5 ms·

I guess I'll be the lone voice chiming in that I find this pretty useful. There's been a number of times I've been like "oh, what's that song I asked Google to

I guess I'll be the lone voice chiming in that I find this pretty useful. There's been a number of times I've been like "oh, what's that song I asked Google to identify a month ago?" or "what was that page I managed to find last year by searching about [x]?" that I've been able to remember via this tool. Yeah, Google knows everything about me. C'est la vie. At least it's useful. What exactly is the threat model that everyone is operating under which prompts all the comments here?

Skunkleton 7y ago
This information is actively used to influence your behavior via advertisement, and places you in an echo chamber via personally tailored search results. Further, experience has shown that eventually this type of information will end being used by third party entities (hackers, governments).
- skybrian 7y ago
  Ad settings are on a different page: https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated
edjrage 7y ago
I have to say I'm almost more shocked at the number of "shocked" comments here than at the page itself. Not only because of what you mentioned, but also one would expect an audience like HN to know about this. Google has even nagged me with notifications to take a look at this page several times in the past. Also, for some weird reason (maybe because I'm using browser extensions?) my entries seem to come from the future: https://i.imgur.com/6TSiZIW.png https://i.imgur.com/6TSiZIW.png
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Then tell yourself now that you will search for stock quotes in the future. If you follow through in the future then that information should show up now. If you don't destroy causality and blow up the universe, you'll be rich.
- nostalgk 7y ago
  I believe the Time Machine extension was deprecated due to an exploit that caused irreversible time paradoxes. You might want to remove it.
- njepa 7y ago
  Things like this absolutely isn't intuitive to people. Partly because the industry have done a "good" job downplaying it to make a lot of money. Many industries, like banking, does similar things. It is just a bit sad that tech has become one of them.
- okmokmz 7y ago
  I would've agree with you in the past, but I think there are a number of reasons that there is always a huge amount of "surprise" when things like this are posted: 1. Ignorance is bliss: People don't WANT to know about this kind of thing. It can be upsetting, anxiety inducing, uncomfortable, dystopian, etc. so it "feels" a lot better not constantly thinking about and analyzing the ways in which your tracked 2. Assumptions: This may be tied to the previous point, but I think a lot of people make assumptions that these massively successful, and in their eyes beneficial, organizations wouldn't be collecting, analyzing, or using data in any kind of malicious or questionable ways if they even think about it at all 3. Dark patterns/misdirection/dishonesty: companies do everything in their power to make sure user aren't able to easily opt out, don't have a clear understanding of what is actually happening, and make it very difficult to find answers about it in a way the average user would understand 4. Technical knowledge: While there are lots of highly technically skilled users here, many of them specialize in something not related to this topic in any meaningful way. Our company has plenty of developers, for example, that can code at a substantially higher level than I am able, but otherwise their computer literacy is completely non existent. I'm no longer surprised when technical users seem to lack basic knowledge about a particular technology, because no one can specialize in everything
  - fallenatreus 7y ago
    In the age of Google (what a paradox lol), at least people can borrow an opinion if one is not available. 100% agreed with this statement: I'm no longer surprised when technical users seem to lack basic knowledge about a particular technology because no one can specialize in everything I read somewhere that there are lots of hubris & privileged self-ego stoking happening in the IT industry (just look at the tough super technical interview questions you need to answer in every IT job ever). But more than 50% of the software developed or designed in the world is not good enough. I still have to come across a strong argument that would really make me worried about this kind of tracking done by Google.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > I have to say I'm almost more shocked at the number of "shocked" comments here Being "shocked" by something doesn't imply that you didn't know it was happening. There's plenty of things that I am perfectly aware are happening every day that shock me nonetheless.
okmokmz 7y ago
Does there have to be a a threat model for people to be uncomfortable with or unsupportive of surveillance? I just bought a new android phone, and if you accept the defaults they track so many different things (not even while you are using a google service necessarily). I disabled it all, and am constantly prompted to enable location history and a bunch of other tracking features. I don't like Google, I don't like their business model, I don't like how they go about what they do; a threat model isn't required to fundamentally disagree with an inescapable organization collecting and analyzing everything about me so it can be, at best monetized, and at worst used to manipulate people
- daveslash 7y ago
  I don't have a "threat model", per se -- I haven't written anything down or drawn anything. However, I do use the term "threat model" in conversation. What I generally mean by this is "I've given a lot of thought to what/where the biggest threats are in my life and the steps I'm willing to take accordingly". My threat model is an informal mental-model more than an actual document (like the threat models I create at work).
eutropia 7y ago
I liked the map[1] of all the places my phone has been. I mean, my damn telco and various three-letter agencies already have this info for wherever I have my smartphone -- so its nice that at least I have it too. I can reminisce about the frijte stand in Amsterdam. [1]: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?authuser=0&pb https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?authuser=0&pb
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
kekebo 7y ago
Usefulness shouldn't justify evil. It may be more comfortable to shrug it off that way but it also helps to normalize it. There are a couple of examples in history where similar attitude on a societal level ultimately led to the most terrible of outcomes.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I don't think it's productive to categorize tracking of this sort as evil itself. As with any technology, the applications to which it is put are the determining factor of the morality of the tech. In the case of a user knowingly trading their personal information for free applications and some amount of convenience, I don't see evil when that personal information serves the purpose of targeted advertising. When used for targeting web content that might push a person's view more towards the extreme end of the spectrum, we're getting into the gray area quite a bit. Using that information to identify political enemies of the state and preemptively silence them, then yes I'd say that crossed over into the evil side of the spectrum.
- ariwilson 7y ago
  I don't think that Google's My Activity Page is evil therefore your argument is irrelevant.
  - SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
    I don’t think it’s appropriate to use HN to repeatedly defend your employer without disclosing that affiliation. If you’re going to do it, at least try to argue your point of view with some substance.
    - ariwilson 7y ago
      Completely disagree as it just seems like we're going to waste a lot of time with disclaimers rather than having a real discussion (a la CA prop 65 warnings). How far does the "employer affiliation" responsibility go? If you leave a company, does it still apply? If you're in a company backed by YC does it apply? If you disagree with what your company is doing does it still apply? I don't go out of my way to acknowledge my employer affiliation but I don't go out of my way to hide it either, e.g. do a search or look for some of my more technical posts. I put the same amount of effort into my post as the parent did into establishing the evil of this page.
jasonvorhe 7y ago
Thanks for being a voice of reason.
hathawsh 7y ago
What I find surprising is that Google is exposing themselves voluntarily to subpoenas [1]. The more info Google collects, the more courts will try to use Google records as evidence. Therefore, isn't it in Google's interest to collect and store only the exact info they need, expiring records ASAP so there's as little as possible for courts to collect? Perhaps Google has factored that risk into their calculations and they have decided that in the current legal environment, the money they earn by storing everything outweighs the money they lose by complying with subpoenas. [1] https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275?hl=en https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275?hl=en
- dahfizz 7y ago
  It seems like you're assuming that complying with a subpoena is a huge burden to Google. I would assume that a company with teams of lawyers and procedures already in place, this would be a very minor cost.
msamwald 7y ago
What is actually shocking is that these data are made so easily accessible when you are logged into Google anywhere. There should be additional hurdles to view the entirety of a person's history with Google beyond merely being logged in. The potential for very easy and all-encompassing snooping (e.g. from friends and colleagues) is staggering!
- Andrex 7y ago
  If someone has access to this page (for your account), they have access to your Gmail, and likely have the ability to reset passwords and log in to any website you signed up for with that email address. The solution, as always, is to secure your account.
- GordonS 7y ago
  I actually find Google to be quite good here - if it detects something suspicious, such as login from a different browser or location, it will prompt you for another authentication factor, such as an SMS one-time code, or 2FA if you have it enabled. I would add that if you haven't already enabled 2FA, you should.
asdff 7y ago
The fact that your personal activity log isn't in your hands at all. It's fine to collect this but google should be blind to whats in there. I agree, it is useful to go back and see what the hell you did, but I don't go around handing advertisers my diary for potential revenue streams either.
JohnFen 7y ago
> Yeah, Google knows everything about me. C'est la vie. At least it's useful. And that's fine. If you find being tracked to be useful and good, then I have no problem with you being able to do that. But those of us who don't want it should be able to avoid it as well. > What exactly is the threat model that everyone is operating under which prompts all the comments here? I'm not sure what you mean by threat model here. But, at its core, the issue for me is that companies like Google collect data about me without my consent. That's just straight-up immoral and unethical. Would I consent to having some data collected about me in exchange for some service? Sure, depending on the data and service. But it has to be my choice -- in other words, it has to be opt-in and I have to be correctly and completely informed of what's going to happen with my data.
mgbmtl 7y ago
I have seen people use this to spy on their spouse/partner (usually ex-partner, after that). Seeing their google searches, locations and email is a ton of data. Obviously, never do this. It's illegal and a huge violation of privacy. To anyone tempted to do this, just assume it's time to breakup now, and deal with your issues as adults.

Skunkleton 7y ago

This information is actively used to influence your behavior via advertisement, and places you in an echo chamber via personally tailored search results. Further, experience has shown that eventually this type of information will end being used by third party entities (hackers, governments).

skybrian 7y ago
Ad settings are on a different page: https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated

edjrage 7y ago

I have to say I'm almost more shocked at the number of "shocked" comments here than at the page itself. Not only because of what you mentioned, but also one would expect an audience like HN to know about this. Google has even nagged me with notifications to take a look at this page several times in the past. Also, for some weird reason (maybe because I'm using browser extensions?) my entries seem to come from the future: https://i.imgur.com/6TSiZIW.png https://i.imgur.com/6TSiZIW.png

ineedasername 7y ago
Then tell yourself now that you will search for stock quotes in the future. If you follow through in the future then that information should show up now. If you don't destroy causality and blow up the universe, you'll be rich.
nostalgk 7y ago
I believe the Time Machine extension was deprecated due to an exploit that caused irreversible time paradoxes. You might want to remove it.
njepa 7y ago
Things like this absolutely isn't intuitive to people. Partly because the industry have done a "good" job downplaying it to make a lot of money. Many industries, like banking, does similar things. It is just a bit sad that tech has become one of them.
okmokmz 7y ago
I would've agree with you in the past, but I think there are a number of reasons that there is always a huge amount of "surprise" when things like this are posted: 1. Ignorance is bliss: People don't WANT to know about this kind of thing. It can be upsetting, anxiety inducing, uncomfortable, dystopian, etc. so it "feels" a lot better not constantly thinking about and analyzing the ways in which your tracked 2. Assumptions: This may be tied to the previous point, but I think a lot of people make assumptions that these massively successful, and in their eyes beneficial, organizations wouldn't be collecting, analyzing, or using data in any kind of malicious or questionable ways if they even think about it at all 3. Dark patterns/misdirection/dishonesty: companies do everything in their power to make sure user aren't able to easily opt out, don't have a clear understanding of what is actually happening, and make it very difficult to find answers about it in a way the average user would understand 4. Technical knowledge: While there are lots of highly technically skilled users here, many of them specialize in something not related to this topic in any meaningful way. Our company has plenty of developers, for example, that can code at a substantially higher level than I am able, but otherwise their computer literacy is completely non existent. I'm no longer surprised when technical users seem to lack basic knowledge about a particular technology, because no one can specialize in everything
- fallenatreus 7y ago
  In the age of Google (what a paradox lol), at least people can borrow an opinion if one is not available. 100% agreed with this statement: I'm no longer surprised when technical users seem to lack basic knowledge about a particular technology because no one can specialize in everything I read somewhere that there are lots of hubris & privileged self-ego stoking happening in the IT industry (just look at the tough super technical interview questions you need to answer in every IT job ever). But more than 50% of the software developed or designed in the world is not good enough. I still have to come across a strong argument that would really make me worried about this kind of tracking done by Google.
JohnFen 7y ago
> I have to say I'm almost more shocked at the number of "shocked" comments here Being "shocked" by something doesn't imply that you didn't know it was happening. There's plenty of things that I am perfectly aware are happening every day that shock me nonetheless.

okmokmz 7y ago

Does there have to be a a threat model for people to be uncomfortable with or unsupportive of surveillance? I just bought a new android phone, and if you accept the defaults they track so many different things (not even while you are using a google service necessarily). I disabled it all, and am constantly prompted to enable location history and a bunch of other tracking features. I don't like Google, I don't like their business model, I don't like how they go about what they do; a threat model isn't required to fundamentally disagree with an inescapable organization collecting and analyzing everything about me so it can be, at best monetized, and at worst used to manipulate people

daveslash 7y ago
I don't have a "threat model", per se -- I haven't written anything down or drawn anything. However, I do use the term "threat model" in conversation. What I generally mean by this is "I've given a lot of thought to what/where the biggest threats are in my life and the steps I'm willing to take accordingly". My threat model is an informal mental-model more than an actual document (like the threat models I create at work).

eutropia 7y ago

I liked the map[1] of all the places my phone has been. I mean, my damn telco and various three-letter agencies already have this info for wherever I have my smartphone -- so its nice that at least I have it too. I can reminisce about the frijte stand in Amsterdam. [1]: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?authuser=0&pb https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?authuser=0&pb

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

kekebo 7y ago

Usefulness shouldn't justify evil. It may be more comfortable to shrug it off that way but it also helps to normalize it. There are a couple of examples in history where similar attitude on a societal level ultimately led to the most terrible of outcomes.

ineedasername 7y ago
I don't think it's productive to categorize tracking of this sort as evil itself. As with any technology, the applications to which it is put are the determining factor of the morality of the tech. In the case of a user knowingly trading their personal information for free applications and some amount of convenience, I don't see evil when that personal information serves the purpose of targeted advertising. When used for targeting web content that might push a person's view more towards the extreme end of the spectrum, we're getting into the gray area quite a bit. Using that information to identify political enemies of the state and preemptively silence them, then yes I'd say that crossed over into the evil side of the spectrum.
ariwilson 7y ago
I don't think that Google's My Activity Page is evil therefore your argument is irrelevant.
- SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
  I don’t think it’s appropriate to use HN to repeatedly defend your employer without disclosing that affiliation. If you’re going to do it, at least try to argue your point of view with some substance.
  - ariwilson 7y ago
    Completely disagree as it just seems like we're going to waste a lot of time with disclaimers rather than having a real discussion (a la CA prop 65 warnings). How far does the "employer affiliation" responsibility go? If you leave a company, does it still apply? If you're in a company backed by YC does it apply? If you disagree with what your company is doing does it still apply? I don't go out of my way to acknowledge my employer affiliation but I don't go out of my way to hide it either, e.g. do a search or look for some of my more technical posts. I put the same amount of effort into my post as the parent did into establishing the evil of this page.

jasonvorhe 7y ago

Thanks for being a voice of reason.

hathawsh 7y ago

What I find surprising is that Google is exposing themselves voluntarily to subpoenas [1]. The more info Google collects, the more courts will try to use Google records as evidence. Therefore, isn't it in Google's interest to collect and store only the exact info they need, expiring records ASAP so there's as little as possible for courts to collect? Perhaps Google has factored that risk into their calculations and they have decided that in the current legal environment, the money they earn by storing everything outweighs the money they lose by complying with subpoenas. [1] https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275?hl=en https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275?hl=en

dahfizz 7y ago
It seems like you're assuming that complying with a subpoena is a huge burden to Google. I would assume that a company with teams of lawyers and procedures already in place, this would be a very minor cost.

msamwald 7y ago

What is actually shocking is that these data are made so easily accessible when you are logged into Google anywhere. There should be additional hurdles to view the entirety of a person's history with Google beyond merely being logged in. The potential for very easy and all-encompassing snooping (e.g. from friends and colleagues) is staggering!

Andrex 7y ago
If someone has access to this page (for your account), they have access to your Gmail, and likely have the ability to reset passwords and log in to any website you signed up for with that email address. The solution, as always, is to secure your account.
GordonS 7y ago
I actually find Google to be quite good here - if it detects something suspicious, such as login from a different browser or location, it will prompt you for another authentication factor, such as an SMS one-time code, or 2FA if you have it enabled. I would add that if you haven't already enabled 2FA, you should.

asdff 7y ago

The fact that your personal activity log isn't in your hands at all. It's fine to collect this but google should be blind to whats in there. I agree, it is useful to go back and see what the hell you did, but I don't go around handing advertisers my diary for potential revenue streams either.

JohnFen 7y ago

> Yeah, Google knows everything about me. C'est la vie. At least it's useful. And that's fine. If you find being tracked to be useful and good, then I have no problem with you being able to do that. But those of us who don't want it should be able to avoid it as well. > What exactly is the threat model that everyone is operating under which prompts all the comments here? I'm not sure what you mean by threat model here. But, at its core, the issue for me is that companies like Google collect data about me without my consent. That's just straight-up immoral and unethical. Would I consent to having some data collected about me in exchange for some service? Sure, depending on the data and service. But it has to be my choice -- in other words, it has to be opt-in and I have to be correctly and completely informed of what's going to happen with my data.

mgbmtl 7y ago

I have seen people use this to spy on their spouse/partner (usually ex-partner, after that). Seeing their google searches, locations and email is a ton of data. Obviously, never do this. It's illegal and a huge violation of privacy. To anyone tempted to do this, just assume it's time to breakup now, and deal with your issues as adults.