5 ms·

How do you know they don't feed it into an ML system before they delete it? That lets them "not save it" while reaping the benefits of saving it.

charcircuit 5y ago
If it's deleted, then why would you care? It no longer has anything to do with you.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  If they have trained an ML system on it, they have acquired and exploited info about your private behaviour even if it is anonymized. So it is an invasion. The trope "not personally identifiable => not invasive" is self-serving and a non-sequitur and needs to die.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Why do you care that Google's improved one of their ML systems. Are you a competitor to them. It doesn't seem very nice to be against others improving their services.
    - ectopod 5y ago
      A few years ago the NHS gave a load of confidential patient data to an insurance company to train their models. They claimed that it wasn't a problem because the data was deleted after training. However, nobody knows (publicly) what kind of model it was. If they overfitted the data then when you ask for an insurance quote based on say, date of birth and postcode, the quote will be based on your actual medical details rather than on broader statistics. The result is no different from them having explicit access to your medical records before giving a quote, which is not permitted. It is easy to build an ML system which for most queries provides the same answer as having access to the original data.
    - jjj123 5y ago
      I have no interest in helping a trillion dollar company beyond the bare minimum to access the services I need. I’d rather they figure out how to improve their services with more ethical (and controllable!) privacy practices.
    - throwaway81523 5y ago
      You are changing the subject. If they are observing my private behaviour without my consent, I don't care what they are doing with the info. I want them to stop no matter what they are doing with it.

charcircuit 5y ago

If it's deleted, then why would you care? It no longer has anything to do with you.

throwaway81523 5y ago
If they have trained an ML system on it, they have acquired and exploited info about your private behaviour even if it is anonymized. So it is an invasion. The trope "not personally identifiable => not invasive" is self-serving and a non-sequitur and needs to die.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Why do you care that Google's improved one of their ML systems. Are you a competitor to them. It doesn't seem very nice to be against others improving their services.
  - ectopod 5y ago
    A few years ago the NHS gave a load of confidential patient data to an insurance company to train their models. They claimed that it wasn't a problem because the data was deleted after training. However, nobody knows (publicly) what kind of model it was. If they overfitted the data then when you ask for an insurance quote based on say, date of birth and postcode, the quote will be based on your actual medical details rather than on broader statistics. The result is no different from them having explicit access to your medical records before giving a quote, which is not permitted. It is easy to build an ML system which for most queries provides the same answer as having access to the original data.
  - jjj123 5y ago
    I have no interest in helping a trillion dollar company beyond the bare minimum to access the services I need. I’d rather they figure out how to improve their services with more ethical (and controllable!) privacy practices.
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    You are changing the subject. If they are observing my private behaviour without my consent, I don't care what they are doing with the info. I want them to stop no matter what they are doing with it.