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news. We know for a fact data was at least shared with the NSA in the past. We also know Google complies with legal requests, could have a partial data breach in the future, could change terms or undergo some type of merger or acquisition which would include your data, etc. The point here is that it is completely outside of your control. If you want to give all of the control in your life to Google because they have treated you (mostly) well (so far), that's up to you. But as for myself and others, we will refrain because we can think up many reasons why it might not be a smart choice in the long run.
  - beaner 8y ago
    Yeah, but now you're changing the argument from selling data for profit to simply complying with the law. If Google complying with the law is something someone feels at-risk for, then I understand not choosing to use them. But that's really a lesson that goes for any centralized service.
    - ve55 8y ago
      I haven't claimed that Google sells your data for a profit. Other centralized services carry risks as well, but some of them have profit models that are focused on something other than scooping up every bit of data possible, with some even having profit models specifically focused on the opposite.
- colanderman 8y ago
  > What you're spreading is fake news. I suggest avoiding this phrase if you are trying to have a serious debate. It's overused to the point of obnoxiousness, and doesn't even apply here. (The person you replied to posed a question. Questions are not "news", nor can be described as "fake".)
  - beaner 8y ago
    The question was based on an assumption that the data is shared. It was that assumption that I was calling out, an assumption that is very much in the news, and which is untrue, but also known to be untrue by some and still promoted, making it fake.
charlesism 8y ago
> when reality finally strikes them with all of its might. In case someone accuses @ve55 of melodrama, "reality" could be as banal as your most embarrassing personal emails leaking to the world.
- beaner 8y ago
  That seems like an argument against centralized mail hosts, which is a very different thing that what this thread is ostensibly for.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    If third parties have access your mail db, it's more like a "decentralized mail host" ;) That said, I see someone changed the title of the post. Now discussion here will be about two completely different subjects.
- ve55 8y ago
  It could, but an email leak can be much more than it sounds. We have already had data breaches that have resulted in multiple deaths[1]. Just wait until we have one many times worse than this. Data breaches of the future will cause more than just a few suicides. Some may eventually cause war. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach#Impact_and_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach#Imp....
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Retailers and Credit Card companies have been trading your purchasing data for decades. Acxiom has made billions doing exactly that since the 90s. "Database marketing" companies are just ad networks based on consumer purchasing behavior they buy from retailers and CC companies. The difference is that those data brokers are just terrible at actually delivering products and value from the data they are getting. At least Google can make their "free" services better as a result.

by ve55 8y ago

beaner 8y ago

They already have my email receipts, what's the difference? I use venmo - they have it too. My credit card companies are private companies. Where's the outrage regarding them? Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news.

ve55 8y ago
>Google does not reveal my identity to partners; What you're spreading is fake news. We know for a fact data was at least shared with the NSA in the past. We also know Google complies with legal requests, could have a partial data breach in the future, could change terms or undergo some type of merger or acquisition which would include your data, etc. The point here is that it is completely outside of your control. If you want to give all of the control in your life to Google because they have treated you (mostly) well (so far), that's up to you. But as for myself and others, we will refrain because we can think up many reasons why it might not be a smart choice in the long run.
- beaner 8y ago
  Yeah, but now you're changing the argument from selling data for profit to simply complying with the law. If Google complying with the law is something someone feels at-risk for, then I understand not choosing to use them. But that's really a lesson that goes for any centralized service.
  - ve55 8y ago
    I haven't claimed that Google sells your data for a profit. Other centralized services carry risks as well, but some of them have profit models that are focused on something other than scooping up every bit of data possible, with some even having profit models specifically focused on the opposite.
colanderman 8y ago
> What you're spreading is fake news. I suggest avoiding this phrase if you are trying to have a serious debate. It's overused to the point of obnoxiousness, and doesn't even apply here. (The person you replied to posed a question. Questions are not "news", nor can be described as "fake".)
- beaner 8y ago
  The question was based on an assumption that the data is shared. It was that assumption that I was calling out, an assumption that is very much in the news, and which is untrue, but also known to be untrue by some and still promoted, making it fake.

charlesism 8y ago

> when reality finally strikes them with all of its might. In case someone accuses @ve55 of melodrama, "reality" could be as banal as your most embarrassing personal emails leaking to the world.

beaner 8y ago
That seems like an argument against centralized mail hosts, which is a very different thing that what this thread is ostensibly for.
- charlesism 8y ago
  If third parties have access your mail db, it's more like a "decentralized mail host" ;) That said, I see someone changed the title of the post. Now discussion here will be about two completely different subjects.
ve55 8y ago
It could, but an email leak can be much more than it sounds. We have already had data breaches that have resulted in multiple deaths[1]. Just wait until we have one many times worse than this. Data breaches of the future will cause more than just a few suicides. Some may eventually cause war. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach#Impact_and_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach#Imp....

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Retailers and Credit Card companies have been trading your purchasing data for decades. Acxiom has made billions doing exactly that since the 90s. "Database marketing" companies are just ad networks based on consumer purchasing behavior they buy from retailers and CC companies. The difference is that those data brokers are just terrible at actually delivering products and value from the data they are getting. At least Google can make their "free" services better as a result.