4 ms·

The fact that they STILL don't see how this constant surveillance could backfire any day is beyond me! What if a country like the UAE or Hungary start asking f

The fact that they STILL don't see how this constant surveillance could backfire any day is beyond me! What if a country like the UAE or Hungary start asking for location data matching LGBTQ events or locations? How about political/media headquarters location data? At what point will they realize that surveillance data is radioactive, and manually patching categories will leave people at risk?

turdit 4y ago
seizethegdgap 4y ago
What makes you think countries like UAE or Hungary haven't already asked Google for this information?
- Raed667 4y ago
  I didn't want to turn my comment in a did they already or didn't they debate. The fact that this data COULD be asked for should be enough to stop collecting it.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Honestly, Google doesn't have the luxury of that shortcut thinking. It's very "if man were meant to fly he'd have been born with wings" reasoning. The amount of good enabled by data collection far often outweighs the bad. Better to collect, use for benefit, and protect than to just say "This area of technology is forbidden to mankind." Besides, it doesn't solve the problem; countries can do their own data collection without Google.
    - kornhole 4y ago
      Good for whom? It has surely been good for those who are collecting and distilling the data, but we can say the same for those being watched, manipulated, and worse.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Here's a small set of technologies that benefit the end user that are powered by data aggregation: Gmail spam filtering, Maps business data, Maps traffic signal, Google voice recognition (basically the entire technology stack, which was piggybacked off of analysis of samples from Google 411 and continues to be refined by analysis of audio snippets from corner cases where the technology fails), search (obviously, it is just a scraper pointed at the web), Google voice spam number identification (crowdsourced signal), Google Translate, Google image search, and of course the ad products that pay for a not-insignificant portion of the sites available on the internet, without which a significant chunk of the internet would go dark unless it was beholden to other monied interests. Big Data from large user numbers enabled the creation of technologies that had not been possible before at the level of quality that they are now possible. I don't think a lot of people fully wrap their heads around how big data analysis enabled the internet that we know today.
        kornhole 4y ago
        Agreed that big data aggregation can do quite a bit and aid some features. I work with it myself except in operational rather than personal data. Some benefits accrue to consumers, but most go to the holders of the data. Most if not all of these features you mention are accomplished by other companies without the collection of personal data and the many accompanying problems such as creating this surveillance state. People are making decisions about the products they buy and use based on how they are made and choosing the ethically produced products. If I have a choice in buying something that was produced ethically or not, I almost always buy the one made ethically even if it might cost a little more or be of lower quality.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        > Most if not all of these features you mention are accomplished by other companies without the collection of personal data and the many accompanying problems such as creating this surveillance state. How many are as good, and how many are boot-strapped or piggybacked off of datasets that started as big data analysis and were eventually published? I'm not personally of the opinion that big data analysis is unethical; I think broadly speaking, it's been win-win. Companies collecting the data obviously benefit, and users also benefit because their data, aggregated with the data of others, enables utility for them that they would not have gotten alone. Was a time we called collective action where people generally benefited a good thing, and novel analysis of available data to draw new conclusions "research," not "unethical."
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      I don't think arguments of the form "If I wasn't doing it someone else would be" are very persuasive. Especially given that in all likelihood Google is much better at it than them.
was_a_dev 4y ago
Some US states would be interested as well
mupuff1234 4y ago
Just because something could potentially backfire doesn't mean you have to avoid it, but you should have a contingency plan in place.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Our industry desperately needs help with ethics
- Raed667 4y ago
  Deleting data that was just requested by law enforcement will get you in a world of trouble. I guess you could close shop and leave that specific market, but that's not feasible everywhere.
  - mupuff1234 4y ago
    Well if it gets to the point that the government is going after basic human rights then I think we're already past the point of avoiding a world of trouble. But for the specific scenarios you mentioned, I don't see what the Hungarian government for example can do beyond just ban Google's services.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      That point is reached far more often than many people imagine, and often far closer to home than they imagine, because human rights abuses are typically incremental and selective rather than universal and ubiquitous. If you look book at the the canonical bad exemplar of nazi Germany, hindsight leads people to conceive of it as a juggernaut-like attack on all jews, communists, homosexuals etc., but in reality it was a scattered and uneven aggression over a 12 year period whose aggregate effect was massively genocidal. Huge unstoppable genocidal actions that are highly coordinated and happen over a very short timeframe do exist, eg the Turkish genocide of Armenians or the Hutu genocide of Tutsi people in Rwanda. But I believe they're atypical in modern history compared to incremental genocides. The latter can end up being worse because they're easier to deny, dismiss, or ignore as abuses accumulate. In the specific example, an authoritarian government could not only ban the product but arrest corporate officers/employees; if there are none in that country, it could arrest people attempting to use the prohibited product, or create fake access portals that were actually honey traps.
shadowgovt 4y ago
> What if a country like the UAE or Hungary start asking for location data matching LGBTQ events or locations? Then as an American company, Google will generally tell them to pound sand unless the country invokes right to do business, at which point Google gets to do a fun calculus on whether that country's business is worth compliance. They pulled out of China once over such calculus.
- Raed667 4y ago
  Amazon seems to have done that calculus recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31929957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31929957
imiric 4y ago
Why would they intentionally sabotage their profits? They're acting in the interest of the company. Any concern for the user stops at the doors of the PR department. They're doing their best to fight off governments from snooping around in their business, but ultimately this will require regulation if we ever want it to stop. It's just a shame that governments are kind of interested in the same data these companies have, so there's really no incentive for anyone to change things. We're living in Orwellian times.
- kornhole 4y ago
  Or Ohwellian: When someone realizes they live in a dystopian world and just says oh well.
- paintman252 4y ago
  "We're living in Orwellian times." lol talk about hyperbole. Please actually read 1984 and get back to me

turdit 4y ago

seizethegdgap 4y ago

What makes you think countries like UAE or Hungary haven't already asked Google for this information?

Raed667 4y ago
I didn't want to turn my comment in a did they already or didn't they debate. The fact that this data COULD be asked for should be enough to stop collecting it.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Honestly, Google doesn't have the luxury of that shortcut thinking. It's very "if man were meant to fly he'd have been born with wings" reasoning. The amount of good enabled by data collection far often outweighs the bad. Better to collect, use for benefit, and protect than to just say "This area of technology is forbidden to mankind." Besides, it doesn't solve the problem; countries can do their own data collection without Google.
  - kornhole 4y ago
    Good for whom? It has surely been good for those who are collecting and distilling the data, but we can say the same for those being watched, manipulated, and worse.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Here's a small set of technologies that benefit the end user that are powered by data aggregation: Gmail spam filtering, Maps business data, Maps traffic signal, Google voice recognition (basically the entire technology stack, which was piggybacked off of analysis of samples from Google 411 and continues to be refined by analysis of audio snippets from corner cases where the technology fails), search (obviously, it is just a scraper pointed at the web), Google voice spam number identification (crowdsourced signal), Google Translate, Google image search, and of course the ad products that pay for a not-insignificant portion of the sites available on the internet, without which a significant chunk of the internet would go dark unless it was beholden to other monied interests. Big Data from large user numbers enabled the creation of technologies that had not been possible before at the level of quality that they are now possible. I don't think a lot of people fully wrap their heads around how big data analysis enabled the internet that we know today.
      - kornhole 4y ago
        Agreed that big data aggregation can do quite a bit and aid some features. I work with it myself except in operational rather than personal data. Some benefits accrue to consumers, but most go to the holders of the data. Most if not all of these features you mention are accomplished by other companies without the collection of personal data and the many accompanying problems such as creating this surveillance state. People are making decisions about the products they buy and use based on how they are made and choosing the ethically produced products. If I have a choice in buying something that was produced ethically or not, I almost always buy the one made ethically even if it might cost a little more or be of lower quality.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        > Most if not all of these features you mention are accomplished by other companies without the collection of personal data and the many accompanying problems such as creating this surveillance state. How many are as good, and how many are boot-strapped or piggybacked off of datasets that started as big data analysis and were eventually published? I'm not personally of the opinion that big data analysis is unethical; I think broadly speaking, it's been win-win. Companies collecting the data obviously benefit, and users also benefit because their data, aggregated with the data of others, enables utility for them that they would not have gotten alone. Was a time we called collective action where people generally benefited a good thing, and novel analysis of available data to draw new conclusions "research," not "unethical."
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    I don't think arguments of the form "If I wasn't doing it someone else would be" are very persuasive. Especially given that in all likelihood Google is much better at it than them.

was_a_dev 4y ago

Some US states would be interested as well

mupuff1234 4y ago

Just because something could potentially backfire doesn't mean you have to avoid it, but you should have a contingency plan in place.

candiddevmike 4y ago
Our industry desperately needs help with ethics
Raed667 4y ago
Deleting data that was just requested by law enforcement will get you in a world of trouble. I guess you could close shop and leave that specific market, but that's not feasible everywhere.
- mupuff1234 4y ago
  Well if it gets to the point that the government is going after basic human rights then I think we're already past the point of avoiding a world of trouble. But for the specific scenarios you mentioned, I don't see what the Hungarian government for example can do beyond just ban Google's services.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    That point is reached far more often than many people imagine, and often far closer to home than they imagine, because human rights abuses are typically incremental and selective rather than universal and ubiquitous. If you look book at the the canonical bad exemplar of nazi Germany, hindsight leads people to conceive of it as a juggernaut-like attack on all jews, communists, homosexuals etc., but in reality it was a scattered and uneven aggression over a 12 year period whose aggregate effect was massively genocidal. Huge unstoppable genocidal actions that are highly coordinated and happen over a very short timeframe do exist, eg the Turkish genocide of Armenians or the Hutu genocide of Tutsi people in Rwanda. But I believe they're atypical in modern history compared to incremental genocides. The latter can end up being worse because they're easier to deny, dismiss, or ignore as abuses accumulate. In the specific example, an authoritarian government could not only ban the product but arrest corporate officers/employees; if there are none in that country, it could arrest people attempting to use the prohibited product, or create fake access portals that were actually honey traps.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> What if a country like the UAE or Hungary start asking for location data matching LGBTQ events or locations? Then as an American company, Google will generally tell them to pound sand unless the country invokes right to do business, at which point Google gets to do a fun calculus on whether that country's business is worth compliance. They pulled out of China once over such calculus.

Raed667 4y ago
Amazon seems to have done that calculus recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31929957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31929957

imiric 4y ago

Why would they intentionally sabotage their profits? They're acting in the interest of the company. Any concern for the user stops at the doors of the PR department. They're doing their best to fight off governments from snooping around in their business, but ultimately this will require regulation if we ever want it to stop. It's just a shame that governments are kind of interested in the same data these companies have, so there's really no incentive for anyone to change things. We're living in Orwellian times.

kornhole 4y ago
Or Ohwellian: When someone realizes they live in a dystopian world and just says oh well.
paintman252 4y ago
"We're living in Orwellian times." lol talk about hyperbole. Please actually read 1984 and get back to me