4 ms·

This feature looks pretty cool and it’s basically what I wanted. Kudos. The question is, are they deleting that data? I think they are big enough that, at lea

This feature looks pretty cool and it’s basically what I wanted. Kudos. The question is, are they deleting that data? I think they are big enough that, at least for EU users, not deleting that data would land them in a lot of trouble, so I think that they do. For people concerned with privacy I don’t think Google is trustworthy enough, but these features are good to have for the rest of the world, so I’m glad to see it.

idlewords 8y ago
One nice form of regulation would be a mechanism to let companies in this situation make a formal and binding privacy claim, that would then expose them to painful consequences if shown to be untrue. Right now we just have to take Google's word for it, but if they were willing to pinky swear (figuratively speaking), it would let people trust them more, and possibly let them offer new kinds of services.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > One nice form of regulation would be a mechanism to let companies in this situation make a formal and binding privacy claim, that would then expose them to painful consequences if shown to be untrue. Or you could just make making false representations to get anything of value from people a tort generally, and in egregious cases a crime as well, rather than making it a privacy-specific regulation, and without making any particular formality on the part of the vendor necessary for consumers to be protected.
  - idlewords 8y ago
    Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. That has historically just not worked. When Snapchat was shown to be collecting location data after explicitly promising not to, for example, they just got a slap on the wrist. I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment. That would allow companies to pick a level of privacy protection they wanted to offer, and market to customers based on that commitment, in an enforceable and credible way.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. That has historically just not worked. So does a proposal about a special ceremony which makes the claim binding; you still have to take action when they break it, and prove that they did. > I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment. Increased exposure in what specific way? Lowering the standard of proof below preponderance of the evidence? Keeping that standard but allowing statutory minimum damages? Adding a damages multiplier?
      - idlewords 8y ago
        You have a regulatory body to provide outside auditing, high monetary penalties for violations through neglect, and if the violations are intentional, somebody goes to the pokey. Kind of a codified and structured version of what the FTC does now, except with real teeth and without the problems the FTC faces in enforcement. If you don't like that approach, there are other ways to make the idea work (or, since this is HN, "well actually" it into a fine powder).
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      > Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. I understood the proposal to be making corporate lying illegal, such that proving damages but not be necessary.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> are they deleting that data? Also, are other "global observers" deleting data extracted from Google?

idlewords 8y ago

One nice form of regulation would be a mechanism to let companies in this situation make a formal and binding privacy claim, that would then expose them to painful consequences if shown to be untrue. Right now we just have to take Google's word for it, but if they were willing to pinky swear (figuratively speaking), it would let people trust them more, and possibly let them offer new kinds of services.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> One nice form of regulation would be a mechanism to let companies in this situation make a formal and binding privacy claim, that would then expose them to painful consequences if shown to be untrue. Or you could just make making false representations to get anything of value from people a tort generally, and in egregious cases a crime as well, rather than making it a privacy-specific regulation, and without making any particular formality on the part of the vendor necessary for consumers to be protected.
- idlewords 8y ago
  Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. That has historically just not worked. When Snapchat was shown to be collecting location data after explicitly promising not to, for example, they just got a slap on the wrist. I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment. That would allow companies to pick a level of privacy protection they wanted to offer, and market to customers based on that commitment, in an enforceable and credible way.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. That has historically just not worked. So does a proposal about a special ceremony which makes the claim binding; you still have to take action when they break it, and prove that they did. > I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment. Increased exposure in what specific way? Lowering the standard of proof below preponderance of the evidence? Keeping that standard but allowing statutory minimum damages? Adding a damages multiplier?
    - idlewords 8y ago
      You have a regulatory body to provide outside auditing, high monetary penalties for violations through neglect, and if the violations are intentional, somebody goes to the pokey. Kind of a codified and structured version of what the FTC does now, except with real teeth and without the problems the FTC faces in enforcement. If you don't like that approach, there are other ways to make the idea work (or, since this is HN, "well actually" it into a fine powder).
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    > Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. I understood the proposal to be making corporate lying illegal, such that proving damages but not be necessary.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> are they deleting that data? Also, are other "global observers" deleting data extracted from Google?