5 ms·
What a read. Almost every single paragraph in the document leaves me speechless. For example, quoting from the document: "Google likes to claim that it will “n
by triska 5y ago
What a read. Almost every single paragraph in the document leaves me speechless. For example, quoting from the document:
"Google likes to claim that it will “never sell your personal information to anyone,” with Google CEO Sundar Pichai deceptively claiming that such a policy is “unequivocal.” But Google leverages intimate user data and personal information to broker billions of daily online ad impressions between publishers and advertisers that target individual users based almost entirely on their personal information. Internal documents confirm that Google knows its users are deceived by its misrepresentations, even as it reaps billions from ads that use personal data to target those users. In Orwellian terms, it’s a beautiful thing for Google, the destruction of words like “sell” and “personal.”"
Or:
"Google presents a public image of caring about privacy, but behind the scenes Google coordinates closely with the Big Tech companies to lobby the government to delay or destroy measures that would actually protect users’ privacy. Of course, effective competition is concerned with both price and quality, and the fact that Google coordinates with its competitors on the quality metric of privacy—one might call it privacy fixing—underscores Google’s selective promotion of privacy concerns only when doing so facilitates its efforts to exclude competition."
- arlcode 5y agoI always tell people that it would be against Googles interest to sell your data. Their deception is working exceptionally well and it's not even a lie. After all there is much more money made in selling your attention repeatedly then there is in selling you data once.
- bawolff 5y agoI don't think the first one is a bombshell. It was always clear google was using personal data to target ads.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe first one helps to discredit the litigation. The paragraph’s first sentence is supposed to insinuate that Google is lying about not selling people’s data, and the rest of the paragraph says that Google is not selling data. And then the last sentence makes a completely false claim using popular buzzwords. What was the point of the paragraph, other than to invoke unnecessary emotions for no reason?
- Jyaif 5y agoThe jurors (your average american) won't notice that the first paragraph contains no content.
- ehnto 5y agoIs it worth considering then that maybe they would still be right to be shocked? It suggests that while technically not correct to say they sell the personal data, it may be an immaterial nuance because the negative effect is still the same. Third party publishers can use your personal data, through Google, to target you. That they don't get to see the data is irrelevant to that revelation. The nuance of implementation that makes this technically not a violation of privacy is no secret to those in tech, but I doubt the average American would care.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoHow is it not a material nuance? An individual’s data is not leaving Google’s computers. Is anyone harmed or anyone’s privacy violated even an ad buyer is allowed to choose to restrict ads to ad recipients likely to have certain characteristics?
- ehnto 5y agoIt's immaterial because the result of using the data is the same, the advertiser doesn't actually want my name and email, they just want to use information about me to target me better. Imagine instead of web advertising, it were phone calls. A random bicycle company calls you up one day and says, Hey Buddy, we know you were in a bicycle accident recently, we have a deal on new bicycles right now! You ask them where they got your number and how they know you were in an accident, and they say they don't actually know your number, they just bought the phonecall. It's immaterial that they don't know your phone number, because they're using it and information about you in order to influence you anyway. That's the web advertising apparatus right now. Users are unaware of how much information about themselves they give up, and advertisers are happy to use that information to sell you stuff when you're most willing to buy it. I personally find that manipulative and unethical, and I believe if it were outlined to the general public then they would also be pretty disgusted with the behavior. I won't dispute that an actual privacy violation would be much worse, since a malicious actor can do more than advertise with real user data, but that doesn't make this scenario good either. For this particular purpose I don't think it matters if they have the real data or not.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> Internal documents confirm that Google knows its users are deceived by its misrepresentations Yeah. These silly terms of service mean nothing to anyone. Even Google knows this! Almost nobody reads them. Those who do, won't understand them. Who can really consent to all this surveillance under these circumstances? This is NOT a deal between equal parties, the user is severely disadvantaged. People click the checkbox because it won't let them create an account otherwise. They don't have a choice. Courts should just invalidate the contracts and start treating Google as if nobody consented to its exploitation. Apply heavy fines for every single user wronged.
- einpoklum 5y ago> In Orwellian terms, it’s a beautiful thing for Google, the destruction of words like “sell” and “personal.”" Disagree with the claim here. Certainly, Google is utilizing your personal information against you, but: 1. That's certainly not selling your personal info. 2. To make this argument, US states must concede that active commercial advertising has an aspect of harm and manipulation. I doubt any of them are actually willing to go ahead and adopt that position consistently. Having said that... when we read Google's claim that > it will “never sell your personal information to anyone” let's also not forget that it's quite willing to give it for free to the US government, in bulk and forever.
- ehnto 5y agoTechnically not sharing your user data, I would suggest that in practical terms it is selling the use of your personal data. It's a nuance that may not matter in the publics eyes, which I frankly agree with. So if we may agree that it is exploitive but not technically illegal, then I think we can reason that we are the edge of what is right to do and it's time to consider how to make the exploitive thing illegal.
- waterloosong 5y agoThe writer of the doc sports a quill of unbearable lightness: it is very much an Orwellian thing, to stretch selling something to include using the knowledge of that thing in marketing something else.