4 ms·
Again, my comment about "no one" was in the context of ads personalization, as in "no other part of google that might want to consume the model for broader use"
by mattzito 5y ago
Again, my comment about "no one" was in the context of ads personalization, as in "no other part of google that might want to consume the model for broader use".
If we are going to do "threat modeling", we should also talk about the risk of nation state actors penetrating Google, or compromising your browser and getting access to your gmail that way. Or an accidental bug that changes everyone's password to be 12345. Yes, or the federal government could subpoena it.
Lots of things could be true and possible, but none of them are relevant in a discussion that's about the _internally permitted use of data within google_.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoThey are relevant in a discussion that's about the data flow from when Google gets data. As a Googler, the distinction between the two might feel very different, but as a user, I don't care whose fault it is, or what's technically going on in the legal description of Google's corporate structure; I didn't even notice the distinction between the two conversations (and assumed you were having the one I mentioned) until you pointed it out.