5 ms·

Google is a surveillance company

63 points by boh 16y ago

beoba 16y ago
Original link http://vimeo.com/11303353 http://vimeo.com/11303353 "BlackHat Europe 2010 - Changing Threats To Privacy From TIA to Google"
- dguido 16y ago
  The original-original source is here: https://media.blackhat.com/bh-eu-10/video/Marlinspike/BlackHat-EU-2010-Marlinspike-Threats-to-Privacy.m4v https://media.blackhat.com/bh-eu-10/video/Marlinspike/BlackH...
Phantom 16y ago
I absolutely agree with the talk! Google is the new Microsoft :) and Facebook is the new Google and will also become the next Microsoft very soon. What Google is doing is actually monitoring every aspect of our online life! Really worrisome!
- Tyrant505 16y ago
  And Facebook isn't? How about big hungry corps come in different sizes and shapes but are still big hungry corps.
gnosis 16y ago
The problem isn't Google so much as it is a lack of an understanding of the value of privacy and anonymity on the internet among the general population. And it is also a matter of the lack of serious support for maintaining such privacy and anonymity at the internet infrastructure level, and at the level of applications that interface with the internet (web browsers in particular). These things go hand in hand. As the general public becomes more educated about the value of privacy and anonymity (and what happens when, due to the lack of either, abuses occur) there will be more demand for technology that supports keeping their data and lives more private. Then software, hardware, and services that protect privacy and anonymity will become more economically viable, and companies like Google will have a much harder time spying on their users. This is why education about the value of privacy and anonymity is so valuable. Until that happens, people will voluntarily leak information about themselves all over the place. Witness the popularity of Facebook, or hundreds of other sites where people gladly give up their privacy for various dubious enticements.
- gst 16y ago
  I wonder if the public ever will become educated about the value of privacy. A few days ago I've tried to explain a friend who often uses Internet cafes how to use Google's two factor authentication for Gmail. Her answer was: "Why should I do this, this just makes it more complicated". When I explained to her that it prevents other's from being able to read her mails she responded that there's nothing interesting in her mailbox and she doubts anyone is interested in doing so. A decade or so ago I still had hope that tools like PGP/GPG will be widespread amongst the Internet population. But this all completely changed. People who used to use PGP to encrypt their mails and who've used to run their own mailservers because they didn't trust their provider just use GMail today. We're moving from a decentraliced infrastructure to a pure client/server infrastructure and there's not much you can do about this. There are a few areas where it's possible to avoid the cloud, but in most other areas the choice is either to use the prevalent centralized infrastructure or to not communicate with others.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "in most other areas the choice is either to use the prevalent centralized infrastructure or to not communicate with others" That's the choice now. But it doesn't have to remain that way in the future. The problem is that most people are relatively ignorant about technology and its potential for abuse (especially when they don't guard or value their privacy). Not only is this ignorance not inevitable, but there's every sign that it's decreasing. People are becoming more technologically savvy, and computer literacy is spreading. Along with this, and with the various media exposes on viruses, identity theft, etc.. people are slowly starting to become more security conscious, bit by bit. The main thing that's lacking right now is a strong appreciation for privacy and anonymity. This is especially troubling and prevalent among the youth, who are growing up in a world where so many people's lives are on display on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.. They don't really realize or appreciate how much of what they reveal can come back to haunt them and bite them in the ass in the future: from the potential for stalking, to various abuses of private information by employers, insurers, etc. But, as more and more people get bitten by these sorts of abuses, I think it's inevitable that a greater appreciation for privacy and anonymity will emerge. It may take some time. But the process can be accelerated with deliberate education campaigns and efforts from people who do understand the value of privacy now.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yanw 16y ago
FUD. Not Google nor even Facebook are privacy’s real threats, they are just easy targets. There is a fine line - it would seem - between a security expert and an alarmist. That line is getting crossed more often as of late seeing as spreading FUD is their marketing strategy. Yes privacy is important but some people are loosing all prospective in advocating for it, and in doing so are entrenching on other rights mainly freedom of speech. Relevant: http://gigaom.com/2011/02/17/jarvis-publicness-needs-its-advocates-just-like-privacy/ http://gigaom.com/2011/02/17/jarvis-publicness-needs-its-adv...
- ynniv 16y ago
  Your relevant link is hilariously funny when it suggests that being less private would help people find other similarly minded folks online a la the events in Egypt. I may have LOL'd my pants. Here's my unsubstantiated but hopefully compelling retort: if those revolting in Egypt could have been a priori identified online, there would have been no revolution. Don't be an idiot. Privacy online and privacy in the real world are very different beasts. (PS: you meant "encroaching", not "entrenching")
- moxie 16y ago
  I'm curious to know what you think privacy's real threats are, then? I had two motivations in giving this talk. One was to explore the shift in where data accumulates and is collected on the internet. The other was to explore the concept of "choice," in terms of how these technologies are subsequently presented to us. Given the events of the past year, along with the CALEA II conversations that have recently begun in DC, it doesn't seem particularly alarmist to start having a conversation about these things. I'm not sure whether you watched the talk or not, but my premise isn't that everyone should stop using Google or Facebook, as you seem to assume. Because I don't actually believe that's even possible. Or at least, that it's not a simple choice.
  - chwahoo 16y ago
    I found your talk to be one of the more pragmatic takes on current challenges to privacy that I've heard for precisely this reason. While people can and sometimes do choose to opt-out, I've never been personally comfortable with the high costs of doing so. It's a neat research agenda to start from that observation and try to mitigate the cost to privacy.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Charuru 16y ago
Google is not a surveillance company. It's an AI company with a rapacious appetite for data so that it can learn about the world and make better decisions.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - radq 16y ago
    > Plus, Google is not an AI company. Very little of their operations have anything to do with AI. Really? What about their search engine? What about targeted advertising?
jfm3 16y ago
This video is great. It not only sums up the problem in the elegant terms of choice, but it also proposes starts at solutions in the elegant terms of working code. It made my day to watch this.
- ztan 16y ago
  I usually tend to avoid the 1 to 2 hour long video/talks. However in this case, the value received from its content absolutely justified every minute of its length. I wish more people would not dismiss it because of its length like I almost did.
pc-pro-schools 16y ago
It bothers me I can't watch the person talking ^.^

63 points by boh 16y ago

beoba 16y ago

Original link http://vimeo.com/11303353 http://vimeo.com/11303353 "BlackHat Europe 2010 - Changing Threats To Privacy From TIA to Google"

dguido 16y ago
The original-original source is here: https://media.blackhat.com/bh-eu-10/video/Marlinspike/BlackHat-EU-2010-Marlinspike-Threats-to-Privacy.m4v https://media.blackhat.com/bh-eu-10/video/Marlinspike/BlackH...

Phantom 16y ago

I absolutely agree with the talk! Google is the new Microsoft :) and Facebook is the new Google and will also become the next Microsoft very soon. What Google is doing is actually monitoring every aspect of our online life! Really worrisome!

Tyrant505 16y ago
And Facebook isn't? How about big hungry corps come in different sizes and shapes but are still big hungry corps.

gnosis 16y ago

The problem isn't Google so much as it is a lack of an understanding of the value of privacy and anonymity on the internet among the general population. And it is also a matter of the lack of serious support for maintaining such privacy and anonymity at the internet infrastructure level, and at the level of applications that interface with the internet (web browsers in particular). These things go hand in hand. As the general public becomes more educated about the value of privacy and anonymity (and what happens when, due to the lack of either, abuses occur) there will be more demand for technology that supports keeping their data and lives more private. Then software, hardware, and services that protect privacy and anonymity will become more economically viable, and companies like Google will have a much harder time spying on their users. This is why education about the value of privacy and anonymity is so valuable. Until that happens, people will voluntarily leak information about themselves all over the place. Witness the popularity of Facebook, or hundreds of other sites where people gladly give up their privacy for various dubious enticements.

gst 16y ago
I wonder if the public ever will become educated about the value of privacy. A few days ago I've tried to explain a friend who often uses Internet cafes how to use Google's two factor authentication for Gmail. Her answer was: "Why should I do this, this just makes it more complicated". When I explained to her that it prevents other's from being able to read her mails she responded that there's nothing interesting in her mailbox and she doubts anyone is interested in doing so. A decade or so ago I still had hope that tools like PGP/GPG will be widespread amongst the Internet population. But this all completely changed. People who used to use PGP to encrypt their mails and who've used to run their own mailservers because they didn't trust their provider just use GMail today. We're moving from a decentraliced infrastructure to a pure client/server infrastructure and there's not much you can do about this. There are a few areas where it's possible to avoid the cloud, but in most other areas the choice is either to use the prevalent centralized infrastructure or to not communicate with others.
- gnosis 16y ago
  "in most other areas the choice is either to use the prevalent centralized infrastructure or to not communicate with others" That's the choice now. But it doesn't have to remain that way in the future. The problem is that most people are relatively ignorant about technology and its potential for abuse (especially when they don't guard or value their privacy). Not only is this ignorance not inevitable, but there's every sign that it's decreasing. People are becoming more technologically savvy, and computer literacy is spreading. Along with this, and with the various media exposes on viruses, identity theft, etc.. people are slowly starting to become more security conscious, bit by bit. The main thing that's lacking right now is a strong appreciation for privacy and anonymity. This is especially troubling and prevalent among the youth, who are growing up in a world where so many people's lives are on display on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.. They don't really realize or appreciate how much of what they reveal can come back to haunt them and bite them in the ass in the future: from the potential for stalking, to various abuses of private information by employers, insurers, etc. But, as more and more people get bitten by these sorts of abuses, I think it's inevitable that a greater appreciation for privacy and anonymity will emerge. It may take some time. But the process can be accelerated with deliberate education campaigns and efforts from people who do understand the value of privacy now.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

yanw 16y ago

FUD. Not Google nor even Facebook are privacy’s real threats, they are just easy targets. There is a fine line - it would seem - between a security expert and an alarmist. That line is getting crossed more often as of late seeing as spreading FUD is their marketing strategy. Yes privacy is important but some people are loosing all prospective in advocating for it, and in doing so are entrenching on other rights mainly freedom of speech. Relevant: http://gigaom.com/2011/02/17/jarvis-publicness-needs-its-advocates-just-like-privacy/ http://gigaom.com/2011/02/17/jarvis-publicness-needs-its-adv...

ynniv 16y ago
Your relevant link is hilariously funny when it suggests that being less private would help people find other similarly minded folks online a la the events in Egypt. I may have LOL'd my pants. Here's my unsubstantiated but hopefully compelling retort: if those revolting in Egypt could have been a priori identified online, there would have been no revolution. Don't be an idiot. Privacy online and privacy in the real world are very different beasts. (PS: you meant "encroaching", not "entrenching")
moxie 16y ago
I'm curious to know what you think privacy's real threats are, then? I had two motivations in giving this talk. One was to explore the shift in where data accumulates and is collected on the internet. The other was to explore the concept of "choice," in terms of how these technologies are subsequently presented to us. Given the events of the past year, along with the CALEA II conversations that have recently begun in DC, it doesn't seem particularly alarmist to start having a conversation about these things. I'm not sure whether you watched the talk or not, but my premise isn't that everyone should stop using Google or Facebook, as you seem to assume. Because I don't actually believe that's even possible. Or at least, that it's not a simple choice.
- chwahoo 16y ago
  I found your talk to be one of the more pragmatic takes on current challenges to privacy that I've heard for precisely this reason. While people can and sometimes do choose to opt-out, I've never been personally comfortable with the high costs of doing so. It's a neat research agenda to start from that observation and try to mitigate the cost to privacy.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Charuru 16y ago

Google is not a surveillance company. It's an AI company with a rapacious appetite for data so that it can learn about the world and make better decisions.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- radq 16y ago
  > Plus, Google is not an AI company. Very little of their operations have anything to do with AI. Really? What about their search engine? What about targeted advertising?

jfm3 16y ago

This video is great. It not only sums up the problem in the elegant terms of choice, but it also proposes starts at solutions in the elegant terms of working code. It made my day to watch this.

ztan 16y ago
I usually tend to avoid the 1 to 2 hour long video/talks. However in this case, the value received from its content absolutely justified every minute of its length. I wish more people would not dismiss it because of its length like I almost did.

pc-pro-schools 16y ago

It bothers me I can't watch the person talking ^.^