5 ms·

As an ex-Googler, I'd like to say that "ordinary people" still won't understand what privacy they're giving up. Before the news, they underestimated it; not th

As an ex-Googler, I'd like to say that "ordinary people" still won't understand what privacy they're giving up. Before the news, they underestimated it; not they overestimate it, but still without clear understanding of what's happening. A group of researchers listening to a random sample of audio clip with no way to identify actual speakers is very different from someone being able to look up your name and address and pull down your conversation for leisure. (To be fair, the latter is technically not impossible - it's just that such an act will likely trigger half a dozen alarms, and the perpetrator will be fired quickly. Unless it's the government secretly asking for your information - but then, if the government is specifically looking for you, all bets are off anyway.) It's basically the same as Google search. If you type anything into Google's search box, your search will be recorded and preserved forever so that Google's engineers can analyze usage patterns. How else would they improve their search algorithm? Edit: I probably shouldn't have used "forever" - I don't know exactly how long your search results will be preserved. If it helps, consider it replaced by "long enough that someone can write a TechCrunch article that enrages people".

reaperducer 7y ago
How else would they improve their search algorithm? There are lots of ways. Ways that other industries test and refine without violating privacy. One example: Having a group of people who sign up to be part of your testing. That way there's informed consent.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  That's what happens now. You you check the "use my data to improve xyz services" box.
- GrapeFriedNiggr 7y ago
  Well yeah, but it would be way more expensive and you would have orders of magnitude less data. There are also issues with biased sampling. Point being, the search wouldn't be as good.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    This assumes a fixed definition of “good.” I would argue that the search would be better because it was done using data collected only from parties who have given consent. You can define “good” in terms of cost, revenue, sampling bias, relevance, etc. I can define it in terms of ethical data collection and usage. Who’s to say which definition is correct?
  - dang 7y ago
    Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN because they end up trolling each thread you post to. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20trollish%20usernames https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... I've banned this account for now, but if you want to email hn@ycombinator.com a new username, we can rename the account and unban it for you.
- Zhyl 7y ago
  >If you type anything into Google's search box, your search will be recorded and preserved forever so that Google's engineers can analyze usage patterns. How else would they improve their search algorithm? Or only retain the data for a set period of time. You can refine indexes with 6-12 months of data. You'd only want to keep unaggregated data for more than that if you were building profiles of individual people.
  - ablatner 7y ago
    You can delete your data from your Google account though.
nocturnial 7y ago
>A group of researchers listening to a random sample of audio clip with no way to identify actual speakers Actually the journalists who obtained those audio clips identified several people. Those who were willing to talk on camera confirmed it was indeed their voices.
mtgx 7y ago
> not they overestimate it I disagree with this because you're assuming that Google "just training its systems with this data" doesn't mean that it will do "anything nefarious" with it. Oh, yes, it totally will. That's the entire point. I don't see Google as much more ethical than say Facebook these days. They'll screw their users for an extra buck in the next quarterly results just as much. Why do you think they're now helping China spy on their citizens? They didn't have to do it. But the call of (more) money is irresistible.
everbane 7y ago
>if the government is specifically looking for you, all bets are off anyway. That's not really how it's done though. The government would pipe all the data into something like Palantir, not request individual data piecemeal.
danso 7y ago
How would you explain to an ordinary user why it's necessary for "your search will be recorded and preserved forever" in order to improve the search algorithm? As opposed to a limited timeframe?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

reaperducer 7y ago

How else would they improve their search algorithm? There are lots of ways. Ways that other industries test and refine without violating privacy. One example: Having a group of people who sign up to be part of your testing. That way there's informed consent.

UncleMeat 7y ago
That's what happens now. You you check the "use my data to improve xyz services" box.
GrapeFriedNiggr 7y ago
Well yeah, but it would be way more expensive and you would have orders of magnitude less data. There are also issues with biased sampling. Point being, the search wouldn't be as good.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  This assumes a fixed definition of “good.” I would argue that the search would be better because it was done using data collected only from parties who have given consent. You can define “good” in terms of cost, revenue, sampling bias, relevance, etc. I can define it in terms of ethical data collection and usage. Who’s to say which definition is correct?
- dang 7y ago
  Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN because they end up trolling each thread you post to. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20trollish%20usernames https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... I've banned this account for now, but if you want to email hn@ycombinator.com a new username, we can rename the account and unban it for you.
Zhyl 7y ago
>If you type anything into Google's search box, your search will be recorded and preserved forever so that Google's engineers can analyze usage patterns. How else would they improve their search algorithm? Or only retain the data for a set period of time. You can refine indexes with 6-12 months of data. You'd only want to keep unaggregated data for more than that if you were building profiles of individual people.
- ablatner 7y ago
  You can delete your data from your Google account though.

nocturnial 7y ago

>A group of researchers listening to a random sample of audio clip with no way to identify actual speakers Actually the journalists who obtained those audio clips identified several people. Those who were willing to talk on camera confirmed it was indeed their voices.

mtgx 7y ago

> not they overestimate it I disagree with this because you're assuming that Google "just training its systems with this data" doesn't mean that it will do "anything nefarious" with it. Oh, yes, it totally will. That's the entire point. I don't see Google as much more ethical than say Facebook these days. They'll screw their users for an extra buck in the next quarterly results just as much. Why do you think they're now helping China spy on their citizens? They didn't have to do it. But the call of (more) money is irresistible.

everbane 7y ago

>if the government is specifically looking for you, all bets are off anyway. That's not really how it's done though. The government would pipe all the data into something like Palantir, not request individual data piecemeal.

danso 7y ago

How would you explain to an ordinary user why it's necessary for "your search will be recorded and preserved forever" in order to improve the search algorithm? As opposed to a limited timeframe?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]