3 ms·

This article is confused about what users want. EFF and politicians just hate cookies. If only users knew the website used cookies they would choose something

This article is confused about what users want. EFF and politicians just hate cookies. If only users knew the website used cookies they would choose something else they cry out. A billion cookie warning clickthroughs later - nope. If only we made the cookie warning scarier with GPDR, including lots more details about how the scary cookie will be used. Nope - click click click go the users, permit, OK, Allow etc. Aside from EFF hysteria here, let's focus on what users might want. Users want * their computers to be free of malware (looking at every company out there that installs bloatware and malware every chance they get on PC's and phone's with totally bogus privacy policies), * want to be safe when they visit a website (not make it easy for a random website clicked on from a phising link to go the ransomeware route), * want to be able to browse in incognito mode from time and time if they want to leave less of a digital footprint. * want to be able to browse relatively safely without their ISP and or govt selling all their data about exactly which pages they visit (google's push around SSL may help here a bit, and these privacy invasions tend to be huge and at utility scale), * Maybe would sort of like certificate authorities not to give out chase bank SSL certs to random middlebox DPI companies (google's aggressive stance on CA ecosystem after seeming total inaction by folks like firefox and IE and Safari). * Help move folks to proper 2-factor (non-SMS based) to avoid account hijackings * While making lots of things easy (auto suggestions everywhere etc). In short, stuff that helps users avoid messes in their day to day life, but users seem happy to give up a lot to have maps, search, new devices etc all work together relatively smoothly. Depending on how you count, google is cleaning up in this space BTW. Talk to some businesses who've made the switch to chrome + google apps about the number of phishing / ransomware issues they have (if they were another companies email service + ie / firefox). Check out the absolute trash results (active malware) bing can return for basic search terms. https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-you-search-for-chrome/ https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/bing-is-pushing-malware-when-y... Seriously, bing should run the landing pages of adds through google's filters. Users privacy is under absolute attack. Of all the people attacking this privacy (from governments to ISPS and more), google is not top of list. It makes for a good clickbait headline though. BTW - Apple in same boat on enviro issues, despite all the Greenpeace attacks on apple, if you looked at the enviro story and workplace labor issues in android space you'd be shocked.

mthoms 8y ago
You seem to be suggesting that because Google has done an excellent job with security, they should get a free pass on privacy. I don't quite get the connection. And from an engineering standpoint, comparing search results quality to browser-based privacy features is a tad absurd. At a basic level at least, the latter is a solved problem (as evidenced by the fact there are dozens of modestly-effective browser plugins made by hobbyist developers).
- privateSFacct 8y ago
  The headline is clickbait. EFF should say if you value your privacy, move off Xiomi, Huawei, your Samsung smart tv, your company hosted email, even your non-google android phone filled with bloatware and phone home systems that sell your viewing habits to data brokers and move TO google / apple branded devices. Just about everything you buy / touch OTHER THAN apple and google actively trashes your privacy without a care in the world on sometimes huge scale. Facebook, facebook apps, comcast/xfinity etc. Even dell was selling (or employees were selling) their customer lists out to indian call centers - you'd literally get a scam call from "dell" after purchasing your system with all your details. Ask yourself, will your companies sysadmin fight these kind of requests (see below)? https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists-us-subpoena-of-search-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists... I can't find it, but some hacker said the best thing they did was use google email because they got a state of the art legal team involved for free. Let's have an OUNCE of perspective here. I'm not saying google should get a free pass on privacy, I'm saying others should copy them, from google takeout, to the disclosures they do about how they use info, to the options they provide, to the legal response they bring to over-broad subpoenas. Are they perfect? Certainly not. They obviously build a profile to market to you while keeping that private from the advertisers (not always common).This is the tradeoff folks get for free stuff, and my point was that users seem pretty happy to make that trade. Youtube is dominating its sector, chrome is dominating its sector etc. I don't, I like to pay for the google services I use such as email, and use other services that I find more secure. Apple has an even stronger stance here in my view (and I'm on a iphone for that reason). But places like eff seem to attack category leaders not because google is the worst offender, but because it a) generates a headline, and b) is different than what people think.

mthoms 8y ago

You seem to be suggesting that because Google has done an excellent job with security, they should get a free pass on privacy. I don't quite get the connection. And from an engineering standpoint, comparing search results quality to browser-based privacy features is a tad absurd. At a basic level at least, the latter is a solved problem (as evidenced by the fact there are dozens of modestly-effective browser plugins made by hobbyist developers).

privateSFacct 8y ago
The headline is clickbait. EFF should say if you value your privacy, move off Xiomi, Huawei, your Samsung smart tv, your company hosted email, even your non-google android phone filled with bloatware and phone home systems that sell your viewing habits to data brokers and move TO google / apple branded devices. Just about everything you buy / touch OTHER THAN apple and google actively trashes your privacy without a care in the world on sometimes huge scale. Facebook, facebook apps, comcast/xfinity etc. Even dell was selling (or employees were selling) their customer lists out to indian call centers - you'd literally get a scam call from "dell" after purchasing your system with all your details. Ask yourself, will your companies sysadmin fight these kind of requests (see below)? https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists-us-subpoena-of-search-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists... I can't find it, but some hacker said the best thing they did was use google email because they got a state of the art legal team involved for free. Let's have an OUNCE of perspective here. I'm not saying google should get a free pass on privacy, I'm saying others should copy them, from google takeout, to the disclosures they do about how they use info, to the options they provide, to the legal response they bring to over-broad subpoenas. Are they perfect? Certainly not. They obviously build a profile to market to you while keeping that private from the advertisers (not always common).This is the tradeoff folks get for free stuff, and my point was that users seem pretty happy to make that trade. Youtube is dominating its sector, chrome is dominating its sector etc. I don't, I like to pay for the google services I use such as email, and use other services that I find more secure. Apple has an even stronger stance here in my view (and I'm on a iphone for that reason). But places like eff seem to attack category leaders not because google is the worst offender, but because it a) generates a headline, and b) is different than what people think.