4 ms·

FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that

FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that our data is their business model. I get it: our online privacy is important. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to remain truly anonymous on the Internet, and this is mostly thanks to Google. However, the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any. I believe we live in an age of online convenience, and not just for the average user. Google generally makes security-conscious products, especially with Chrome. Heuristics has proven to become very effective in combating online malicious behavior. By establishing our identities with Google, Google can generally say "we are who we say we are" with a degree of confidence, without us having to do much of anything. This is generally bad from a privacy stand-point, but can be good from a security stand-point. Overall, I think Google has done good things for the Internet. But good things sometimes come at a cost, and sometimes third party companies want that cost paid in a way we do not agree with. I think Google is doing all they can to make that point clear.

abc_lisper 7y ago
The force of the wind hits you less when you already bend in its direction. When the privacy laws are put in place, which they will be, Google will escape most of the wrath. This is just getting their affairs in order for the inevitable.
britch 7y ago
> the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any. You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do. As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that many people to exist in one place period.
- groovybits 7y ago
  I look at it this way: What is your threat model? What do you stand to lose if: * Google shuts down tomorrow? * Google turns into a malicious conspirator tomorrow? * Google's databases are compromised by a separate malicious party tomorrow? Each of these can have different outcomes for your data. Do you wish to mitigate, avoid, or accept that risk? Likewise, what do you stand to gain from using Google services? AKA, do you get substance out of their services in exchange for the information you're giving them? Everyone can have different answers to these questions. If you choose not to use Google services, more power to you. I simply encourage everyone to think about their threat model critically, and make an educated decision - rather than hopping on a bandwagon.
  - ben_jones 7y ago
    I think for me personally its: Over the next 20-30 years personal freedoms and economic opportunities in the United States gradually erode, and large corporations seeking to continue/increase profit are entirely complicit in legally feeding their data into a surveillance state. The goal of the model would be to decrease how fucked I am from this eventuality.
  - britch 7y ago
    I understand your point that is a trade-off. I think a lot of my issue with google is that the trade off is not presented in a clear way. You make it sound like a clear and simple transaction: I give Google my location, they give me relevant information based on that information. They add that location data to their model. In my experience it is not presented as a transaction. I have no idea what information Google is taking/inferring about me. Are they using my phone microphone to listen in on me? I don't think so. As far as I know there's nothing stopping them from doing that tomorrow without telling me. How would they use that data? How much are they keeping on file? There's no way for me to know and they don't have to tell me. I found out a year ago that Google maps was tracking my every movement. I would not have consented to that, but it was grouped in with a bunch of other "app history" permissions that I agreed to a decade ago. So it's true. I do stand to gain from using Google's services. What's hard to judge is the costs. I can't make an educated decision without knowing the costs.
- naasking 7y ago
  > You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. Then again, since Google controls so much of what you see, would you ever be exposed to this evidence?
blub 7y ago
But they did need to do this, because it's great for them. Now there's two new apologies that can be breathlessly recited to excuse surveillance capitalism: * Google are brave for admitting they have your data! * Sure it's bad they have so much data, but they can be so much more helpful. Your reply's funny in a way, because if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. And why Google's awesome for the internet (with capital I). Google at the end of the day is gobbling up information on billions of people from mobile phones, browsers, e-mail, ads, their search engine, their web analytics, their smart home devices and classroom laptops, Google voice service, captchas and almost anything one can think of. The fact that so much information exists in one place is dangerous in itself, they don't have to actually do anything evil. But they do anyway: they lock people out of their online lives, out victims to their stalkers, manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns, subvert or take over web standards, conspire to keep employee salaries low, sometimes serve malware through their ads, crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search, illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish and so on and so forth. They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. The only good things they might have accidentally done for the internet were done to cement their power.
- groovybits 7y ago
  > if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider. Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions. > they lock people out of their online lives I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know). > out victims to their stalkers > manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two. > subvert or take over web standards Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this? > conspire to keep employee salaries low I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees. > sometimes serve malware through their ads Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense. > crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites. > illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part? > They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible? -- To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.

abc_lisper 7y ago

The force of the wind hits you less when you already bend in its direction. When the privacy laws are put in place, which they will be, Google will escape most of the wrath. This is just getting their affairs in order for the inevitable.

britch 7y ago

> the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any. You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do. As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that many people to exist in one place period.

groovybits 7y ago
I look at it this way: What is your threat model? What do you stand to lose if: * Google shuts down tomorrow? * Google turns into a malicious conspirator tomorrow? * Google's databases are compromised by a separate malicious party tomorrow? Each of these can have different outcomes for your data. Do you wish to mitigate, avoid, or accept that risk? Likewise, what do you stand to gain from using Google services? AKA, do you get substance out of their services in exchange for the information you're giving them? Everyone can have different answers to these questions. If you choose not to use Google services, more power to you. I simply encourage everyone to think about their threat model critically, and make an educated decision - rather than hopping on a bandwagon.
- ben_jones 7y ago
  I think for me personally its: Over the next 20-30 years personal freedoms and economic opportunities in the United States gradually erode, and large corporations seeking to continue/increase profit are entirely complicit in legally feeding their data into a surveillance state. The goal of the model would be to decrease how fucked I am from this eventuality.
- britch 7y ago
  I understand your point that is a trade-off. I think a lot of my issue with google is that the trade off is not presented in a clear way. You make it sound like a clear and simple transaction: I give Google my location, they give me relevant information based on that information. They add that location data to their model. In my experience it is not presented as a transaction. I have no idea what information Google is taking/inferring about me. Are they using my phone microphone to listen in on me? I don't think so. As far as I know there's nothing stopping them from doing that tomorrow without telling me. How would they use that data? How much are they keeping on file? There's no way for me to know and they don't have to tell me. I found out a year ago that Google maps was tracking my every movement. I would not have consented to that, but it was grouped in with a bunch of other "app history" permissions that I agreed to a decade ago. So it's true. I do stand to gain from using Google's services. What's hard to judge is the costs. I can't make an educated decision without knowing the costs.
naasking 7y ago
> You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. Then again, since Google controls so much of what you see, would you ever be exposed to this evidence?

blub 7y ago

But they did need to do this, because it's great for them. Now there's two new apologies that can be breathlessly recited to excuse surveillance capitalism: * Google are brave for admitting they have your data! * Sure it's bad they have so much data, but they can be so much more helpful. Your reply's funny in a way, because if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. And why Google's awesome for the internet (with capital I). Google at the end of the day is gobbling up information on billions of people from mobile phones, browsers, e-mail, ads, their search engine, their web analytics, their smart home devices and classroom laptops, Google voice service, captchas and almost anything one can think of. The fact that so much information exists in one place is dangerous in itself, they don't have to actually do anything evil. But they do anyway: they lock people out of their online lives, out victims to their stalkers, manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns, subvert or take over web standards, conspire to keep employee salaries low, sometimes serve malware through their ads, crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search, illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish and so on and so forth. They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. The only good things they might have accidentally done for the internet were done to cement their power.

groovybits 7y ago
> if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider. Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions. > they lock people out of their online lives I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know). > out victims to their stalkers > manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two. > subvert or take over web standards Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this? > conspire to keep employee salaries low I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees. > sometimes serve malware through their ads Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense. > crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites. > illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part? > They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean. Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible? -- To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.