7 ms·

Can any Googlers answer: Does turning off these "history" sliders actually affect the data Google gathers from you? Or does it just mean that the information is

Can any Googlers answer: Does turning off these "history" sliders actually affect the data Google gathers from you? Or does it just mean that the information is hidden from your own account view?

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Judging by Google /FB modus operandi I doubt it, they'll collect all. Googlers that really know would probably not tell. Looks like EU might put the brakes on a lot of this creepy crap. As much 4% of revenue or close to $5 billion fine....$5 billion for this, $4b for another...and all of the sudden we're talking real money.
- tcd 8y ago
  No, they won't. They've already fined Google billions, but have they got the money? Not a chance. Any fine will be fought for at least a decade (see Oracle v Google) and will end up in limbo forever. They could fine Google $1 trillion, wouldn't make a difference.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Even if appeal it 500 times and lose, Google will have to pay, along with interest.
    - thrower123 8y ago
      If the cost-benefit analysis comes out that far in the red, Google could just bail, and what would the EU regulatory agencies do? Seizing a few office complexes and a data center or two isn't going to amount to much in the way of actual value. It's not like Google is an old-time capital-intensive manufacturing or resource-extraction company.
      - notfromhere 8y ago
        Google is going to lock itself out of a quarter of the globe's GDP?
        skj 8y ago
        If the other option costs $1T? It's a bit of a hypothetical since that won't be the only other option, but that was the thought experiment.
        kkarakk 8y ago
        remember when google left china, the good old days of don't be evil
- mda 8y ago
  Any proof of your claims? By law, If they say they do not, they do not.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    >>Any proof of your claims? Google, FB, LinkedIn etc engage in super creepy procedures and suck as much data as they can. Some to be used today and directly, other data to be used indirectly...or just to be there just in case. Plus, if you read it again, it's clear I was saying what I believe it to be likely. >>By law, If they say they do not, they do not. Ummm, no. Justice system isn't based on what the accused says. That's only part of it, called (more or less) the defense. Others chime in too
    - mda 8y ago
      So zero proof just hand waving.
  - ionised 8y ago
    because Google has never lied?
    - mda 8y ago
      Examples?
      - niutech 8y ago
        > Google misled the public about the size of the company’s contract to develop AI for the Pentagon, and its executives chose against publicizing its participation in the project, leaked emails obtained by The Intercept show.
remify 8y ago
I'm no Googlers but I've disable history and I think it does. I mostly have Dating Adds now.but a few month ago, I use to have a lot of wedding related stuff.
- Sylos 8y ago
  And to expand on this: Assuming that they properly stop personalizing ads, there should be little reason for them to continue collecting as much data. It would especially also be a very clear violation of the law in many countries, if they did. And since it's opt-out without a direct path to opting out, the number of users that will opt out is probably below 0.1%. So, it would likely be more damaging reputation-wise and in legal fees for them to not stop collecting this data, than to just let those <0.1% get away. That's what I consider logical and is giving Google the benefit of the doubt. But it's your privacy. You don't need to give anyone any benefit. If you prefer, you absolutely should choose a doubt-free solution instead.
tylerl 8y ago
Yeah, despite everything you read, Google doesn't "want your data". Google is one of only a handful of companies that have matured beyond the point of thinking that personal data is, in and of itself, valuable if the user doesn't want them to have it. Sure, there are a lot of companies who profit in keeping data without your knowledge, but they're in a different kind of business, where "delighting your users" is not really an objective. Google stores your personal data in order to serve it back to you in one form or another. If you no longer want Google to serve that data back to you, if you're no longer happy with Google having a copy of that data, then it immediately becomes a liability rather than an asset. It's like poison in the sugar bowl, nothing good comes from it. Google does not want that kind of data, and there are lots of people whose job is to ensure that no data of that category is ever collected or retained. You probably want to tell me that advertising targeting is just as effective if data is unwanted, or something similar about hypothetical incentives. But no, the costs outweigh the returns in the long game. This is a dead end. In this particular case, there is a feature called Location History. It collects and allows you to query you location history. You can turn the feature on or off. But because of its clever name, some privacy wathdog organizations felt like turning this feature off should be expected cause all information relating to locations to be scrubbed from all the history from all the other products and features. That sounds absurd when you say it like that. But when you're dying for a reason to sue Google, you take what you can get. The irony is that this level of scrutiny is only possible because Google is exceptionally careful about making available to users all the information that they have relating to those users, and allowing users to delete or edit it. They've been doing it long before the GDPR was even a concept, in fact for the most part the GDPR was just a codification of Google's existing (and often unique) practices as law.

Can any Googlers answer: Does turning off these "history" sliders actually affect the data Google gathers from you? Or does it just mean that the information is hidden from your own account view?

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Judging by Google /FB modus operandi I doubt it, they'll collect all. Googlers that really know would probably not tell. Looks like EU might put the brakes on a lot of this creepy crap. As much 4% of revenue or close to $5 billion fine....$5 billion for this, $4b for another...and all of the sudden we're talking real money.

tcd 8y ago
No, they won't. They've already fined Google billions, but have they got the money? Not a chance. Any fine will be fought for at least a decade (see Oracle v Google) and will end up in limbo forever. They could fine Google $1 trillion, wouldn't make a difference.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Even if appeal it 500 times and lose, Google will have to pay, along with interest.
  - thrower123 8y ago
    If the cost-benefit analysis comes out that far in the red, Google could just bail, and what would the EU regulatory agencies do? Seizing a few office complexes and a data center or two isn't going to amount to much in the way of actual value. It's not like Google is an old-time capital-intensive manufacturing or resource-extraction company.
    - notfromhere 8y ago
      Google is going to lock itself out of a quarter of the globe's GDP?
      - skj 8y ago
        If the other option costs $1T? It's a bit of a hypothetical since that won't be the only other option, but that was the thought experiment.
      - kkarakk 8y ago
        remember when google left china, the good old days of don't be evil
mda 8y ago
Any proof of your claims? By law, If they say they do not, they do not.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>Any proof of your claims? Google, FB, LinkedIn etc engage in super creepy procedures and suck as much data as they can. Some to be used today and directly, other data to be used indirectly...or just to be there just in case. Plus, if you read it again, it's clear I was saying what I believe it to be likely. >>By law, If they say they do not, they do not. Ummm, no. Justice system isn't based on what the accused says. That's only part of it, called (more or less) the defense. Others chime in too
  - mda 8y ago
    So zero proof just hand waving.
- ionised 8y ago
  because Google has never lied?
  - mda 8y ago
    Examples?
    - niutech 8y ago
      > Google misled the public about the size of the company’s contract to develop AI for the Pentagon, and its executives chose against publicizing its participation in the project, leaked emails obtained by The Intercept show.

remify 8y ago

I'm no Googlers but I've disable history and I think it does. I mostly have Dating Adds now.but a few month ago, I use to have a lot of wedding related stuff.

Sylos 8y ago
And to expand on this: Assuming that they properly stop personalizing ads, there should be little reason for them to continue collecting as much data. It would especially also be a very clear violation of the law in many countries, if they did. And since it's opt-out without a direct path to opting out, the number of users that will opt out is probably below 0.1%. So, it would likely be more damaging reputation-wise and in legal fees for them to not stop collecting this data, than to just let those <0.1% get away. That's what I consider logical and is giving Google the benefit of the doubt. But it's your privacy. You don't need to give anyone any benefit. If you prefer, you absolutely should choose a doubt-free solution instead.

tylerl 8y ago

Yeah, despite everything you read, Google doesn't "want your data". Google is one of only a handful of companies that have matured beyond the point of thinking that personal data is, in and of itself, valuable if the user doesn't want them to have it. Sure, there are a lot of companies who profit in keeping data without your knowledge, but they're in a different kind of business, where "delighting your users" is not really an objective. Google stores your personal data in order to serve it back to you in one form or another. If you no longer want Google to serve that data back to you, if you're no longer happy with Google having a copy of that data, then it immediately becomes a liability rather than an asset. It's like poison in the sugar bowl, nothing good comes from it. Google does not want that kind of data, and there are lots of people whose job is to ensure that no data of that category is ever collected or retained. You probably want to tell me that advertising targeting is just as effective if data is unwanted, or something similar about hypothetical incentives. But no, the costs outweigh the returns in the long game. This is a dead end. In this particular case, there is a feature called Location History. It collects and allows you to query you location history. You can turn the feature on or off. But because of its clever name, some privacy wathdog organizations felt like turning this feature off should be expected cause all information relating to locations to be scrubbed from all the history from all the other products and features. That sounds absurd when you say it like that. But when you're dying for a reason to sue Google, you take what you can get. The irony is that this level of scrutiny is only possible because Google is exceptionally careful about making available to users all the information that they have relating to those users, and allowing users to delete or edit it. They've been doing it long before the GDPR was even a concept, in fact for the most part the GDPR was just a codification of Google's existing (and often unique) practices as law.