11 ms·

Controversial opinion: Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up: - Location data: you are asked and must app

Controversial opinion: Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up: - Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually and click "save for future use". Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.

siggen 6y ago
I am in agreement. You can choose not to log into Google from Chrome, for example. I don’t think Chrome misleads when it collects these specific information. Where it collects, it’s obvious— I didn’t see anything in the OP picture that was a surprise/hidden collection.
tinus_hn 6y ago
If you chose to allow Chrome to know your location, so it can show you on the map, do you consent to have your location tracked continuously and associated with your Google account?
- sp332 6y ago
  No, that's a setting in your Google account and not in the browser. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    That Q&A is very careful to avoid stating that location data is not sent to Google when "location history" is turned off. You really think that by flipping a switch on your account page, they are going to start discarding some of the data they are sent from client devices?
  - tesseract 6y ago
    But would people necessarily associate "I gave Chrome the OS-level location permission, so I could enable location on <non-Google website>" with Chrome itself tracking the location and connecting it to a Google account?
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    How do we know if turning off that setting actually does stop location tracking, considering what we know about Google's past history? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-location-tracking-android-iphone-mobile https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-lo...
    - tobasq 6y ago
      I have long ago turned all of Google's activity tracking preferences off and erased the existing activity, yet once in a while some Google service reveals to me that it knows something it shouldn't.
      - nofunsir 6y ago
        Same. Also, why must all the services attempt to guilt me into turning it back on?
      - stonesweep 6y ago
        Google Takeout is a good way to find out all the things you thought you deleted, but are still hanging around on their servers. Even stupid banner photos from PicasaWeb and G+ 8 years ago were buried in my Takeout that I had zero access to see or delete, but they were there (and probably still are).
- ricardbejarano 6y ago
  Fair point, I do believe we shouldn't live in a world where we have to continously watch what flags has our software enabled, but I guess I'm someone who's always alert (or at least that's what I tell myself). At this point, I think mine is more of a nihilism towards this as I cut everything at the only reliable level: the network. But even then, I've hammered myself way too much over privacy, and it didn't make me any happier, since, at the end of the day, if anyone wants to track you, they'll track you.
- technofiend 6y ago
  The interesting thing is the failure mode if you don't agree to continuous tracking. Google uses the last place it was allowed to track you to instead of allowing the user to specifically enable a location update for "near me" queries to maps or the assistant. It may not be meant as one but it feels like a dark pattern, particularly when you can tap an icon to update your position in maps but any "near me" requests still go back to the last tracked location.
  - sp332 6y ago
    It definitely is. You can't even set a "home" or "work" location without enabling continuous tracking.
    - what_ever 6y ago
      Yes, you can. I have location history disabled but I can route to home or work in Google Maps. Unless I am missing something. Disc: Googler.
      - sp332 6y ago
        Did this change recently? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070183
        what_ever 6y ago
        That link is 2.5 years old. Not sure when it changed but it's not the case right now AFAIK.
        llimos 6y ago
        No. I still can't use Home or Work. Maybe @google.com accounts have an exemption.
        freedom42 6y ago
        Does this work?: Enable it, then set home and work. Then disable it.
- random5634 6y ago
  It's actually annoying, you have to go turn on a setting somewhere. I've had a few folks frustrated with this, I think for most users if they give google access to their location they expect google will remember it.
- extropy 6y ago
  The linked image says "coarse location" for Chrome/Analytics. So this is not your GPS data but most likely IP based city/metro. Also it says "may" everywhere. AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too. From a technical POV this looks such a huge FUD that it's sad.
  - troyvit 6y ago
    > AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too. Except that DDG explicitly says they are not: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
    - ac29 6y ago
      The word "location" is nowhere in your link.
      - troyvit 6y ago
        Sure! But the page does say this: When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address. Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all. This is a very unusual practice, but we feel it is an important step to protect your privacy. If they don't store IP addresses then (I believe) they can't use wifi-router-based methods to find your location. Your browser also doesn't get a popup asking to give ddg your location. So yeah I stand by my link and my interpretation of it.
zepto 6y ago
Seems hard to make the argument to make that browsing history is harmless, given how often it is used in police investigations and court cases.
- ricardbejarano 6y ago
  I'd love to see some data to back your point. Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?
  - Solocomplex 6y ago
    This is very common knowledge. https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&type=o&order_by=score%20desc&stat_Precedential=on https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&typ...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - matheusmoreira 6y ago
      This is really interesting, thank you.
- dawnerd 6y ago
  All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way more often than I should.
  - ruined 6y ago
    it's cool that your life is perfect and free of danger. consider that you are an outlier
    - gowld 6y ago
      Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed by law enforcement due to their online data. The people that are at risk are outliers, and still worthy of concern.
duxup 6y ago
Sometimes I worry that after all the concerns about data collection, and even if most people would say they don't want to give up that data in a survey. But: When presented with a screen that's hiding a silly cat picture they would just instinctively would click "I agree" 99 times out of 100, and at that moment, and maybe most, they really don't care...
reaperducer 6y ago
Half the data Chrome collects is harmless If true, that still doesn't negate the other half that is not harmless. More importantly, how about I get to choose what I consider harmless, rather than having a Silicon Valley advertising agency do that for me? Also, there's no way of knowing what Google shoves into the "other" category. Sunlight disinfects, even in Mountain View.
- ricardbejarano 6y ago
  Fair enough. But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6 months ago, don't know how it performs now). There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point.
  - fooker 6y ago
    Chrome halves battery life on macs, compared to Safari. Clearly the fix is collecting even more performance data! :)
  - passivate 6y ago
    >There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point. That is not DDG's point at all. Their point is right in the linked tweet - "Spying on users has nothing to do with building a great web browser or search engine."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - EasyTiger_ 6y ago
    > Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life This is literally what Chrome does on a MacBook, the battery drain is insane
traspler 6y ago
For a first step these labels are okay but I would like for the developers to have to provide more details on the what/why/whatfor for all these points to settle exactly this dispute.
ericmay 6y ago
> Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) Now if only we could take away Apple's ability to create a walled-garden...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  If only we could take away customer's satisfaction with, and preference for a well maintained walled garden. Alternatively, if only people who don't like Apple's solutions would just go away and leave those of us who do alone.
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    And yet, people inside the walled garden want to interact with people outside the walled garden.
    - matheusmoreira 6y ago
      And when they can't get full compatibility, it literally causes the exclusion of those outside the walled garden: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411931
      - simonh 6y ago
        I don’t follow you. How would breaking the walled garden change that?
bassman9000 6y ago
Half the data Chrome collects is harmless Until it's not. Meaning, we don't know if there's a way yet to harm users, or we don't know if anyone is actually using it to harm users. If it's harmless, don't collect it.
- ricardbejarano 6y ago
  Chrome's the fastest browser on the market. That, along with some nice marketing strategy is what makes it the absolute market leader. The reason Chrome is so fast, is most likely thanks to the performance (harmless) data it collects. Firefox may be proud of not collecting as much data, but (at least on macOS) they spend twice the battery to render twice as slow. Not saying you shouldn't be able to choose what data you're collected (which, you are) but there are reasons (not necessarily evil) to get that data to the devs.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    what makes it the absolute market leader What makes it the absolute leader is the void left by a dismal IE, and a completely lost Firefox, a few years back. Today's lead is coasting. I don't know OSx, but perceived performance in Linux/Windows is not any better than today's Firefox/Chromium derivatives, if any at all. You keep saying "harmless", and keep missing the point. If you don't want data to be used against users, don't collect it. And use explicit opt-in for everything. This argument is like the classic _well, if you haven't made anything wrong, why do you care if the state collects that much info about you?_. The problem is not being harmless today. Is that, when the moment of being harmful come, then it's too late.
    - greggman3 6y ago
      Today's lead isn't remotely "coasting". All you have to do is read the list of new features added every release. If Chrome was coasting that list would be empty.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    "nice marketing strategy" is I think a fairly strong euphemism for the ways in which Google has its tentacles in absolutely everything. From Android to search to identity through a google account, gmail, and so on. The browser itself is trivial to separate from Google, which is why (completely ungoogled) Chromium exists, but to get yourself out of the Google services web is very, very, hard.
jjice 6y ago
I think a critical view is important to prevent further advancement in privacy violations. If we are all okay with Chrome now, they're likely to include more privacy violating data collection in the future. A critical view doesn't necessarily mean the product is bad (it's very good at its job), but it is important to understand how much of our data we're allowing to be collected, especially when the user approves of it mindlessly (we've all been there).
livre 6y ago
Location data is sent by default to the default search engine and there's no way to disable that unless you deny location permissions from the OS to Chrome. If you want to use a map and give permission only to that (Bing maps for example) you have to allow Chrome to gather location data which will also be sent to the default search engine (usually Google). There's only the illusion of choice there (you can change the default search engine and send location data somewhere else though).
- karinakarina 6y ago
  Or use a private search engine.
- JoBrad 6y ago
  Edge’s privacy report on the iOS App Store does not include location data.
passivate 6y ago
>Could it be better? Sure! Is there anything that _cant_ be better? I'm sure as engineers we can all come up with proposed improvements on pretty much anything. :) >But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad. The point (that DDG is making, paraphrased here) is spying on the user is not necessary to build a great browser/search engine. Do you disagree with that? I don't.
danShumway 6y ago
This is kind of deceptive. Approving location data to be saved or used during a web search is not the same thing as approving location data to be used for advertising and product personalization. Same with contact information, same with browser history, same with search history and unique IDs. Also, none of that data is harmless. > I think DDG is exaggerating here Google shouldn't be basing advertising off of individualized browser histories in the first place, I don't think it's an exaggeration to call that a massive privacy issue. It's a single category, but one that encompasses basically everything you do online. And while you can technically turn this off in Google settings, doing so will break a large number of Google products and features in other apps because Google ties access to browser histories and app data into other products in a way that is impossible to disentangle from normal functionality. Back when I used to use Google Maps, turning off location-based advertising disabled my ability to save locations. Like, I couldn't mark a place on the map as my home on my local device unless I gave Google permission to advertise to me based on my location. Every time I wanted to navigate there, I needed to type in the full address. Even weirder, turning off web history took away my ability to use voice commands with my contact list on Android phones. I couldn't tell my phone "call mom", because that feature required access to my search history. So this phrase "we're not that bad" creates this impression that Google isn't perfect but is still basically respecting privacy choices everywhere, and that any violations are just accidental -- when in reality trying to opt out of these systems is met with outright hostility from Google products, and giving an inch in any area is often interpreted by Google as permission to use that data in any way they see fit. The system is a lot deeper and more deliberate than the parent comment suggests.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Hence, the interpretation that the data should be usable as Google sees fit.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Wait, why do you say that? There's nothing inherent to the way that assistants work that mean that they need full access to everything in my life. Human beings are "AI complete", but when I go to the library and ask them to help me find a book, they don't demand that I show them my phone contacts first. Data access and intelligence are separate concepts. And Google's voice assistant could figure out what phone number I mean when I say "call mom" without doing anything involving AI at all, because I actually explicitly put that information into my address book in machine-readable, labeled fields. The assistant doesn't need to have an advanced AI to solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't need to look at my search history.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
freedom42 6y ago
Recently, Google shared data about Google Docs which led to an unnecessary arrest. "Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared details." https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-arrest-puts-privacy-of-all-google-india-users-in-doubt-1769772-2021-02-16 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...
- d1zzy 6y ago
  Was the shared data as a result of a lawful request? Any company would have to comply in that case.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Any company would have to comply with the data that they held, perhaps, which is precisely why this comes up when suggesting that perhaps they should have a little less data in the first place.
tomcooks 6y ago
Hot take: why the duck would you need all that info? Stick to the ducking results and show clearly marked ducking sponsored results based on search keyword, not the shadow avatar of me you're creating one "harmless" bs at a time.
redm 6y ago
I agree. The word "spying" is thrown around a bit loosely. I suspect most users are oblivious, but the information is there to see; the choices are there to make. That said, I have to make a conscious choice to avoid Google data collection wherever I can, but I still end up using many Google products. I was more accepting when data collected was silo'ed in individual Google services. Now that those barriers are down [1], it will probably take government intervention to re-isolate key platforms (like Chrome, Android, Youtube, Search, Ads, Maps, etc.) [1] https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-major-privacy-policy-and-no-one-really-noticed.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-major-...
solosoyokaze 6y ago
Under no circumstance do I want my browsing history being sent to a server. That's a pretty black and white issue being violated here. Extremely anti-user.
- greggman3 6y ago
  It's not remotely "anti-user". I want my browsing history sent to a server. I want that history available from all my devices. I suspect most users want that as well. I love it that on Chrome iOS I see history from my desktop Chrome. Even Firefox has this feature. Nothing "anti-user" about it
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    It's extremely anti-user. There is zero reason for this data to be passed unencrypted to Google, other than for them to spy on you. It would be trivial to implement syncing in a way that didn't expose all of your browsing habits to a spyware company. It's a complete violation of privacy.
Zelphyr 6y ago
Data collection like that is harmless until it isn't, and then there's no turning back. So, no, it's not harmless. I'm assuming by your use of the word "we're" that you work for Google?

siggen 6y ago

I am in agreement. You can choose not to log into Google from Chrome, for example. I don’t think Chrome misleads when it collects these specific information. Where it collects, it’s obvious— I didn’t see anything in the OP picture that was a surprise/hidden collection.

tinus_hn 6y ago

If you chose to allow Chrome to know your location, so it can show you on the map, do you consent to have your location tracked continuously and associated with your Google account?

sp332 6y ago
No, that's a setting in your Google account and not in the browser. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en
- nerdponx 6y ago
  That Q&A is very careful to avoid stating that location data is not sent to Google when "location history" is turned off. You really think that by flipping a switch on your account page, they are going to start discarding some of the data they are sent from client devices?
- tesseract 6y ago
  But would people necessarily associate "I gave Chrome the OS-level location permission, so I could enable location on <non-Google website>" with Chrome itself tracking the location and connecting it to a Google account?
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  How do we know if turning off that setting actually does stop location tracking, considering what we know about Google's past history? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-location-tracking-android-iphone-mobile https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-lo...
  - tobasq 6y ago
    I have long ago turned all of Google's activity tracking preferences off and erased the existing activity, yet once in a while some Google service reveals to me that it knows something it shouldn't.
    - nofunsir 6y ago
      Same. Also, why must all the services attempt to guilt me into turning it back on?
    - stonesweep 6y ago
      Google Takeout is a good way to find out all the things you thought you deleted, but are still hanging around on their servers. Even stupid banner photos from PicasaWeb and G+ 8 years ago were buried in my Takeout that I had zero access to see or delete, but they were there (and probably still are).
ricardbejarano 6y ago
Fair point, I do believe we shouldn't live in a world where we have to continously watch what flags has our software enabled, but I guess I'm someone who's always alert (or at least that's what I tell myself). At this point, I think mine is more of a nihilism towards this as I cut everything at the only reliable level: the network. But even then, I've hammered myself way too much over privacy, and it didn't make me any happier, since, at the end of the day, if anyone wants to track you, they'll track you.
technofiend 6y ago
The interesting thing is the failure mode if you don't agree to continuous tracking. Google uses the last place it was allowed to track you to instead of allowing the user to specifically enable a location update for "near me" queries to maps or the assistant. It may not be meant as one but it feels like a dark pattern, particularly when you can tap an icon to update your position in maps but any "near me" requests still go back to the last tracked location.
- sp332 6y ago
  It definitely is. You can't even set a "home" or "work" location without enabling continuous tracking.
  - what_ever 6y ago
    Yes, you can. I have location history disabled but I can route to home or work in Google Maps. Unless I am missing something. Disc: Googler.
    - sp332 6y ago
      Did this change recently? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070183
      - what_ever 6y ago
        That link is 2.5 years old. Not sure when it changed but it's not the case right now AFAIK.
      - llimos 6y ago
        No. I still can't use Home or Work. Maybe @google.com accounts have an exemption.
        freedom42 6y ago
        Does this work?: Enable it, then set home and work. Then disable it.
random5634 6y ago
It's actually annoying, you have to go turn on a setting somewhere. I've had a few folks frustrated with this, I think for most users if they give google access to their location they expect google will remember it.
extropy 6y ago
The linked image says "coarse location" for Chrome/Analytics. So this is not your GPS data but most likely IP based city/metro. Also it says "may" everywhere. AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too. From a technical POV this looks such a huge FUD that it's sad.
- troyvit 6y ago
  > AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too. Except that DDG explicitly says they are not: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
  - ac29 6y ago
    The word "location" is nowhere in your link.
    - troyvit 6y ago
      Sure! But the page does say this: When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address. Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all. This is a very unusual practice, but we feel it is an important step to protect your privacy. If they don't store IP addresses then (I believe) they can't use wifi-router-based methods to find your location. Your browser also doesn't get a popup asking to give ddg your location. So yeah I stand by my link and my interpretation of it.

zepto 6y ago

Seems hard to make the argument to make that browsing history is harmless, given how often it is used in police investigations and court cases.

ricardbejarano 6y ago
I'd love to see some data to back your point. Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?
- Solocomplex 6y ago
  This is very common knowledge. https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&type=o&order_by=score%20desc&stat_Precedential=on https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&typ...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    This is really interesting, thank you.
dawnerd 6y ago
All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way more often than I should.
- ruined 6y ago
  it's cool that your life is perfect and free of danger. consider that you are an outlier
  - gowld 6y ago
    Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed by law enforcement due to their online data. The people that are at risk are outliers, and still worthy of concern.

duxup 6y ago

Sometimes I worry that after all the concerns about data collection, and even if most people would say they don't want to give up that data in a survey. But: When presented with a screen that's hiding a silly cat picture they would just instinctively would click "I agree" 99 times out of 100, and at that moment, and maybe most, they really don't care...

reaperducer 6y ago

Half the data Chrome collects is harmless If true, that still doesn't negate the other half that is not harmless. More importantly, how about I get to choose what I consider harmless, rather than having a Silicon Valley advertising agency do that for me? Also, there's no way of knowing what Google shoves into the "other" category. Sunlight disinfects, even in Mountain View.

ricardbejarano 6y ago
Fair enough. But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6 months ago, don't know how it performs now). There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point.
- fooker 6y ago
  Chrome halves battery life on macs, compared to Safari. Clearly the fix is collecting even more performance data! :)
- passivate 6y ago
  >There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point. That is not DDG's point at all. Their point is right in the linked tweet - "Spying on users has nothing to do with building a great web browser or search engine."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- EasyTiger_ 6y ago
  > Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life This is literally what Chrome does on a MacBook, the battery drain is insane

traspler 6y ago

For a first step these labels are okay but I would like for the developers to have to provide more details on the what/why/whatfor for all these points to settle exactly this dispute.

ericmay 6y ago

> Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) Now if only we could take away Apple's ability to create a walled-garden...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
simonh 6y ago
If only we could take away customer's satisfaction with, and preference for a well maintained walled garden. Alternatively, if only people who don't like Apple's solutions would just go away and leave those of us who do alone.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  And yet, people inside the walled garden want to interact with people outside the walled garden.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    And when they can't get full compatibility, it literally causes the exclusion of those outside the walled garden: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411931
    - simonh 6y ago
      I don’t follow you. How would breaking the walled garden change that?

bassman9000 6y ago

Half the data Chrome collects is harmless Until it's not. Meaning, we don't know if there's a way yet to harm users, or we don't know if anyone is actually using it to harm users. If it's harmless, don't collect it.

ricardbejarano 6y ago
Chrome's the fastest browser on the market. That, along with some nice marketing strategy is what makes it the absolute market leader. The reason Chrome is so fast, is most likely thanks to the performance (harmless) data it collects. Firefox may be proud of not collecting as much data, but (at least on macOS) they spend twice the battery to render twice as slow. Not saying you shouldn't be able to choose what data you're collected (which, you are) but there are reasons (not necessarily evil) to get that data to the devs.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  what makes it the absolute market leader What makes it the absolute leader is the void left by a dismal IE, and a completely lost Firefox, a few years back. Today's lead is coasting. I don't know OSx, but perceived performance in Linux/Windows is not any better than today's Firefox/Chromium derivatives, if any at all. You keep saying "harmless", and keep missing the point. If you don't want data to be used against users, don't collect it. And use explicit opt-in for everything. This argument is like the classic _well, if you haven't made anything wrong, why do you care if the state collects that much info about you?_. The problem is not being harmless today. Is that, when the moment of being harmful come, then it's too late.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    Today's lead isn't remotely "coasting". All you have to do is read the list of new features added every release. If Chrome was coasting that list would be empty.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  "nice marketing strategy" is I think a fairly strong euphemism for the ways in which Google has its tentacles in absolutely everything. From Android to search to identity through a google account, gmail, and so on. The browser itself is trivial to separate from Google, which is why (completely ungoogled) Chromium exists, but to get yourself out of the Google services web is very, very, hard.

jjice 6y ago

I think a critical view is important to prevent further advancement in privacy violations. If we are all okay with Chrome now, they're likely to include more privacy violating data collection in the future. A critical view doesn't necessarily mean the product is bad (it's very good at its job), but it is important to understand how much of our data we're allowing to be collected, especially when the user approves of it mindlessly (we've all been there).

livre 6y ago

Location data is sent by default to the default search engine and there's no way to disable that unless you deny location permissions from the OS to Chrome. If you want to use a map and give permission only to that (Bing maps for example) you have to allow Chrome to gather location data which will also be sent to the default search engine (usually Google). There's only the illusion of choice there (you can change the default search engine and send location data somewhere else though).

karinakarina 6y ago
Or use a private search engine.
JoBrad 6y ago
Edge’s privacy report on the iOS App Store does not include location data.

passivate 6y ago

>Could it be better? Sure! Is there anything that _cant_ be better? I'm sure as engineers we can all come up with proposed improvements on pretty much anything. :) >But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad. The point (that DDG is making, paraphrased here) is spying on the user is not necessary to build a great browser/search engine. Do you disagree with that? I don't.

danShumway 6y ago

This is kind of deceptive. Approving location data to be saved or used during a web search is not the same thing as approving location data to be used for advertising and product personalization. Same with contact information, same with browser history, same with search history and unique IDs. Also, none of that data is harmless. > I think DDG is exaggerating here Google shouldn't be basing advertising off of individualized browser histories in the first place, I don't think it's an exaggeration to call that a massive privacy issue. It's a single category, but one that encompasses basically everything you do online. And while you can technically turn this off in Google settings, doing so will break a large number of Google products and features in other apps because Google ties access to browser histories and app data into other products in a way that is impossible to disentangle from normal functionality. Back when I used to use Google Maps, turning off location-based advertising disabled my ability to save locations. Like, I couldn't mark a place on the map as my home on my local device unless I gave Google permission to advertise to me based on my location. Every time I wanted to navigate there, I needed to type in the full address. Even weirder, turning off web history took away my ability to use voice commands with my contact list on Android phones. I couldn't tell my phone "call mom", because that feature required access to my search history. So this phrase "we're not that bad" creates this impression that Google isn't perfect but is still basically respecting privacy choices everywhere, and that any violations are just accidental -- when in reality trying to opt out of these systems is met with outright hostility from Google products, and giving an inch in any area is often interpreted by Google as permission to use that data in any way they see fit. The system is a lot deeper and more deliberate than the parent comment suggests.

shadowgovt 6y ago
It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Hence, the interpretation that the data should be usable as Google sees fit.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > It turns out, solving the problem of being an assistant device approaches the "AI complete" boundary, and the set of data interconnections needed approaches "arbitrary." Wait, why do you say that? There's nothing inherent to the way that assistants work that mean that they need full access to everything in my life. Human beings are "AI complete", but when I go to the library and ask them to help me find a book, they don't demand that I show them my phone contacts first. Data access and intelligence are separate concepts. And Google's voice assistant could figure out what phone number I mean when I say "call mom" without doing anything involving AI at all, because I actually explicitly put that information into my address book in machine-readable, labeled fields. The assistant doesn't need to have an advanced AI to solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't need to look at my search history.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

freedom42 6y ago

Recently, Google shared data about Google Docs which led to an unnecessary arrest. "Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared details." https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-arrest-puts-privacy-of-all-google-india-users-in-doubt-1769772-2021-02-16 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...

d1zzy 6y ago
Was the shared data as a result of a lawful request? Any company would have to comply in that case.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Any company would have to comply with the data that they held, perhaps, which is precisely why this comes up when suggesting that perhaps they should have a little less data in the first place.

tomcooks 6y ago

Hot take: why the duck would you need all that info? Stick to the ducking results and show clearly marked ducking sponsored results based on search keyword, not the shadow avatar of me you're creating one "harmless" bs at a time.

redm 6y ago

I agree. The word "spying" is thrown around a bit loosely. I suspect most users are oblivious, but the information is there to see; the choices are there to make. That said, I have to make a conscious choice to avoid Google data collection wherever I can, but I still end up using many Google products. I was more accepting when data collected was silo'ed in individual Google services. Now that those barriers are down [1], it will probably take government intervention to re-isolate key platforms (like Chrome, Android, Youtube, Search, Ads, Maps, etc.) [1] https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-major-privacy-policy-and-no-one-really-noticed.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-major-...

solosoyokaze 6y ago

Under no circumstance do I want my browsing history being sent to a server. That's a pretty black and white issue being violated here. Extremely anti-user.

greggman3 6y ago
It's not remotely "anti-user". I want my browsing history sent to a server. I want that history available from all my devices. I suspect most users want that as well. I love it that on Chrome iOS I see history from my desktop Chrome. Even Firefox has this feature. Nothing "anti-user" about it
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  It's extremely anti-user. There is zero reason for this data to be passed unencrypted to Google, other than for them to spy on you. It would be trivial to implement syncing in a way that didn't expose all of your browsing habits to a spyware company. It's a complete violation of privacy.

Zelphyr 6y ago

Data collection like that is harmless until it isn't, and then there's no turning back. So, no, it's not harmless. I'm assuming by your use of the word "we're" that you work for Google?