49 ms·

It does seem likely that Google will pay to store every bit of encrypted customer data that is currently stored forever because potentially decades from now it

It does seem likely that Google will pay to store every bit of encrypted customer data that is currently stored forever because potentially decades from now it could be cracked and they could access all that amazing ancient private information.

erhk 5y ago
Google spends way too much money building consumer and corporate trust to attempt to cash it in for data they already have the majority of.
exitheone 5y ago
This sentiment seems so weird to me. Can you point to a single enterprise offering where Google is collecting data and using it themselves? Or where it would even make sense to do so? Corporate customers pay a lot more per byte than the fleeting value of private data so Google has a strong incentive to never ever touch that data.
- Closi 5y ago
  I don’t agree with the original point, but there is no doubt lots of telemetry in the cloud.
  - nl 5y ago
    Telemetry (ie usage data) is very very different the data being stored itself.
- SilverRed 5y ago
  Peter's comment comes off as satire to me. A joke about how absurd it would be for google to store 8 exabytes of data for decades because it might one day be useful.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Because it might one day be useful for.. targeting ads? I can almost see the abuse potential, the ads "I know what you did the summer of 1997" will turn us all into mind controlled consumer drones. (those of us who are old enough)
  - hulitu 5y ago
    For them, maybe not. But maybe you heard that there are some agencies which are interested.
- mda 5y ago
  I think it was a satirical comment.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    When it comes to posts about Google, Poe’s law operates in full force.
remus 5y ago
I don't think that is really the point that was being made. As you say the practical chances of google storing this data for x years, then committing corporate suicide by decrypting it is are miniscule (and presumably apple agrees). The point is that there are layers of security, and by moving the data outside of their physical control apple has given up one of those layers of security.
- VortexDream 5y ago
  I'm not sure why people are are thinking in such a limited fashion. Google is effectively holding onto the data for the US government or whoever else has the capability to access all that data in the future. This is the kind of stuff authoritarian governments dream about. And I'm not saying Google is doing it intentionally, just that they're holding onto the data at all and at some point there will be somebody who will make use of that data.
  - remus 5y ago
    If that is the argument, does it matter whether it is Apple or Google who is holding the physical data? Apple and Google are both based in the US and beholden to the US government, so from the government's perspective it's just a change of address when they send out a warrant.
    - paganel 5y ago
      > does it matter whether it is Apple or Google who is holding the physical data? It might matter, yes. A company run by a guy like Eric Schmidt is a lot more likely to play nice with the US government when it comes to privacy compared to a company run by a guy like Cook, who from the outside seems obsessed with user-privacy (as long as China isn't directly involved).
      - ahmedfromtunis 5y ago
        Didn't Schmidt retire as CEO 10 years ago (and 3 years ago as chairman)? Isn't now a Pichai-run company?
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
It still puzzles me that people just can't understand the the huge chasm between storing and using peoples data from their own products and stealing data from other companies thats stored on your systems in the hope that one day it can be decrypted and used to improve ads. Google is a huge company, the idea that it would set out to do something that everyone involved in would know is directly breaking the law (rather than doing something thats a grey area, or they know is legal but 'unethical' or could become a PR issue, or destroy trust in them and destroy their product) is fairly unbelievable. This comes up again and again with stories about Google and (particularly) AWS cloud computing. I hope for better on HN!
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  I mean, there’s these posts on Hacker News claiming to be from former AWS employees saying they stole customer data to launch competing services: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929959 There’s also mainstream reporting that Amazon employees used retail sales data to launch competing products: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its-own-sellers-to-launch-competing-products-11587650015 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its... Maybe the first story is fake and the second is real… but they both point to a “win at all costs” company culture where policies might be violated, even if it threatens trust in the platform and a PR problem when exposed.
  - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
    But those cases are very different too (I’m not trying to defend what they did). Talking to a startup then copying their product is douchy but not illegal. Using Amazon.com sales data is like looking at the public “top products in electronics” and selling your own version of the top sellers - I imagine all large retailers do something similar when deciding what products to make own versions of. Hacking computers, networks, or services of your competitors, even when running in you data center is just bad business.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
mackrevinack 5y ago
its it really going to be 'amazing' if the information is a decade or more old?
spookthesunset 5y ago
I mean google is full of employees who threatened to walk out when their employer wanted government defense contracts. Pretty sure google would get a ton of internal pushback if a team wanted to do what you describe. Google employs the same standard issue tech person you see here on HN.

erhk 5y ago

Google spends way too much money building consumer and corporate trust to attempt to cash it in for data they already have the majority of.

exitheone 5y ago

This sentiment seems so weird to me. Can you point to a single enterprise offering where Google is collecting data and using it themselves? Or where it would even make sense to do so? Corporate customers pay a lot more per byte than the fleeting value of private data so Google has a strong incentive to never ever touch that data.

Closi 5y ago
I don’t agree with the original point, but there is no doubt lots of telemetry in the cloud.
- nl 5y ago
  Telemetry (ie usage data) is very very different the data being stored itself.
SilverRed 5y ago
Peter's comment comes off as satire to me. A joke about how absurd it would be for google to store 8 exabytes of data for decades because it might one day be useful.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Because it might one day be useful for.. targeting ads? I can almost see the abuse potential, the ads "I know what you did the summer of 1997" will turn us all into mind controlled consumer drones. (those of us who are old enough)
- hulitu 5y ago
  For them, maybe not. But maybe you heard that there are some agencies which are interested.
mda 5y ago
I think it was a satirical comment.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  When it comes to posts about Google, Poe’s law operates in full force.

remus 5y ago

I don't think that is really the point that was being made. As you say the practical chances of google storing this data for x years, then committing corporate suicide by decrypting it is are miniscule (and presumably apple agrees). The point is that there are layers of security, and by moving the data outside of their physical control apple has given up one of those layers of security.

VortexDream 5y ago
I'm not sure why people are are thinking in such a limited fashion. Google is effectively holding onto the data for the US government or whoever else has the capability to access all that data in the future. This is the kind of stuff authoritarian governments dream about. And I'm not saying Google is doing it intentionally, just that they're holding onto the data at all and at some point there will be somebody who will make use of that data.
- remus 5y ago
  If that is the argument, does it matter whether it is Apple or Google who is holding the physical data? Apple and Google are both based in the US and beholden to the US government, so from the government's perspective it's just a change of address when they send out a warrant.
  - paganel 5y ago
    > does it matter whether it is Apple or Google who is holding the physical data? It might matter, yes. A company run by a guy like Eric Schmidt is a lot more likely to play nice with the US government when it comes to privacy compared to a company run by a guy like Cook, who from the outside seems obsessed with user-privacy (as long as China isn't directly involved).
    - ahmedfromtunis 5y ago
      Didn't Schmidt retire as CEO 10 years ago (and 3 years ago as chairman)? Isn't now a Pichai-run company?

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

It still puzzles me that people just can't understand the the huge chasm between storing and using peoples data from their own products and stealing data from other companies thats stored on your systems in the hope that one day it can be decrypted and used to improve ads. Google is a huge company, the idea that it would set out to do something that everyone involved in would know is directly breaking the law (rather than doing something thats a grey area, or they know is legal but 'unethical' or could become a PR issue, or destroy trust in them and destroy their product) is fairly unbelievable. This comes up again and again with stories about Google and (particularly) AWS cloud computing. I hope for better on HN!

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
I mean, there’s these posts on Hacker News claiming to be from former AWS employees saying they stole customer data to launch competing services: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929959 There’s also mainstream reporting that Amazon employees used retail sales data to launch competing products: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its-own-sellers-to-launch-competing-products-11587650015 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-scooped-up-data-from-its... Maybe the first story is fake and the second is real… but they both point to a “win at all costs” company culture where policies might be violated, even if it threatens trust in the platform and a PR problem when exposed.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  But those cases are very different too (I’m not trying to defend what they did). Talking to a startup then copying their product is douchy but not illegal. Using Amazon.com sales data is like looking at the public “top products in electronics” and selling your own version of the top sellers - I imagine all large retailers do something similar when deciding what products to make own versions of. Hacking computers, networks, or services of your competitors, even when running in you data center is just bad business.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

mackrevinack 5y ago

its it really going to be 'amazing' if the information is a decade or more old?

spookthesunset 5y ago

I mean google is full of employees who threatened to walk out when their employer wanted government defense contracts. Pretty sure google would get a ton of internal pushback if a team wanted to do what you describe. Google employs the same standard issue tech person you see here on HN.