6 ms·
Enough with that. Googlers are not that stupid, there would be huge internal strikes if the health data was sold to, say, health insurance companies. They are
by henearkr 6y ago
Enough with that. Googlers are not that stupid, there would be huge internal strikes if the health data was sold to, say, health insurance companies.
They are not dumb, their own health data privacy is in stake too, after all.
By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole.
- tmpz22 6y agoJust like all the smart well compensated Wall Street employees protected our financial data? Let’s be real we’re being sold out by the rank and file too for the sweet price of a new Tesla and a Tahoe rental.
- henearkr 6y agoGooglers are not Wall Street sharks... not confuse species... Googlers go on strike if a juicy deal is made with China in exchange to some complacency to state-censorship. Or when it's an Defense contract with any country. Wall Street sharks just pop Champaign bottles when these kind of contracts happen, that's the difference.
- rusk 6y agoPeople are people and you can’t account for all of them- it only takes a small minority to make mess
- henearkr 6y agoYou forget that there is a lot of self-checking of the company by other employees, and in the past you have numerous examples of the crowd undoing the misdeeds of the few.
- rusk 6y agoThis is starry eyed nonsense.
- henearkr 6y agoHow is your reply teaching us anything? I explained how it works, and gave examples. Your turn to be convincing.
- rusk 6y agoExcuse me but you started off with “A is B” and I pointed out that well actually A is constituted of things that are actually some B but mostly C and a lot of D. Too which you respond “oh but I believe fervently that the part of A that is B will win out” and there’s really no point in getting wrapped up in such circular idiocy - as I have just now done. Doh. Happy Christmas.
- henearkr 6y agoI am sorry if I misunderstood your tone, but I only detected "emotional contents" namely insult-type content, and very poor quantity of arguments. I'm not a closed one, I am genuinely interested by what you think that could prove me wrong, only you did not spell it out yet. For example, could you explicit A, B, C, D... ?
- rusk 6y agoHa - losing my religion for you bud
- henearkr 6y agoA = Google B = responsible C = not responsible D = again not responsible? or do you mean evil? So, to reply to your argument: When Google makes something not responsible, or, worse, evil, the numerous "responsible" people that have proven to be part of the staff in the past (see the examples) will make a fuss. Shortly the misdeed would be made public, widely commented, the pressure would make the corporation take countermeasures to repair their image. That's what happened in these 2 examples, and this mechanism is still active. I'm not saying that this will work every time. I'm just highlighting that at Google this mechanism is particularly strong (and so the hate towards Google less understandable). Of course new laws would be even more convincing, if only for those corporations where the self-control is weaker.
- maxerickson 6y agoDid they strike in large numbers? I thought they posted messages on internal mailing lists and stuff like that.
- henearkr 6y agoHere I read that at least 4000 people signed a petition opposing the Maven project, and the project was abandoned as a consequence. Had it not been abandoned, probably even more engineers would have joined the march. https://gizmodo.com/google-employees-resign-in-protest-against-pentagon-con-1825729300 https://gizmodo.com/google-employees-resign-in-protest-again...
- maxerickson 6y agoRight, they signed a memo asking Google not to do the thing, and, uh, oh, that's all that's in there. And then 4,000 is a lot of people in some sense, but there's 100,000+ full timers.
- henearkr 6y agoIf was sufficient, and they maybe knew it. The memo was probably centered around the interested teams. If the project had been maintained, you probably would have seen further actions... it's just like in the civil society (I mean, in politics, residents opposing local projects, etc), there is a kind of escalation.
- jariel 6y ago" there would be huge internal strikes if the health data was sold to, say, health insurance companies. " ? This is satire ? They could pass it off as 'anonimized' data and sell it to medical companies. Or sell ads on the basis of information collect from the devices, which would still be ostensibly anonymous theoretically. Finally, the notion that we would depend on the willingness of some Mega Corps employees to possibly risk their jobs and put up a fuss, is just a step too far. We might need some regulation here. Also: there are material opportunities for advancement of health by having this information shared, we should also recognize that and possibly allow these things to be used as medical devices if people want them to be i.e. for research.
- henearkr 6y agoThere has been and there is still a lot of self-checking at Google... The own health data of Google employees too is in danger if they do dumb things with it (as I suspect that, like anybody, these engineers enjoy health wearables), so it would absolutely not stay unchecked.
- jariel 6y agoBreach of privacy is not a step function, it's a slow boil. It would be difficult to unwind what has largely been accepted practice for years. The DNA-box companies sell randomized data to drug companies, to help literally make cures for disease. Not do bad. And it's random, and there's buy in. I can see G people going for that: it's random data from Android devices, people are opting in etc.. But then inch by inch it gets worse.
- henearkr 6y agoI understand the risk, but I just feel that everybody is fretting while overestimating this risk and overlooking everything that already exists that can also very well keep this risk in check. Starting by the fact that any misdeed would be soon made public and widely commented, like always.
- rolls-reus 6y agoIs this satire? I can't tell anymore and I'm starting to hate that these type of comments are becoming more common on here.
- henearkr 6y agoCan you help yourself and look at the 2 examples I have given in the other comment. Thanks in advance.
- rolls-reus 6y agoEven if you think the personal morality of Google employees is a formidable check on its practices it's definitely not sufficient. I'd rather have more formal protections than rely on employees revolting against questionable practices as the only recourse.
- henearkr 6y agoI just think that everybody is overlooking Google's corporate culture and thus are imagining purely virtual evil scenarios that will not happen, like the health data sold to marketers. From what I see of Google and the past public outcries, the company would be more interested in developing medical characterization of illnesses etc. Like Apple watch used to diagnose heart problems. There is a lot of "money" to be made ethically this way.
- jolux 6y agoThey may have a sense of their responsibilities but I know a lot of Googlers and they’re also extremely cavalier about collecting data and extremely certain in their ability to handle it properly. They don’t understand why I don’t like targeted ads and always respond when I complain with, “but don’t you want the ads you see to be relevant to your interests?”
- henearkr 6y agoYeah I understand that they are doing only a categorization of the ads they are showing, without the marketers being the ones to choose their targets, and so from the Google point of view there should not be any data leakage problem... I see that in theory you could game this system to play on the type of ads URL you send to each category, and thus try to indirectly get information about the IPs that visit your site, but I'm not sure how it is a viable strategy, how much mitigation is already in place by Google against that (surely they have thought about it), and how many marketers are ready to go theses lengths or even if any has already done it (Cambridge Analytica did it on FB, but arguably that was an easier system to game).
- CydeWeys 6y agoMy experience has been that people don't want ads but also usually aren't willing to pay to not have them. I just immediately write off anyone who complains about ads on YouTube, for instance.
- jolux 6y agoI hate ads pretty universally but am totally willing to pay to get rid of them.
- ksk 6y ago>Googlers are not that stupid, there would be huge internal strikes if the health data was sold to, say, health insurance companies. So if any random set of employees at Google don't threaten to quit, that means that they're doing great? Also, why would any company sell the very thing that makes them money? :) They can make more money allowing companies to use the data by targeting certain users. >By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole. What "sense of responsibility" does Google have? There is zero accountability here. They continue to spy on users and collect personal data, which now includes health data. A private company doing that for profit, makes it unethical in my view.
- mden 6y ago"They are not dumb" - and neither are most of the employees of nearly every other company that does unethical things. That's not an argument. "By the past they have proven numerous time that they have a lot the sense of responsibilities -- as employees, as a whole." - arguable, but even if true companies and their cultures change. You cannot trust a company, especially a public one, as you can a human. Ideally I would rather the amount I have to "trust" companies be reduced wherever possible and that's only achievable via regulations and enforcement of those regulations.
- henearkr 6y agoThat's not true. I've met some people who work in financial-oriented companies, or companies with very aggressive marketing and IP protection... well they live up to their caricature. At some end of the spectrum you have Google, Tesla ... at the other end you can find Oracle, Exxon, Disney (relatively to how they treat property rights), etc... "Corporate culture" is a thing.
- mden 6y agoWhich part of my comment is not true? That corporate culture changes with time? That you can't trust companies like you can humans? I'm genuinely curious with which part you disagree. It's nice that you can feel morally superior by working at Google (I assume you work there by how hard you are claiming they are good) but please realize that sentiment is not universally shared. _You_ can trust Google to do the right thing but the replies in these comments alone show that there's at least a noteworthy amount of people who are distrustful or at least would rather not have to be trustful of Google. And this also applies to other mega-corporations too. You not having concerns doesn't invalidate other people's concerns. Trust does alleviate concerns but for some people trusting a corporation is a very tenuous emotion.
- henearkr 6y agoWhat is not true is your position that the company culture is not responsible anymore at Google. The company culture at Google was proven by the facts to be responsible not long ago (the refusal to negotiate with China, the refusal to make a contract with the Defense Department), and not enough time or not enough turnover has happened since to justify a change of mindset. I agree that the culture of a company can change, but that only happens as a result when a lot of the staff change, and that they draw in different demographics for the newcomers (with different values, etc).
- cwhiz 6y agoAnd what happens when Googlers do become stupid? Or if they make a mistake? Or if they are hacked. Google should never be given access to this type of data. Never.
- henearkr 6y agoFitbit has these data already, in arguably more vulnerable places... Your concern is legit, but then the whole concept of connected wearables should be avoided.
- cwhiz 6y agoFitbit has this slice of data but they are unable to combine it with any other slices of data. Google has all of the other data. Google acquiring Fitbit is Google purchasing health data. Fitbit is unable to acquire that data on their own, and they shouldn't be able to. No one should have ALL of that data.
- henearkr 6y agoI don't know the details, but do you have certainty that they are not planning to anonymize the data before transferring it to Google? That's what pharmaceutical or medical ventures usually do, so that seems the sensible way to go. Anyway this is probably not decided yet because it is very early, but Google would surely go the sane and rational way. Alphabet is already quite used to medical projects through Deepmind, and they do not breach accepted good practice guidelines.
- cwhiz 6y agoWearable data is not covered by existing health laws.
- henearkr 6y agoYeah but the point is that Google knows better than merely conform to the Law, especially in this era of irresponsible governments. They can and often do more responsible things than just what is required. It is not true for every industry player, here again the corporate culture has its role, so yes a good set of laws would do a great good. Then again, that only comes from a responsible government/politics.
- nalekberov 6y agoto be honest i don't understand what are you talking about.