3 ms·

1.) Disputed by Google as 'misleading'. 2.) Try this link then: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07

by 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.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    None of these links are about anything Google did. I understand how many of the things Facebook have done have harmed people, and how governments can harm people, but these things seem not to apply to Google? I'm not into guilt by association.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      > these things seem not to apply to Google? So first show that Google spies, then show that spying is harmful, then show that Google's spying has done specific harms? You sure have high standards. Now could you explain how the risks and dangers of surveillance don't apply to the surveillance done by Google? Are they somehow immune to government warrants? Are you privy to all of their business decisions, to know that they never abused their vast access to data to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Should we keep handing over all our data to them, and just hope that they'll stay benevolent indefinitely? It looks to me like you don't want to understand.
      - skybrian 8y ago
        Of course I can't prove that Google hasn't done anything wrong. I don't believe that. Google is criticized all the time for various things they did. Sometimes they change what they do in response to criticism. They also have a lot of power that could be abused. I like to make a distinction between potential and actual harm, though. Almost everything you do in civilization involves trusting other people to do things for you. Including keeping secrets. Sometimes that trust is broken, but a trustless society isn't possible.
    - fancyfantasy 8y ago
      what about the UI patterns? any word in defense... counselor... I have noticed the annoying(to say the least) habit of everytime I click on a video on youtube on Android...the fucking youtube native app pop-up a fuck window to ask If I dont fucking prefer to watch the video on the native app... so...´do no evil` , righ, wery well... Lol! want more? they ask your phone number right now, and they write in size 0.2 font hidden down there , your freewill option to Fucking ´skip` giving them your personal phone number... the acropole is yours, Counselor in my opinion... Your Honor thanks...

by deogeo 8y ago

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.
- skybrian 8y ago
  None of these links are about anything Google did. I understand how many of the things Facebook have done have harmed people, and how governments can harm people, but these things seem not to apply to Google? I'm not into guilt by association.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    > these things seem not to apply to Google? So first show that Google spies, then show that spying is harmful, then show that Google's spying has done specific harms? You sure have high standards. Now could you explain how the risks and dangers of surveillance don't apply to the surveillance done by Google? Are they somehow immune to government warrants? Are you privy to all of their business decisions, to know that they never abused their vast access to data to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Should we keep handing over all our data to them, and just hope that they'll stay benevolent indefinitely? It looks to me like you don't want to understand.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Of course I can't prove that Google hasn't done anything wrong. I don't believe that. Google is criticized all the time for various things they did. Sometimes they change what they do in response to criticism. They also have a lot of power that could be abused. I like to make a distinction between potential and actual harm, though. Almost everything you do in civilization involves trusting other people to do things for you. Including keeping secrets. Sometimes that trust is broken, but a trustless society isn't possible.
  - fancyfantasy 8y ago
    what about the UI patterns? any word in defense... counselor... I have noticed the annoying(to say the least) habit of everytime I click on a video on youtube on Android...the fucking youtube native app pop-up a fuck window to ask If I dont fucking prefer to watch the video on the native app... so...´do no evil` , righ, wery well... Lol! want more? they ask your phone number right now, and they write in size 0.2 font hidden down there , your freewill option to Fucking ´skip` giving them your personal phone number... the acropole is yours, Counselor in my opinion... Your Honor thanks...