3 ms·

I have no clue if they're lying or not, and I'm open to the possibility that they are, but you're not really making a good case for it here. It's pretty disinge

I have no clue if they're lying or not, and I'm open to the possibility that they are, but you're not really making a good case for it here. It's pretty disingenuous to claim they track users and base it on lack of mathematically airtight evidence that they don't. That's not how accusations are supposed to work, right? I might as well claim you're a burglar because there's nothing to indicate you're not one. If you want to say you think they're tracking people because of reasons X/Y/Z, or that what they're doing looks suspicious, that's a lot better of an argument. But to claim they are with no evidence of it actually happening is really pushing it.

0xy 6y ago
It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used for tracking purposes. You don't think that deserves extreme scrutiny? Do you think that statement was made by a random developer or filtered through 100 PR and legal people? Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. Knowing that, why is it so ambiguous?
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Where did I say it doesn't deserve scrutiny? Scrutinize it all you want, I'm sure it went through lots of people before being published. "Scrutiny" is not the same thing as actually accusing them of lying though. > Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. I also don't believe this to be true (their statement seemed plain and clear enough to my eyes), but even if it were, it doesn't affect what I said above. You need actual evidence, not the mere possibility of mathematical loophole.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Sorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Such a statement would never be made to the press without being touched by PR/legal. They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > Sorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Sorry, but you're not going to. > They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters. Then say it's ambiguous, instead of saying the opposite is true, is all I'm saying. You misinform people that way.
bigiain 6y ago
> It's pretty disingenuous to claim they track users Google lost the benefit of doubt years ago. This is Google 2020 - all they do is "track users": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit/google-faces-5-billion-lawsuit-in-us-for-tracking-private-internet-use-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l... https://www.compliancejunction.com/google-loses-appeal-of-e50m-gdpr-fine/ https://www.compliancejunction.com/google-loses-appeal-of-e5... > I might as well claim you're a burglar because there's nothing to indicate you're not one. Google have been caught burgling houses repeatedly, and have been found in your house with burglary tools claiming "we're just doing, ummm, _browser experiments!!!_" You saying there's "no evidence of it actually happening " isn't useful.

0xy 6y ago

It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used for tracking purposes. You don't think that deserves extreme scrutiny? Do you think that statement was made by a random developer or filtered through 100 PR and legal people? Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. Knowing that, why is it so ambiguous?

mehrdadn 6y ago
Where did I say it doesn't deserve scrutiny? Scrutinize it all you want, I'm sure it went through lots of people before being published. "Scrutiny" is not the same thing as actually accusing them of lying though. > Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. I also don't believe this to be true (their statement seemed plain and clear enough to my eyes), but even if it were, it doesn't affect what I said above. You need actual evidence, not the mere possibility of mathematical loophole.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Sorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Such a statement would never be made to the press without being touched by PR/legal. They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Sorry, I hate to ask but I just have to know now. Have you ever worked in a large tech organization? Sorry, but you're not going to. > They may not even be explicitly lying, because the statement is so ambiguous. When you're reading PR/legal speak then every single word matters. Then say it's ambiguous, instead of saying the opposite is true, is all I'm saying. You misinform people that way.

bigiain 6y ago

> It's pretty disingenuous to claim they track users Google lost the benefit of doubt years ago. This is Google 2020 - all they do is "track users": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit/google-faces-5-billion-lawsuit-in-us-for-tracking-private-internet-use-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l... https://www.compliancejunction.com/google-loses-appeal-of-e50m-gdpr-fine/ https://www.compliancejunction.com/google-loses-appeal-of-e5... > I might as well claim you're a burglar because there's nothing to indicate you're not one. Google have been caught burgling houses repeatedly, and have been found in your house with burglary tools claiming "we're just doing, ummm, _browser experiments!!!_" You saying there's "no evidence of it actually happening " isn't useful.