6 ms·
Not saying that Google is or isn't breaking the intention of GDPR here but thinking as a critical reader: - this complaint is lodged by an upstart privacy-base
by ptasci67 7y ago
Not saying that Google is or isn't breaking the intention of GDPR here but thinking as a critical reader:
- this complaint is lodged by an upstart privacy-based browser which directly competes with a Google product (Chrome) so they are not objective players here
- reading through the PDF linked in the blog post, it seems there is no "canary in the coal mine". It is a spreadsheet with a lot of empty cells and red backgrounds. The post and the facade of the spreadsheet scream "look at this, something's wrong" but the content doesn't match that at all. The impression is that they have found Google to be doing something wrong but the reality is that they want regulators to check and see if Google is doing something wrong. Is there presumed innocence in this circumstance (really asking here because I don't know)?
As with most things, the truth often lies in the middle. It seems to me at least that this is both a click-baity blog post and complaint meant to drum up media and press for Brave as much as it is a spotlight on Google's data practices. Both are bad.
- JadeNB 7y ago> As with most things, the truth often lies in the middle. It seems to me at least that this is both a click-baity blog post and complaint meant to drum up media and press for Brave as much as it is a spotlight on Google's data practices. Both are bad. I agree on this, but if there's a company trying to make a name for itself by attacking privacy violators, and if the benefits of that accrue even to people who aren't customers of the company, then I don't overly begrudge the company a little (or, let's be honest, a lot of) breathless self-generated PR in the process.
- shadowgovt 7y agoThe penalties will also accrue even to people who aren't customers of the company. It may be harder to see when that occurs. Google's speech model, for example, was bootstrapped on the audio collected from GOOG-411. Is the GDPR intended to prevent things like that? Then it's "intended" to hinder development of practical speech models the likes of which hadn't been seen from decades of research that lacked access to hundreds of hours of input from users asking real questions in real environments.
- robin_reala 7y agoYour comment implies the cost was worth it, but there are definitely people that would disagree.
- shadowgovt 7y agoAnd they are welcome to not use GOOG-411, Google's voice recognition, or any of the applications derived thereof. Me personally, I'd been waiting for the breakthrough that Google hit upon to get reliable voice recognition for a couple of decades.
- robin_reala 7y agoUh, if they don’t use it then the cost/benefit ratio is even more balanced over to the cost. The point is that the cost was never consulted in the first place when the benefit was sought.
- joshuamorton 7y agoWhat is the cost to someone who never used GOOG-411?
- wizzwizz4 7y agoBut whose data was gathered and mined for the purposes of its development.
- shadowgovt 7y agoBasically zero.
- joshuamorton 7y agoI'm responding to the statement that GP made which was that to someone who never used GOOG-411, the cost-benefit ratio is further into the cost category [compared to someone who did use GOOG-411]. This would imply that there is some cost to someone who never used the service, hence my question.
- WhyNotHugo 7y ago> this complaint is lodged by an upstart privacy-based browser which directly competes with a Google product (Chrome) so they are not objective players here This is not really a problem. Quite the contrary, it's unusual for a neutral party to be the one lodging a complaint. The important thing is that whomever processes the complaint is a neutral/objective party.