31 ms·

I'm not comfortable assuming the best intentions from a $1.2T company whose business model relies on tracking my behavior. They burned that bridge after the war

I'm not comfortable assuming the best intentions from a $1.2T company whose business model relies on tracking my behavior. They burned that bridge after the war-driving "Wi-Spy" scandal, which went on from 2007-2010. [0]. It's clear that Google sees a threat to their business model, and they'll use any PR-friendly language they can to convince people that they're addressing the user concerns. Just like they did in 2010, when they ascribed their willful malfeasance to a "rogue engineer" who they then put in charge of StreetView. If I'm "reading too much into it" it's because we collectively haven't been reading enough into it for the past 15 or so years, and in that time our Overton window has shifted too far. [0]https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/23/google_wispy_payout/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/23/google_wispy_payout/

buttersbrian 6y ago
You, myself, everyone -- we're jaded. Got it. Not much concerned with descriptions, so what's your prescription: What do you believe to be satisfactory wording in this case?
spinningslate 6y ago
this. I'm fine with GP's use of "finding" a solution. Yes, they found one; finding solutions is a central process in software. But I'm absolutely not fine with the wording. When confronted with the phrase "Google says it may have found a privacy-friendly substitute to cookies", I'd wager most people would think "this improves my privacy in a general way". It doesn't. What it actually means is: Google will make it more difficult for others to track you, but Google will remain committed to tracking everything about you that it possibly can. Except silently, and without your ability to opt out using ad blockers etc. Net result: even less control over your privacy, and Google further entrenches its monopoly to boot. That's not an improvement in privacy.
- Hasu 6y ago
  > That's not an improvement in privacy. Okay, that's obviously not true from your own comment, you also say: > Google will make it more difficult for others to track you So if Google can still track me at the same level, but others can no longer track me, that IS an improvement in privacy. Not from Google, but from everyone else. I get and agree with your point about how it's an advantage for Google because they can make their tracking harder to avoid and lock others out, but I find it hard to sell "This is not an improvement in privacy" as being unequivocally true.
  - jand 6y ago
    > So if Google can still track me at the same level, but others can no longer track me, that IS an improvement in privacy. This is only true if Google does not sell the gathered information to others. If they sell the data, the net privacy gain is nil.
    - Hasu 6y ago
      Google doesn't sell your personal information to anyone. They sell ads that are targeted based on your personal information. Selling your information directly would entirely negate their market advantage in advertising, it would be suicide for Google. Facebook has been known to do this, Google has not.
      - chopin24 6y ago
        Not saying you are one such person, or that you are doing so intentionally, but this argument is a clever sleight of hand employed by surveillance capitalists and their apologists to deflect attention away from the real issue: that thousands of well-paid, highly intelligent engineers devote 40+ hours a week to coming up with ways to influence your behavior. “Selling personal data” — as if your particular affinity for left handed baseball gloves were of special interest to large corporations — is a red herring. Let’s stop perpetuating it.
        ceph_ 6y ago
        But there are companies that sell personal data. Google is not one of them. The phone companies sell your location. There are regular articles about companies buying up chrome extensions to harvest/sell browsing data. Etc
  - subaquamille 6y ago
    OP also says > but Google will remain committed to tracking everything about you that it possibly can. Except silently, and without your ability to opt out using ad blockers etc. Also others may no longer track you at the moment but they definitely will do in the future. So... Google breached a bit deeper in our privacy and paved the way for others to follow them. I can't help seeing them so evil.
btilly 6y ago
You are reading way too much into that incident. At the time, "Engineer put in feature not asked for." Later, "Upon full examination, engineer put description of feature in piece of paper shoved in front of busy manager, and told selected co-workers what he had done." (None of whom, when the shit hit the fan, should be expected to stick their necks out.) Neither version suggests that the feature was something reflective of corporate policy, or would have had support from higher ups if they knew about it. Also, said engineer turns out to be a very good programmer. Which explains the company's decision to try to keep him and correct his behavior rather than immediately firing him.
- chopin24 6y ago
  That Google’s management is so unaware of their data collection software that they allowed engineers to drive around spying on people for three years does not inspire trust. Incompetence or malice is besides the point. Google did not take responsibility for the error, and in fact stonewalled Congress for more than a year when it was investigated.
  - btilly 6y ago
    What do you expect them to do? Randomly sample the internal data formats? Or verify that the official outputs look right? Google specializes in automation at scale, not lovingly handcrafted data.
    - chopin24 6y ago
      I don't have any expectations for how they will address their transgressions. They don't have a right to my personal data, don't have a right to track me, don't have a right to sell my attention to modify my behavior. People who are the target of their data collection -- which includes users and innocent bystanders -- are victims, and we don't expect victims to come up with performance improvement plans for their abusers.
      - btilly 6y ago

buttersbrian 6y ago

You, myself, everyone -- we're jaded. Got it. Not much concerned with descriptions, so what's your prescription: What do you believe to be satisfactory wording in this case?

spinningslate 6y ago

this. I'm fine with GP's use of "finding" a solution. Yes, they found one; finding solutions is a central process in software. But I'm absolutely not fine with the wording. When confronted with the phrase "Google says it may have found a privacy-friendly substitute to cookies", I'd wager most people would think "this improves my privacy in a general way". It doesn't. What it actually means is: Google will make it more difficult for others to track you, but Google will remain committed to tracking everything about you that it possibly can. Except silently, and without your ability to opt out using ad blockers etc. Net result: even less control over your privacy, and Google further entrenches its monopoly to boot. That's not an improvement in privacy.

Hasu 6y ago
> That's not an improvement in privacy. Okay, that's obviously not true from your own comment, you also say: > Google will make it more difficult for others to track you So if Google can still track me at the same level, but others can no longer track me, that IS an improvement in privacy. Not from Google, but from everyone else. I get and agree with your point about how it's an advantage for Google because they can make their tracking harder to avoid and lock others out, but I find it hard to sell "This is not an improvement in privacy" as being unequivocally true.
- jand 6y ago
  > So if Google can still track me at the same level, but others can no longer track me, that IS an improvement in privacy. This is only true if Google does not sell the gathered information to others. If they sell the data, the net privacy gain is nil.
  - Hasu 6y ago
    Google doesn't sell your personal information to anyone. They sell ads that are targeted based on your personal information. Selling your information directly would entirely negate their market advantage in advertising, it would be suicide for Google. Facebook has been known to do this, Google has not.
    - chopin24 6y ago
      Not saying you are one such person, or that you are doing so intentionally, but this argument is a clever sleight of hand employed by surveillance capitalists and their apologists to deflect attention away from the real issue: that thousands of well-paid, highly intelligent engineers devote 40+ hours a week to coming up with ways to influence your behavior. “Selling personal data” — as if your particular affinity for left handed baseball gloves were of special interest to large corporations — is a red herring. Let’s stop perpetuating it.
      - ceph_ 6y ago
        But there are companies that sell personal data. Google is not one of them. The phone companies sell your location. There are regular articles about companies buying up chrome extensions to harvest/sell browsing data. Etc
- subaquamille 6y ago
  OP also says > but Google will remain committed to tracking everything about you that it possibly can. Except silently, and without your ability to opt out using ad blockers etc. Also others may no longer track you at the moment but they definitely will do in the future. So... Google breached a bit deeper in our privacy and paved the way for others to follow them. I can't help seeing them so evil.

btilly 6y ago

You are reading way too much into that incident. At the time, "Engineer put in feature not asked for." Later, "Upon full examination, engineer put description of feature in piece of paper shoved in front of busy manager, and told selected co-workers what he had done." (None of whom, when the shit hit the fan, should be expected to stick their necks out.) Neither version suggests that the feature was something reflective of corporate policy, or would have had support from higher ups if they knew about it. Also, said engineer turns out to be a very good programmer. Which explains the company's decision to try to keep him and correct his behavior rather than immediately firing him.

chopin24 6y ago
That Google’s management is so unaware of their data collection software that they allowed engineers to drive around spying on people for three years does not inspire trust. Incompetence or malice is besides the point. Google did not take responsibility for the error, and in fact stonewalled Congress for more than a year when it was investigated.
- btilly 6y ago
  What do you expect them to do? Randomly sample the internal data formats? Or verify that the official outputs look right? Google specializes in automation at scale, not lovingly handcrafted data.
  - chopin24 6y ago
    I don't have any expectations for how they will address their transgressions. They don't have a right to my personal data, don't have a right to track me, don't have a right to sell my attention to modify my behavior. People who are the target of their data collection -- which includes users and innocent bystanders -- are victims, and we don't expect victims to come up with performance improvement plans for their abusers.
    - btilly 6y ago