4 ms·

It seems like Google deliberately misses the point in all privacy related changes. It's not in their interest to do it properly after all. It seems like the sta

It seems like Google deliberately misses the point in all privacy related changes. It's not in their interest to do it properly after all. It seems like the standard pattern for Android. Privacy, well the sorry state of, is why I switched to Apple 2 years ago. There's some pressure to resolve privacy issues so Google changes (breaks) something minor. Something that in no way impacts the top 10 of privacy and tracking issues, so they can carry on selling ads and using data unaffected.

ignoramous 8y ago
> It seems like Google deliberately misses the point in all privacy related changes Harsh considering the fact that Google has been dedicating resources to privacy and took important steps to that affect with Android O [0] and Android P [1] and now with Android Q. They hosted a invite-only-industry-experts conference to understand the implications of wide-spread security and privacy issues with Android [2][3]. [0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stuffed-security-in-android-oreo.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stu... [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pie-la-mode-security-privacy.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pi... [2] https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-strobe https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-s... [3] https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-protecting-billions-of.html https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-prote...
- deogeo 8y ago
  Privacy against everyone except Google: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-study-finds-google-android-is-sharing-even-more-data-than-we-thought/ https://www.cnet.com/news/new-study-finds-google-android-is-... You would think with all those privacy resources, Google would be able to stop itself from spying. Perhaps a few more conferences will help?
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Considering that the accuracy of the study it describes is disputed, that doesn't seem like a good link to back up your point?
    - deogeo 8y ago
      1.) Disputed by Google as 'misleading'. 2.) Try this link then: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb (note that these studies don't cover the UI dark patterns encouraging you to give up your privacy 'willingly') 3.) Are we really going to pretend Google's spying is such a fringe idea that it needs a citation to be believed, and not their main business model?
      - skybrian 8y ago
        The problem with this sort of argument is that I struggle to understand how people are actually harmed. It seems like people assume that Google is harming people, somehow, but it's not spelled out. (It seems like collecting information, alone, shouldn't count as harm? It needs to be used for some bad purpose or disclosed to harm anyone.)
        deogeo 8y ago
        So now the goal has moved from proving Google is spying, to showing how that spying is harmful? But okay, lets go with it. First of all, the information is disclosed immediately - to Google. Then it's just a matter of how much more disclosed is gets. Surveillance has been shown to chill expression (https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_and_individuals_and_what_you_can_do_about_it https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_a..., https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chills-speech-new-studies-show-our-rights-free-association https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chil...), and even just metadata can be used to easily find whistleblowers (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre-teens-found-whisteblower-using-metadata/8113668 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre...). Will Google now or in the future offer services to help "secure corporate IP" by finding whistleblowers? Is it wise to assume they won't? Keep in mind all the information they gather now will be kept for when they want to misuse it later. What if they get served with a warrant for that information? Such as by a government agency that's helping to quash unions (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728)? How certain are you that there's no company that, now or in the future, will offer services to employers to help identify employees with corporate-unfriendly political beliefs? Then there is the simple fact that information is power, and used to amass even more power, such as when Facebook used data gathered by Onavo to decide which apps to acquire (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-spying-app-shaped-monumental-decis.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-sp...). So spying directly helps corporate giants maintain their monopolies. And all of that harm is without an authoritarian government in place. What about countries that aren't so lucky as to have a mostly freedom-respecting government? How sure are you your own country won't join them in the next ~50 years? Surveillance is a leash and collar around your neck - just because it's long enough now, doesn't mean you should wait to get it off.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Doesn’t it seem strange that they needed to hire “industry experts” 10 years into Android’s existence instead of thinking in these terms from day one?
  - calciphus 8y ago
    Not to defend a giant corporate entity, but can you think of any major operating system that prevents its users from giving away their information to programs they voluntarily install? Google's goal isn't to prevent themselves from getting your info, but to prevent random 3rd parties from tricking you out of it. That would seem like a high bar to set a decade ago.

ignoramous 8y ago

> It seems like Google deliberately misses the point in all privacy related changes Harsh considering the fact that Google has been dedicating resources to privacy and took important steps to that affect with Android O [0] and Android P [1] and now with Android Q. They hosted a invite-only-industry-experts conference to understand the implications of wide-spread security and privacy issues with Android [2][3]. [0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stuffed-security-in-android-oreo.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stu... [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pie-la-mode-security-privacy.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pi... [2] https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-strobe https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-s... [3] https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-protecting-billions-of.html https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-prote...

deogeo 8y ago
Privacy against everyone except Google: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-study-finds-google-android-is-sharing-even-more-data-than-we-thought/ https://www.cnet.com/news/new-study-finds-google-android-is-... You would think with all those privacy resources, Google would be able to stop itself from spying. Perhaps a few more conferences will help?
- skybrian 8y ago
  Considering that the accuracy of the study it describes is disputed, that doesn't seem like a good link to back up your point?
  - deogeo 8y ago
    1.) Disputed by Google as 'misleading'. 2.) Try this link then: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb (note that these studies don't cover the UI dark patterns encouraging you to give up your privacy 'willingly') 3.) Are we really going to pretend Google's spying is such a fringe idea that it needs a citation to be believed, and not their main business model?
    - skybrian 8y ago
      The problem with this sort of argument is that I struggle to understand how people are actually harmed. It seems like people assume that Google is harming people, somehow, but it's not spelled out. (It seems like collecting information, alone, shouldn't count as harm? It needs to be used for some bad purpose or disclosed to harm anyone.)
      - deogeo 8y ago
        So now the goal has moved from proving Google is spying, to showing how that spying is harmful? But okay, lets go with it. First of all, the information is disclosed immediately - to Google. Then it's just a matter of how much more disclosed is gets. Surveillance has been shown to chill expression (https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_and_individuals_and_what_you_can_do_about_it https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_a..., https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chills-speech-new-studies-show-our-rights-free-association https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chil...), and even just metadata can be used to easily find whistleblowers (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre-teens-found-whisteblower-using-metadata/8113668 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre...). Will Google now or in the future offer services to help "secure corporate IP" by finding whistleblowers? Is it wise to assume they won't? Keep in mind all the information they gather now will be kept for when they want to misuse it later. What if they get served with a warrant for that information? Such as by a government agency that's helping to quash unions (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728)? How certain are you that there's no company that, now or in the future, will offer services to employers to help identify employees with corporate-unfriendly political beliefs? Then there is the simple fact that information is power, and used to amass even more power, such as when Facebook used data gathered by Onavo to decide which apps to acquire (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-spying-app-shaped-monumental-decis.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-sp...). So spying directly helps corporate giants maintain their monopolies. And all of that harm is without an authoritarian government in place. What about countries that aren't so lucky as to have a mostly freedom-respecting government? How sure are you your own country won't join them in the next ~50 years? Surveillance is a leash and collar around your neck - just because it's long enough now, doesn't mean you should wait to get it off.
scarface74 8y ago
Doesn’t it seem strange that they needed to hire “industry experts” 10 years into Android’s existence instead of thinking in these terms from day one?
- calciphus 8y ago
  Not to defend a giant corporate entity, but can you think of any major operating system that prevents its users from giving away their information to programs they voluntarily install? Google's goal isn't to prevent themselves from getting your info, but to prevent random 3rd parties from tricking you out of it. That would seem like a high bar to set a decade ago.