4 ms·

The case against Google is surely that it tracks and records online behaviour on an industrial scale that has no equal among technology companies. Yet, of all t

The case against Google is surely that it tracks and records online behaviour on an industrial scale that has no equal among technology companies. Yet, of all the many large technology companies, it mostly escapes scrutiny. Thousands of people in the tech field happily rush to it's defence. Does a giant multi-billion company with an army of lawyers need your defence? Google probably knows more about you that you know about yourself. The tracking begins at a young age - with kids who uses ChromeOS in school (pity the poor kids who don't even get the choice of whether they get tracked, the adults decide for them). Google doesn't build marketing profiles of students, but they are still recording the online behaviour of students. Even if that data is detached from individual accounts and then aggregated it still amounts to data from millions of students. Horrible. So normalised has online tracking become, no-one even bothers to ask why we should be tracked to this degree in the first place. Generic catch-all phrases like "to improve our services" are meaningless without specifics. The case against Google is arguably also a case against the tech field that seems complicit in supporting such unprecedented online tracking. When it comes to privacy and online tracking, this industry is rife with hypocrisy.

debatem1 8y ago
Facebook is surely at least an equal to Google in the tracking department, no? Google is also part of the student privacy pledge: https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/ https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/, which seems like a reasonable document. Edit: should have said earlier, I worked at Google many years ago.
- 908087 8y ago
  A "student privacy pledge" involving Google kind of makes my blood boil, given their push to have schools force children onto their platform via chromebooks. It's just like "don't be evil": nothing more than underhanded, cynical corporate PR window dressing.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    Or, alternatively, they're telling the truth. I've pointed out previously that critics of Google and Facebook often assert that every word they say is a lie, then use that to support the position that they can't be trusted. Absent other information that's a fallacious argument. So, with regard to Chromebooks specifically-- not your view of Google as a whole-- what bad behavior do you claim is happening and how do you know that to be true?
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  >Facebook is surely at least an equal to Google in the tracking department, no? Not even close, maybe 50% of the capability. Why? Because no one in my family has Facebook, but everyone has/uses Google either our phones, or Chromebooks (from school for our kids) all the google accounts that are _required_ to hand in homework. Facebook isn't even a blip on the radar by comparison.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    Hmm. I didn't understand you to be speaking specifically about your family above; in fact, if you read it again I'm sure you can understand how it came across as a sweeping generalization that simply isn't true for the 2.3B users of Facebook (vs ~2B for Google). Edit: wait, you aren't even the person I replied to. I think that person's point, although I disagree with it, is more relevant than yours, and I'd like to hear how they came to their conclusion.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      Yep, I generalized, perhaps I should have worded it differently. But as of right now, I can block Facebook 100% out of my life without a second thought. But I am stuck with Google.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Not having a Facebook account doesn't put you totally outside of Facebook's sphere of knowledge. If any of your friends has allowed Facebook to vacuum up their contacts list, Facebook knows you exist and have a shadow profile for you. Piece by piece, they can compile a substantial amount of information about you even though you've never signed up. However I agree with your basic premise, that Google is an even worse threat. From using uMatrix and paying attention to what 3rd party shit websites pull in, it seems like Google's surveillance net is far wider than Facebook's. If you consider the possibility of AWS being used by Amazon for surveillance, then Amazon seems to have more reach than Facebook too. But all of them plainly have more reach than anybody should be comfortable with.
    - 8y ago
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  Regarding the student privacy pledge: 1 - Has Google always adhered to it since it was written? Have they ever violated it? If they have, in which way, in regards to whom and by whom? How would I get access to this information? Are independent, respected consumer-protection watchdogs auditing Google to make sure they're adhering to their own policy? The same questions apply to all of the companies Google shares this data with. 2 - What measures has Google taken to combat de-anonymization ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization ) of their data? 3 - Google can change their privacy policies at any time, and all this pledge requires is that they provide notice and unspecified "choices" to account holders. Nothing prevents those choices from being effectively meaningless or powerless against future data sharing or use. 4 - Even if Google adheres 100% to the letter and spirit of their student privacy pledge, the data they collect could still be leaked or stolen, in which case the students are screwed. The only real way to prevent that is not to collect data in the first place.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    Your points 3 and 4 suggest that no answer to points 1 and 2 would satisfy. To me, that's a problem-- it means that no action they take or promise they make can satisfy, because promises can be broken and actions undone and you don't trust them not to. As a result, it is illogical of Google to address any concern you raise. I think that's a loss.
robbrown451 8y ago
Maybe the article should be titled "A Case Against Google." It is not the only case against Google. I personally feel passionately about antitrust but not so much about privacy. Obviously, some people feel differently. But the point is that the fact that some people think privacy is a bigger deal shouldn't diminish the antitrust aspect. Antitrust is a completely separate issue.

debatem1 8y ago

Facebook is surely at least an equal to Google in the tracking department, no? Google is also part of the student privacy pledge: https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/ https://studentprivacypledge.org/privacy-pledge/, which seems like a reasonable document. Edit: should have said earlier, I worked at Google many years ago.

908087 8y ago
A "student privacy pledge" involving Google kind of makes my blood boil, given their push to have schools force children onto their platform via chromebooks. It's just like "don't be evil": nothing more than underhanded, cynical corporate PR window dressing.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Or, alternatively, they're telling the truth. I've pointed out previously that critics of Google and Facebook often assert that every word they say is a lie, then use that to support the position that they can't be trusted. Absent other information that's a fallacious argument. So, with regard to Chromebooks specifically-- not your view of Google as a whole-- what bad behavior do you claim is happening and how do you know that to be true?
RobertRoberts 8y ago
>Facebook is surely at least an equal to Google in the tracking department, no? Not even close, maybe 50% of the capability. Why? Because no one in my family has Facebook, but everyone has/uses Google either our phones, or Chromebooks (from school for our kids) all the google accounts that are _required_ to hand in homework. Facebook isn't even a blip on the radar by comparison.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Hmm. I didn't understand you to be speaking specifically about your family above; in fact, if you read it again I'm sure you can understand how it came across as a sweeping generalization that simply isn't true for the 2.3B users of Facebook (vs ~2B for Google). Edit: wait, you aren't even the person I replied to. I think that person's point, although I disagree with it, is more relevant than yours, and I'd like to hear how they came to their conclusion.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Yep, I generalized, perhaps I should have worded it differently. But as of right now, I can block Facebook 100% out of my life without a second thought. But I am stuck with Google.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Not having a Facebook account doesn't put you totally outside of Facebook's sphere of knowledge. If any of your friends has allowed Facebook to vacuum up their contacts list, Facebook knows you exist and have a shadow profile for you. Piece by piece, they can compile a substantial amount of information about you even though you've never signed up. However I agree with your basic premise, that Google is an even worse threat. From using uMatrix and paying attention to what 3rd party shit websites pull in, it seems like Google's surveillance net is far wider than Facebook's. If you consider the possibility of AWS being used by Amazon for surveillance, then Amazon seems to have more reach than Facebook too. But all of them plainly have more reach than anybody should be comfortable with.
  - 8y ago
pmoriarty 8y ago
Regarding the student privacy pledge: 1 - Has Google always adhered to it since it was written? Have they ever violated it? If they have, in which way, in regards to whom and by whom? How would I get access to this information? Are independent, respected consumer-protection watchdogs auditing Google to make sure they're adhering to their own policy? The same questions apply to all of the companies Google shares this data with. 2 - What measures has Google taken to combat de-anonymization ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization ) of their data? 3 - Google can change their privacy policies at any time, and all this pledge requires is that they provide notice and unspecified "choices" to account holders. Nothing prevents those choices from being effectively meaningless or powerless against future data sharing or use. 4 - Even if Google adheres 100% to the letter and spirit of their student privacy pledge, the data they collect could still be leaked or stolen, in which case the students are screwed. The only real way to prevent that is not to collect data in the first place.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Your points 3 and 4 suggest that no answer to points 1 and 2 would satisfy. To me, that's a problem-- it means that no action they take or promise they make can satisfy, because promises can be broken and actions undone and you don't trust them not to. As a result, it is illogical of Google to address any concern you raise. I think that's a loss.

robbrown451 8y ago

Maybe the article should be titled "A Case Against Google." It is not the only case against Google. I personally feel passionately about antitrust but not so much about privacy. Obviously, some people feel differently. But the point is that the fact that some people think privacy is a bigger deal shouldn't diminish the antitrust aspect. Antitrust is a completely separate issue.