3 ms·

IMO the burden should be on Google to prove that they don't. The flow of personal data through their systems is opaque and they have plenty of incentives to mo

by cle 7y ago

IMO the burden should be on Google to prove that they don't. The flow of personal data through their systems is opaque and they have plenty of incentives to monetize the data.

mdszy 7y ago
You can't prove a negative.
- rgbrgb 7y ago
  You definitely can [0], but this one would probably be hard for google without significantly modifying the architecture of gmail in ways that would remove its revenue model. For example, they could open source a client that had audit-able end-to-end encryption, but then they couldn't optimize ad revenue by aggregating and mining large email datasets. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
  - mdszy 7y ago
    > a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved as described in the claim, or that a particular set of problems cannot be solved in general did you even read the article you linked
    - rgbrgb 7y ago
      Apologies, I thought you were saying that you can't prove a negative... that negative proofs (like the examples linked) do not exist.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  They said "prove" but really it's about trust. Google has lost many peoples' trust and it's on Google to restore that trust.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  We're not talking about mathematical or scientific levels of proof, but assurance and trust. The usual methods for achieving this are government regulation and oversight (free of capture), and independent third-party audits (likewise). The good news is that there seems to be ... some, slight ... progress in this direction.
- fulldecent2 7y ago
  Sure you can. Apple does not run its image classification on your images using its cloud servers. You can test this by stepping inside a microwave or other cage and seeing that image classification and search still works on the iPhone. --- On the other hand, what Apple does with your photos that you allow to be exfiltrated through iCloud... that's your own stupid fault.

by cle 7y ago

IMO the burden should be on Google to prove that they don't. The flow of personal data through their systems is opaque and they have plenty of incentives to monetize the data.

mdszy 7y ago

You can't prove a negative.

rgbrgb 7y ago
You definitely can [0], but this one would probably be hard for google without significantly modifying the architecture of gmail in ways that would remove its revenue model. For example, they could open source a client that had audit-able end-to-end encryption, but then they couldn't optimize ad revenue by aggregating and mining large email datasets. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
- mdszy 7y ago
  > a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved as described in the claim, or that a particular set of problems cannot be solved in general did you even read the article you linked
  - rgbrgb 7y ago
    Apologies, I thought you were saying that you can't prove a negative... that negative proofs (like the examples linked) do not exist.
nkrisc 7y ago
They said "prove" but really it's about trust. Google has lost many peoples' trust and it's on Google to restore that trust.
dredmorbius 7y ago
We're not talking about mathematical or scientific levels of proof, but assurance and trust. The usual methods for achieving this are government regulation and oversight (free of capture), and independent third-party audits (likewise). The good news is that there seems to be ... some, slight ... progress in this direction.
fulldecent2 7y ago
Sure you can. Apple does not run its image classification on your images using its cloud servers. You can test this by stepping inside a microwave or other cage and seeing that image classification and search still works on the iPhone. --- On the other hand, what Apple does with your photos that you allow to be exfiltrated through iCloud... that's your own stupid fault.