5 ms·

> Google is framing this change as an attempt to limit third-party access to Google services. Apparently accessing your own data using unapproved software make

by MikeUt 6y ago

> Google is framing this change as an attempt to limit third-party access to Google services. Apparently accessing your own data using unapproved software makes you a 3rd party.

prepend 6y ago
It’s not our data, it’s Google’s. They are looking at this as a third party to their data and don’t want us granting access to the data we give them. I think this all falls down to information and data not really being ownable in a physical sense, so it’s just different legal structures and company policies.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  I’m sure that’s how Google sees it, but it’s most definitely the users’ data. Google’s “company policy” is to be user hostile and leverage their monopolies for maximum anti-competitiveness.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Good point, I was trying to state Google’s position. I want control over my data, the data I “own.” But practically speaking this is impossible and I assume that anything I interact with produces data that’s owned by someone else. So while I want to own my data, if I use Chrome then Google makes their own data from my behavior and it’s theirs, not mine. To stop this, I have to stop the data being transmitted. That’s hard, but not impossible. Once it leaves my control (laptop, computer, whatever) it’s no longer mine. That’s what I mean about it being so squishy. And there’s lots of scenarios trying to understand what’s right. If I take a picture of you in the grocery store, it’s not your data. It is certainly rude. It might violate privacy. But the data is mine even though you are the subject. If I am a private eye and follow you around noting everywhere you go, the data isn’t yours, the data is mine. This is why I think that laws need to define ownership and privacy and use. So we can better regulate as a society. I still want some control on data about me, even if I don’t own it. In the US the consumer lost almost every case and that’s why stuff like 1970’s Fair Credit Reporting Act [0] allows credit bureaus to collect information about people and do stuff with it even though many people don’t like it. Effectively merchants “sell” data on people to credit agencies who collate it, analyze it, and sell insight (eg, FICO scores) and all that data are owned by people who aren’t the subjects. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      I agree that once you give someone your data, it becomes "theirs" and they can do what they want with it (logistically speaking). Interestingly enough, the executable that runs Chrome is also data that the end user "owns" once they put it on their system. This is the argument for bypassing DRM. The system is setup to screw the consumer. Most people probably do consider the data they're giving to Google's cloud services to be theirs, most may even assume that Google isn't doing anything nefarious with it, or using access to build up anti-competitive moats. Sadly, most people probably won't care that much if they do find out the truth as the service and frictionless flow are more valuable that privacy.
swiley 6y ago
I'm so glad google locked me out of my account. Every day their service just looks more and more abusive. Rip the band-aid off, your life will be better for it.
technofiend 6y ago
>Apparently accessing your own data using unapproved software makes you a 3rd party. That's been pretty clear since Google rather stridently informed me a third party app had access to my data during a security check: the app was Chromium.
Arnt 6y ago
No, it makes the maintainers of the unapproved software a third party, able to access your account using source code that does whatever they want. You didn't even try to review the millions of lines of code you installed, did you? And if you found out after the fact that those maintainers were using your password to do bad things, what legal recourse do you have? Running "apt-get install foo" or "npm install bar" gives you a variety of disclaimers, but no contracts with the maintainers and no rights.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  I didn't review the millions of lines of vim code either, yet notepad.exe lets me use it to edit passwords.txt and banking_details.txt just fine.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    There are two differences. 1. NPM is being actively exploited and IMHO remarkably often; some of the third parties that are blocked by this policy are known to be malevolent. 2. I'm afraid my familiarity with Windows is somewhat limited. As far as I know Notepad has no responsibility for carrying out any sort of access control. That it carries out no access control is somewhat irrelevant if it is not intended to do so in the first place.
    - candiodari 6y ago
      But you can firewall (in 10 different ways) notepad.exe. You control what notepad has access to. You can access anything notepad.exe can bypassing notepad.exe. You cannot effectively firewall your browser, because you don't control the backend. You cannot bypass the backend of a piece of cloud software. This is a generic problem with cloud software. Any cloud software has access to your data AND YOU DO NOT. To a certain extent it even has access to your data in other apps (e.g. getting your mail address). It's a way to (currently usually partially) transfer ownership of everything you make with software, and your own data from the user to the creator of the software. This obviously an extremely negative development in the long run, but people seem quite keen on just accepting it ...
notatoad 6y ago
no, the "unapproved software" accessing your data is third-party access. that's like the definition of third-party.

by MikeUt 6y ago

> Google is framing this change as an attempt to limit third-party access to Google services. Apparently accessing your own data using unapproved software makes you a 3rd party.

prepend 6y ago

It’s not our data, it’s Google’s. They are looking at this as a third party to their data and don’t want us granting access to the data we give them. I think this all falls down to information and data not really being ownable in a physical sense, so it’s just different legal structures and company policies.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
I’m sure that’s how Google sees it, but it’s most definitely the users’ data. Google’s “company policy” is to be user hostile and leverage their monopolies for maximum anti-competitiveness.
- prepend 6y ago
  Good point, I was trying to state Google’s position. I want control over my data, the data I “own.” But practically speaking this is impossible and I assume that anything I interact with produces data that’s owned by someone else. So while I want to own my data, if I use Chrome then Google makes their own data from my behavior and it’s theirs, not mine. To stop this, I have to stop the data being transmitted. That’s hard, but not impossible. Once it leaves my control (laptop, computer, whatever) it’s no longer mine. That’s what I mean about it being so squishy. And there’s lots of scenarios trying to understand what’s right. If I take a picture of you in the grocery store, it’s not your data. It is certainly rude. It might violate privacy. But the data is mine even though you are the subject. If I am a private eye and follow you around noting everywhere you go, the data isn’t yours, the data is mine. This is why I think that laws need to define ownership and privacy and use. So we can better regulate as a society. I still want some control on data about me, even if I don’t own it. In the US the consumer lost almost every case and that’s why stuff like 1970’s Fair Credit Reporting Act [0] allows credit bureaus to collect information about people and do stuff with it even though many people don’t like it. Effectively merchants “sell” data on people to credit agencies who collate it, analyze it, and sell insight (eg, FICO scores) and all that data are owned by people who aren’t the subjects. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    I agree that once you give someone your data, it becomes "theirs" and they can do what they want with it (logistically speaking). Interestingly enough, the executable that runs Chrome is also data that the end user "owns" once they put it on their system. This is the argument for bypassing DRM. The system is setup to screw the consumer. Most people probably do consider the data they're giving to Google's cloud services to be theirs, most may even assume that Google isn't doing anything nefarious with it, or using access to build up anti-competitive moats. Sadly, most people probably won't care that much if they do find out the truth as the service and frictionless flow are more valuable that privacy.

swiley 6y ago

I'm so glad google locked me out of my account. Every day their service just looks more and more abusive. Rip the band-aid off, your life will be better for it.

technofiend 6y ago

>Apparently accessing your own data using unapproved software makes you a 3rd party. That's been pretty clear since Google rather stridently informed me a third party app had access to my data during a security check: the app was Chromium.

Arnt 6y ago

No, it makes the maintainers of the unapproved software a third party, able to access your account using source code that does whatever they want. You didn't even try to review the millions of lines of code you installed, did you? And if you found out after the fact that those maintainers were using your password to do bad things, what legal recourse do you have? Running "apt-get install foo" or "npm install bar" gives you a variety of disclaimers, but no contracts with the maintainers and no rights.

MikeUt 6y ago
I didn't review the millions of lines of vim code either, yet notepad.exe lets me use it to edit passwords.txt and banking_details.txt just fine.
- Arnt 6y ago
  There are two differences. 1. NPM is being actively exploited and IMHO remarkably often; some of the third parties that are blocked by this policy are known to be malevolent. 2. I'm afraid my familiarity with Windows is somewhat limited. As far as I know Notepad has no responsibility for carrying out any sort of access control. That it carries out no access control is somewhat irrelevant if it is not intended to do so in the first place.
  - candiodari 6y ago
    But you can firewall (in 10 different ways) notepad.exe. You control what notepad has access to. You can access anything notepad.exe can bypassing notepad.exe. You cannot effectively firewall your browser, because you don't control the backend. You cannot bypass the backend of a piece of cloud software. This is a generic problem with cloud software. Any cloud software has access to your data AND YOU DO NOT. To a certain extent it even has access to your data in other apps (e.g. getting your mail address). It's a way to (currently usually partially) transfer ownership of everything you make with software, and your own data from the user to the creator of the software. This obviously an extremely negative development in the long run, but people seem quite keen on just accepting it ...

notatoad 6y ago

no, the "unapproved software" accessing your data is third-party access. that's like the definition of third-party.