18 ms·

Okay, Google: To protect women, collect less data about everyone

270 points by johndfsgdgdfg 4y ago

29athrowaway 4y ago
If you want to know what a privacy dystopia looks like, check the Yandex search engine (from Russia), where you can do reverse image search with face detection. Google anonymizes reverse image search with people in them. You get generic results like "person in t-shirt".
- nullc 4y ago
  Google hides the lost of existing privacy and makes tools that expose it only available to corporations, states, and insiders-- for good and bad uses. In this case, yandex is exposing the loss of privacy and making the tools to benefit from its beneficial use available to everyone. Hiding the loss of privacy makes it harder to resist, it doesn't make it go away.
newaccount2021 4y ago
classified 4y ago
Asking Google to collect less data is like asking a hog to eat less. Not gonna happen.
AinderS 4y ago
> Google provides useful products, and in exchange we might be targeted with annoying ads. Big whoop. Until now. Enter a cage willingly, with barely any complaint, for minor convenience, then cry when you're taken to the slaughterhouse. It's sad that despite all the warnings, people are so myopic and apathetic that it takes something this big and obvious to make them react. And despite this, they remain willfully blind to other threats, that are smart enough to stay below the threshold: https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/censorship-by-algorithm-does-far https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/censorship-by-algori... > Four ways to build civil rights into Google products A laughable chapter of the article, void of any actually effective suggestions, such as compelling Google properties to stop blocking the Tor network (duckduckgo and yandex allow Tor), or using free software that is actually under the user's control. The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. That's why they want to build "civil rights" into products, and not "user freedom". That's why they get comments from an establishment Harvard professor, and not the FSF.
- titzer 4y ago
  This sounds a little like the incremental addiction to fossil fuels the world has developed. It's "the market" and "blame consumers" when we know damn well that consumers don't choose fuel sources and consumers didn't grease the palms of legislators and regulators for more than a century.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    You make a good point. I can see how my post could be interpreted as blaming regular consumers for the mess we're in. And while consumer apathy and ignorance disgust me, you are correct, journalists and media that are supposed to be guiding us should shoulder the majority of the blame. I would blame Google, but that's like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house. Edit: See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390) about this analogy "excusing" Google/the fox.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Journalism bears some responsibility (insofar as it’s become addicted to cheap social media traffic and digital ad revenue), but I think the context doesn’t justify disproportionate blame. In particular: social media companies understood, very early on, that they could use their position to squeeze traditional media by cutting into its advertising. It was a classic industrial takeover, including the incumbent’s mockery of the newcomer until it was too late. They probably deserve some blame for not seeing how the wind was blowing, and reacting accordingly. But I would place more blame on digital ad markets and all of the perverse incentives associated with them, all of which originate somewhere in the grimy junction between VCs and traditional advertising.
    - mewse 4y ago
      But the journalists too are just following the incentives that are provided to them. Don’t they deserve some of that “but that’s like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house” blanket pardon you’re handing out, here?
olalonde 4y ago
It seems more reasonable solutions already exist, like not logging in to Google when doing searches you want to keep anonymous. Google probably still logs stuff (IP, user agent, and search term) but it gives you plausible deniability and you have the option of using a public WiFi or VPN if you don't want your IP address logged. Or more simply, just use DuckDuckGo instead.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  How is that "more reasonable" ?
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Saving the search history by default is probably a better UX for most users. You get autocompletion, it helps Google deliver better results, helps show more relevant advertisements, etc. Defaults are usually chosen to satisfy the most common use case. The use case described in the article (hiding searches from law enforcement) is relatively rare and shouldn't serve as the basis for a default, in my opinion. For users who value their privacy more, there are alternatives like DuckDuckGo.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    What would be unreasonable about it? This is a genuine question. I never did log into google for any searches, and I switched to DuckDuckGo some years ago with no fuss. It seems to me like a practical thing anyone might do if they don't want Google to track them.
- harry8 4y ago
  How well do you think that's going to go if you are charged with murder? It doesn't matter a damn what /you/ (or me, or anyone) think about the ethics of the situation. Plausible deniability is going to be a very weak crutch to be relying on when charged with something with an equivalent consequences to a charge murder. Defence of google policy on that basis is really a non-starter, imho. I imagine google won't actually do that themselves they'll just remain silent with PR drafted press releases talking about just how important something or other is to them with the usual total lack of substance. Are google's socially progressive positions purely marketing and they'll drop and and all of them like a hot brick if it might cost them some money or market share? Are we the baddies?
lakomen 4y ago
I don't understand how "the leader of all progressive countries" could fall back into the dark ages by taking away rights that make sense. A country where consuming cannabis is not outlawed but abortion is. What is wrong and how can that country be put back on track?
- titzer 4y ago
  End minority rule. Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College.
  - flenserboy 4y ago
    Why do you think mob rule is better?
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      Abolishing minority rule does not mean establishing mob rule. It means re-establishing equal representation.
      - bequanna 4y ago
        The US government didn’t end up formed this way on accident. It is to avoid a “winner takes all” situation where 51% of the country dictates all laws, policy to the other 49%.
        tunap 4y ago
        Tell that to Reddit. SMH
        MereInterest 4y ago
        My understanding is that it was largely as a way to appease slave states and provide reassurance that there wouldn't be abolition at the federal level, not to provide an idealized balance between states. And even if it were for that purpose, having a "winner takes all" that requires 51% to achieve would still be better than the current system, which still allows for a winner-takes-all state but with much less than 51%. Checks and balances were designed under the assumption that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches would be balanced by a constant struggle against each other. They didn't account for political parties, which can result in multiple branches of government being controlled by an overarching party, effectively negating those balances.
havblue 4y ago
I don't entirely follow the logic of this article: abortion is illegal in some states and Google knows your search and location history. So it seems like it's saying police will scour account data to target women with the intention of getting an abortion. How? We know that at the federal level the government can dig into our Google profile data or that a police officer might ask you to hand over your phone. Short of a court order I don't see how our data is compromised like this article implies.
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  My (someone uncharitable) interpretation of the article is: - People who thing big corps and the government are their friend are not worried about data privacy. - The government suddenly made a change that made a lot of people realize that is is not necessarily their friend (aka they are no longer comfortable with the government have access to there entire life's worth of data). - Now we have to end surveillance capitalism because it is dangerous... I agree with the conclusion, but it is depressing that it has taking this long for people to reach it.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  States can pass laws requiring, eg., google to provide location data relevant to the crime (in that state) of abortion. It's also pretty trivial to "suspect" someone of a crime for "being in some area" and then get a warrent for the data. Abortion being illegal in some states seems like it might be a shock to the privacy system that's needed. If US states are clearly abusing their citizens en-mass in a way most people disagree with, corporate american enabling this will not be seen positively.
  - mwt 4y ago
    > ... corporate american enabling this will not be seen positively. I don't think this is true in red states or for the minority views that determine what is and is not illegal in this country, or at least it won't play out like you wish. Certainly I don't see this playing out along this optimistic path. Politicians in Texas and Mississippi will frame it as companies helping dutiful law enforcement investigate evil crimes and ergo it's fine that Google was tracking everybody all along. Single-issue voters would be happy to see abortion providers or seekers behind bars and couldn't care less if the fourth amendment was violated along the way. Just look at how conservatives (ok, well, a good chunk of all mainstream politicians) and voters viewed the FBI vs. Apple conflict from a few years ago - it was "we have to make sure the cops can get the bad guys so of course the cops should have access to whatever information they need" not "I have a right to privacy - time to stop using these services until they respect it"
jlkuester7 4y ago
Good example of how surveillance capitalism is a cancer in society that no one is safe from. I am really tired of people telling me that they have nothing to hide! The historical record if full of examples of folks who had "nothing to hide", but suddenly became the target of oppression or exploitation. Privacy needs to be everyone's concern because by the time you realize you have things you need to keep private, it will be too late!
eftychis 4y ago
My take: Ok so for the "crimes" that we do not currently like Google should not log to protect us. That is naive. The article is naive. Now when a class of people is affected they realize the issue with Google collecting data or providing location history information (incorrect or not) to the authorities. Google has a history of actively i) resetting opt out settings, ii) making location tracking de facto mandatory on android, iii) pushing for AMP (which pushes their ampanalytics), etc. Time to actually push for privacy. How about: "Hey Google, to protect people, stop tracking anything." (Which for Google would imply to stop existing per se.)
- mrweasel 4y ago
  It's naive, very naive. It's also required. Google, like other industries, where build on the ideas that what they did was more or less harmless. As we learn more about what massive data collection entails, we also have to reconsider the laws surrounding it. Google will never stop on their own, as you say that would mean that they'd stop existing. It's the same with oil or tobacco companies, and few would cry foul if Philip Morris would be forced to shutdown. I no longer believe that tracking and data collection can be done safely and it's time to dismantle those business that rely on it. Give Google, and others, five to ten years to close down their data collection business and after that they can stop existing if they can't cope.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    What power can we imagine will cause them to stop existing? What power can we imagine will compel them to stop collecting data? It certainly won't be the law. The entire situation we're in right now is considering how data collection by Google assists the United States government in enforcing the law. The master's tools will not be used to tear down the master's house.
  - rndgermandude 4y ago
    Comparing google to big tobacco is very flawed. Big tobacco has essentially one product, and that product is always harmful. Google on the other hand has a variety of products. Even when it comes to their biggest product i.e. ads, they'd still make a shitton of money without tracking and storing everything in perpetuity. Would they make less? Very likely. But they will not "stop existing", even if they were forced to stop all tracking tomorrow. They can still sell ads not based on the users tracking history, but based on other context that doesn't require a huge data store, but ephemeral information at most (e.g. "user is searching for term x RIGHT NOW, and has a German IP RIGHT NOW"). And of course they can still make money from the "play store tax", money from users of their APIs, cloud and services. If we actually prohibited tracking now, far beyond what even the GDPR does, advertisers would still spend money, like they did in the print and television days as well. And google controlling a large part of the market already with an iron grip (search, youtube, android) would still come out ahead of the competition.
mellosouls 4y ago
The article appears to be saying that there is something fundamentally new happening because Google/Big Tech are now potentially able to facilitate the implementation of law the writer disagrees with. It's obviously a useful example of the potential for where (say) privacy rights may be superceded by other (eg legal) considerations but framing it as a clear and new moral wrong in the context of a massively contested ethical argument over abortion is simplistic.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  What’s the point of this comment? It’s an opinion piece, so we know it reflects the author’s opinions. You don’t have to agree with them on abortion, or even privacy. But backbiting on privacy solely because it appears in the context of an abortion argument is bizarre.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The article gives the impression that privacy doesn't matter otherwise. In the author's words, Google's behavior "has suddenly become dangerous", suggesting privacy didn't matter before and would stop mattering again if not for abortions. That's an attitude worth debunking.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      The charitable reading is that the author sees a direct link between a lack of privacy here and imprisonment and forced birth for women. That’s a material sense in which Google “has suddenly become dangerous” for the target audience of the Washington Post. It’s manifest to every reader of this site that adtech has always been dangerous. But it should also be manifest that we’re not the sole audience.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        It's also perfectly fair to criticize the author for ignoring the dangers that only affected other people until now. Framing the issue solely in the context of abortion suggests Google's response should be to stop tracking a few health and pregnancy related data points and otherwise carry on business as usual.
cute_boi 4y ago
I think as a red tape solution Google will just collect less data of abortion center etc. They will still suck data whereever they can.
game-of-throws 4y ago
https://archive.ph/ifcuh https://archive.ph/ifcuh
ksherlock 4y ago
Buried in complaint 3, "Make Chrome’s ‘Incognito mode’ actually incognito" "One example: Just this week, my colleague Tatum Hunter reported that Google (as well as Facebook and TikTok) was sent personal information when patients use the Planned Parenthood website scheduling pages. The problem was marketing embedded in the code of the page — and Chrome does little to stop that kind of tracking." You scheduled an abortion. Planned Parenthood’s website could tell Facebook (June 29) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/29/planned-parenthood-privacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/29/planned... https://archive.ph/3HHtt https://archive.ph/3HHtt That's on Planned Parenthood.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Chrome's Incognito mode is doing its job here, by making sure that the user is logged out of her Facebook account during that browsing session. What the tracking code does is a different matter altogether, and even Facebook has tried and failed to stop it from sending all sorts of sensitive data, including stuff that might well fall under HIPAA.
- js2 4y ago
  > That's on Planned Parenthood. Only in part. Ultimately it's the browser that's sharing the data from PP to FB. It's not like PP is making a direct connection from their backend to FB's backend. It's Chrome that's connecting to FB. Apple has demonstrated with Safari that browsers can fight this tracking if they want to. Google has no interest in doing so because their browser doesn't work for the user. It works for the likes of Google, FB, and yes, PP.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    > It's not like PP is making a direct connection from their backend to FB's backend. But it’s possible from the backend: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/app-event-api/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/app-event...
    - js2 4y ago
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Although technically an idiot who carried his phone with him and took almost no forensic precautions the police officer Wayne Couzens who murdered Sarah Everard probably had various levels of access to digital privilege that allowed him to plan the abduction and killing. At least that's the discussion my class brought up recently when we were talking about LOVEINT and stalking by people who operate CCTV cameras and so on. Why do we persist with this incredibly naive assumption that behind digital power are actors who deserve an assumption of benevolence first, and the odd rogues are just bad-eggs? When it comes to this abortion issue, Google are in a privileged position of power and should be handled accordingly. Surely, if we think "zero trust" is a fit way to conduct cyber-security, it also applies to civic security? Shouldn't anyone who handles public data be positively vetted to within an inch of their sanity and themselves be placed within panopticon of radical transparency? Protecting any vulnerable group, including women, from digital harms requires a change of mind-set, a new kind of digital literacy.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The murders that justified the universal collection and permanent storage and indexing of the DNA of anyone arrested or suspected of a crime were committed by a cop who was never forced to give up his DNA, and who was discovered through the search of DNA collected by a private company that uses it to sell novelty racial classifications. In the future, the cops could bust an "illicit" gay club, and sample the place for DNA to find likely homosexuals to round up. They wouldn't need any better data than they currently have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo The Killer Inside Us: Law, Ethics, and the Forensic Use of Family Genetics https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1136717 https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1136717
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Never knew "night stalker" was a cop. That second Joseph Zabel article also looks interesting, cheers.
random_upvoter 4y ago
Either you agree with Google collecting data in a way that facilitates enforcing the law, or you don't. You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Why not? Why can managers at Google not make a decision to collect less of the data that could be used to prosecute under a law they don't think is just?
  - hnfong 4y ago
    You guys still have a democracy and only have to follow your own country's laws. Don't just give that power away to some faceless megacorp just because you just happen to dislike a couple laws.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    The danger is that by calling upon Google to solve these issues, we concede more and more power to them. Google is a tech company with about 140k employees, about 1/5 the population of San Francisco. Do we want this tiny minority of people to have such a huge influence on which laws get enforced (eg Google giving police data about people selling weed over Gmail) and which laws don't (eg Google deleting data about visits to abortion clinics). Laws should be determined by lawmakers, not tech companies.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      The law against abortion still exists regardless of what Google does. There's no law that that says Google must collect data of who searches for abortion clinics (I presume/hope). It's not Google's responsibility to enforce or facilitate a law.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Because you vote for your politicians/laws. Having a company decide what law is just or not isn't a step in the right direction.
majkinetor 4y ago
This is easilly fixable - have an browser extension or OS service that randomly does things on the internet. If you dont want to delete my data let my data be garbage.
- onion2k 4y ago
  Removing noise from data is a large, and very well researched, field of data science. Unless it was done incredibly well it probably wouldnt work.
  - majkinetor 4y ago
    I very much doubt that it cant be done right. I am not talking about "sleep 5; search random"
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Fascinating. Do you have any terms to help me find research on this topic?
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Is there an emergency plan for when a country turns into Gilead? How many of us are daily incriminating ourselves on social media?
- mxuribe 4y ago
  I used to think that any such sliding into a country like Gilead would happen fast, and the population would not allow it to happen, at least not to such a crazy degree. But lately, it certanly feels like we're all frogs in a slowly boiling pot, which is slowly turning into Gilead.
quest88 4y ago
What about ISPs? Other trackers? The problem is Government's abuse of power.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  That would not be as click-able of an article.
superb-owl 4y ago
There's an interesting contradiction at the heart of US law regarding free speech. Does the first amendment give you the right to merely voice your opinions, or does it give you the right to amplify those opinions via mass media? Citizens United pretty thoroughly says it's the latter. But calls to reign in Fake News and to force tech companies to censor their users contradict this.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  First Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech. It says nothing about letting other private individuals/companies promote your speech.
mikl 4y ago
Asking Google to collect less data is like asking a tick not to bite you. Sure, you can ask, but that won’t change the nature of the beast.
civilrightsftw 4y ago
What if, just what if, everyone in Texas and other backward places starts ddos-ing government by searching for and visiting abortion clinics? Houston, Dallas, Austin n San Antonio have a population of ~6M. Even if 1% of them do a search and visits once per week, that is 60k cases to investigate. Per week.
mixmastamyk 4y ago
It's a bit bizarre that this is the route that folks are becoming aware that privacy has been decimated in the last decades. I'll take it I suppose. Yes, everyone deserves privacy until a lawful warrant has been issued. Not the current reality unfortunately.
golemiprague 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
foota 4y ago
From the article, and announced afterwards, Google will be deleting visits to Abortion clinics (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/01/google-delete-location-data-abortion-clinic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/01/google-de...).
juunpp 4y ago
> We know there’s zero chance Google will overnight exit the lucrative personal data business. And frankly, Congress has been asleep at the wheel on protecting our data rights for decades. Google is part of the state apparatus. Congress is not asleep, it is lobbied by this and other companies. This naive idea that you can just ask Big Tech companies to find two cents in their moral bank is old and tiresome. Control of Congress must be taken back before any real change can be effected.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Don't forget the courts and executive. Without consistent (or at least truly random) enforcement laws are worthless paper or selective tools to punish those without power.
mlang79 4y ago
- pjc50 4y ago
  > quite a lot of women who would not want to have an abortion performed There are certain situations such as ectopic pregnancy where there is no chance of a successful live birth and the life of the mother is in danger which are now classified as abortion, and prosecutions are happening for the life-saving treatment in these cases now.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Which is definitely something that needs fixing. Yet, I also see plenty of advocates for REALLY late abortions and such, along with people being proud of getting abortions. remember "Safe, Legal and rare?"
    - mlang79 4y ago
      The new wave of feminism apparently doesn't want to remember this phrase anymore: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/the-brilliance-of-safe-legal-and-rare/603151/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/the-brilli...
    - pjc50 4y ago
      "Legal" is a pre-requisite for "safe", and comprehensive sex education is a pre-requisite for "rare". Nobody's getting abortions just for the sake of it, I assure you. Since there's no appetite for compromise or even fact-based discussion from the anti-side, here you are.
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        > "Legal" is a pre-requisite for "safe", and comprehensive sex education is a pre-requisite for "rare". Legal can have different extents. For example, no questions asked for the first 12 weeks, questions asked next 12, under VERY specific conditions on the last 12 weeks. Another extent could be no questions asked, period. And yeah, proper sex-ed is pretty important. > Nobody's getting abortions just for the sake of it, I assure you. Sure, nobody is getting pregnant just to have an abortion. A, IMO, worrying amount of cases use abortions as a replacement for contraception. > Since there's no appetite for compromise or even fact-based discussion from the anti-side, here you are. Same could be said for the pro side.

270 points by johndfsgdgdfg 4y ago

If you want to know what a privacy dystopia looks like, check the Yandex search engine (from Russia), where you can do reverse image search with face detection. Google anonymizes reverse image search with people in them. You get generic results like "person in t-shirt".

nullc 4y ago
Google hides the lost of existing privacy and makes tools that expose it only available to corporations, states, and insiders-- for good and bad uses. In this case, yandex is exposing the loss of privacy and making the tools to benefit from its beneficial use available to everyone. Hiding the loss of privacy makes it harder to resist, it doesn't make it go away.

newaccount2021 4y ago

classified 4y ago

Asking Google to collect less data is like asking a hog to eat less. Not gonna happen.

AinderS 4y ago

> Google provides useful products, and in exchange we might be targeted with annoying ads. Big whoop. Until now. Enter a cage willingly, with barely any complaint, for minor convenience, then cry when you're taken to the slaughterhouse. It's sad that despite all the warnings, people are so myopic and apathetic that it takes something this big and obvious to make them react. And despite this, they remain willfully blind to other threats, that are smart enough to stay below the threshold: https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/censorship-by-algorithm-does-far https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/censorship-by-algori... > Four ways to build civil rights into Google products A laughable chapter of the article, void of any actually effective suggestions, such as compelling Google properties to stop blocking the Tor network (duckduckgo and yandex allow Tor), or using free software that is actually under the user's control. The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. That's why they want to build "civil rights" into products, and not "user freedom". That's why they get comments from an establishment Harvard professor, and not the FSF.

titzer 4y ago
This sounds a little like the incremental addiction to fossil fuels the world has developed. It's "the market" and "blame consumers" when we know damn well that consumers don't choose fuel sources and consumers didn't grease the palms of legislators and regulators for more than a century.
- AinderS 4y ago
  You make a good point. I can see how my post could be interpreted as blaming regular consumers for the mess we're in. And while consumer apathy and ignorance disgust me, you are correct, journalists and media that are supposed to be guiding us should shoulder the majority of the blame. I would blame Google, but that's like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house. Edit: See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32126390) about this analogy "excusing" Google/the fox.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Journalism bears some responsibility (insofar as it’s become addicted to cheap social media traffic and digital ad revenue), but I think the context doesn’t justify disproportionate blame. In particular: social media companies understood, very early on, that they could use their position to squeeze traditional media by cutting into its advertising. It was a classic industrial takeover, including the incumbent’s mockery of the newcomer until it was too late. They probably deserve some blame for not seeing how the wind was blowing, and reacting accordingly. But I would place more blame on digital ad markets and all of the perverse incentives associated with them, all of which originate somewhere in the grimy junction between VCs and traditional advertising.
  - mewse 4y ago
    But the journalists too are just following the incentives that are provided to them. Don’t they deserve some of that “but that’s like blaming the fox for killing the hens, instead of whoever left a hole in the hen house” blanket pardon you’re handing out, here?

olalonde 4y ago

It seems more reasonable solutions already exist, like not logging in to Google when doing searches you want to keep anonymous. Google probably still logs stuff (IP, user agent, and search term) but it gives you plausible deniability and you have the option of using a public WiFi or VPN if you don't want your IP address logged. Or more simply, just use DuckDuckGo instead.

hiptobecubic 4y ago
How is that "more reasonable" ?
- olalonde 4y ago
  Saving the search history by default is probably a better UX for most users. You get autocompletion, it helps Google deliver better results, helps show more relevant advertisements, etc. Defaults are usually chosen to satisfy the most common use case. The use case described in the article (hiding searches from law enforcement) is relatively rare and shouldn't serve as the basis for a default, in my opinion. For users who value their privacy more, there are alternatives like DuckDuckGo.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  What would be unreasonable about it? This is a genuine question. I never did log into google for any searches, and I switched to DuckDuckGo some years ago with no fuss. It seems to me like a practical thing anyone might do if they don't want Google to track them.
harry8 4y ago
How well do you think that's going to go if you are charged with murder? It doesn't matter a damn what /you/ (or me, or anyone) think about the ethics of the situation. Plausible deniability is going to be a very weak crutch to be relying on when charged with something with an equivalent consequences to a charge murder. Defence of google policy on that basis is really a non-starter, imho. I imagine google won't actually do that themselves they'll just remain silent with PR drafted press releases talking about just how important something or other is to them with the usual total lack of substance. Are google's socially progressive positions purely marketing and they'll drop and and all of them like a hot brick if it might cost them some money or market share? Are we the baddies?

lakomen 4y ago

I don't understand how "the leader of all progressive countries" could fall back into the dark ages by taking away rights that make sense. A country where consuming cannabis is not outlawed but abortion is. What is wrong and how can that country be put back on track?

titzer 4y ago
End minority rule. Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College.
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Why do you think mob rule is better?
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    Abolishing minority rule does not mean establishing mob rule. It means re-establishing equal representation.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      The US government didn’t end up formed this way on accident. It is to avoid a “winner takes all” situation where 51% of the country dictates all laws, policy to the other 49%.
      - tunap 4y ago
        Tell that to Reddit. SMH
      - MereInterest 4y ago
        My understanding is that it was largely as a way to appease slave states and provide reassurance that there wouldn't be abolition at the federal level, not to provide an idealized balance between states. And even if it were for that purpose, having a "winner takes all" that requires 51% to achieve would still be better than the current system, which still allows for a winner-takes-all state but with much less than 51%. Checks and balances were designed under the assumption that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches would be balanced by a constant struggle against each other. They didn't account for political parties, which can result in multiple branches of government being controlled by an overarching party, effectively negating those balances.

havblue 4y ago

I don't entirely follow the logic of this article: abortion is illegal in some states and Google knows your search and location history. So it seems like it's saying police will scour account data to target women with the intention of getting an abortion. How? We know that at the federal level the government can dig into our Google profile data or that a police officer might ask you to hand over your phone. Short of a court order I don't see how our data is compromised like this article implies.

jlkuester7 4y ago
My (someone uncharitable) interpretation of the article is: - People who thing big corps and the government are their friend are not worried about data privacy. - The government suddenly made a change that made a lot of people realize that is is not necessarily their friend (aka they are no longer comfortable with the government have access to there entire life's worth of data). - Now we have to end surveillance capitalism because it is dangerous... I agree with the conclusion, but it is depressing that it has taking this long for people to reach it.
mjburgess 4y ago
States can pass laws requiring, eg., google to provide location data relevant to the crime (in that state) of abortion. It's also pretty trivial to "suspect" someone of a crime for "being in some area" and then get a warrent for the data. Abortion being illegal in some states seems like it might be a shock to the privacy system that's needed. If US states are clearly abusing their citizens en-mass in a way most people disagree with, corporate american enabling this will not be seen positively.
- mwt 4y ago
  > ... corporate american enabling this will not be seen positively. I don't think this is true in red states or for the minority views that determine what is and is not illegal in this country, or at least it won't play out like you wish. Certainly I don't see this playing out along this optimistic path. Politicians in Texas and Mississippi will frame it as companies helping dutiful law enforcement investigate evil crimes and ergo it's fine that Google was tracking everybody all along. Single-issue voters would be happy to see abortion providers or seekers behind bars and couldn't care less if the fourth amendment was violated along the way. Just look at how conservatives (ok, well, a good chunk of all mainstream politicians) and voters viewed the FBI vs. Apple conflict from a few years ago - it was "we have to make sure the cops can get the bad guys so of course the cops should have access to whatever information they need" not "I have a right to privacy - time to stop using these services until they respect it"

jlkuester7 4y ago

Good example of how surveillance capitalism is a cancer in society that no one is safe from. I am really tired of people telling me that they have nothing to hide! The historical record if full of examples of folks who had "nothing to hide", but suddenly became the target of oppression or exploitation. Privacy needs to be everyone's concern because by the time you realize you have things you need to keep private, it will be too late!

eftychis 4y ago

My take: Ok so for the "crimes" that we do not currently like Google should not log to protect us. That is naive. The article is naive. Now when a class of people is affected they realize the issue with Google collecting data or providing location history information (incorrect or not) to the authorities. Google has a history of actively i) resetting opt out settings, ii) making location tracking de facto mandatory on android, iii) pushing for AMP (which pushes their ampanalytics), etc. Time to actually push for privacy. How about: "Hey Google, to protect people, stop tracking anything." (Which for Google would imply to stop existing per se.)

mrweasel 4y ago
It's naive, very naive. It's also required. Google, like other industries, where build on the ideas that what they did was more or less harmless. As we learn more about what massive data collection entails, we also have to reconsider the laws surrounding it. Google will never stop on their own, as you say that would mean that they'd stop existing. It's the same with oil or tobacco companies, and few would cry foul if Philip Morris would be forced to shutdown. I no longer believe that tracking and data collection can be done safely and it's time to dismantle those business that rely on it. Give Google, and others, five to ten years to close down their data collection business and after that they can stop existing if they can't cope.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  What power can we imagine will cause them to stop existing? What power can we imagine will compel them to stop collecting data? It certainly won't be the law. The entire situation we're in right now is considering how data collection by Google assists the United States government in enforcing the law. The master's tools will not be used to tear down the master's house.
- rndgermandude 4y ago
  Comparing google to big tobacco is very flawed. Big tobacco has essentially one product, and that product is always harmful. Google on the other hand has a variety of products. Even when it comes to their biggest product i.e. ads, they'd still make a shitton of money without tracking and storing everything in perpetuity. Would they make less? Very likely. But they will not "stop existing", even if they were forced to stop all tracking tomorrow. They can still sell ads not based on the users tracking history, but based on other context that doesn't require a huge data store, but ephemeral information at most (e.g. "user is searching for term x RIGHT NOW, and has a German IP RIGHT NOW"). And of course they can still make money from the "play store tax", money from users of their APIs, cloud and services. If we actually prohibited tracking now, far beyond what even the GDPR does, advertisers would still spend money, like they did in the print and television days as well. And google controlling a large part of the market already with an iron grip (search, youtube, android) would still come out ahead of the competition.

mellosouls 4y ago

The article appears to be saying that there is something fundamentally new happening because Google/Big Tech are now potentially able to facilitate the implementation of law the writer disagrees with. It's obviously a useful example of the potential for where (say) privacy rights may be superceded by other (eg legal) considerations but framing it as a clear and new moral wrong in the context of a massively contested ethical argument over abortion is simplistic.

woodruffw 4y ago
What’s the point of this comment? It’s an opinion piece, so we know it reflects the author’s opinions. You don’t have to agree with them on abortion, or even privacy. But backbiting on privacy solely because it appears in the context of an abortion argument is bizarre.
- leereeves 4y ago
  The article gives the impression that privacy doesn't matter otherwise. In the author's words, Google's behavior "has suddenly become dangerous", suggesting privacy didn't matter before and would stop mattering again if not for abortions. That's an attitude worth debunking.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The charitable reading is that the author sees a direct link between a lack of privacy here and imprisonment and forced birth for women. That’s a material sense in which Google “has suddenly become dangerous” for the target audience of the Washington Post. It’s manifest to every reader of this site that adtech has always been dangerous. But it should also be manifest that we’re not the sole audience.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      It's also perfectly fair to criticize the author for ignoring the dangers that only affected other people until now. Framing the issue solely in the context of abortion suggests Google's response should be to stop tracking a few health and pregnancy related data points and otherwise carry on business as usual.

cute_boi 4y ago

I think as a red tape solution Google will just collect less data of abortion center etc. They will still suck data whereever they can.

game-of-throws 4y ago

https://archive.ph/ifcuh https://archive.ph/ifcuh

ksherlock 4y ago

Buried in complaint 3, "Make Chrome’s ‘Incognito mode’ actually incognito" "One example: Just this week, my colleague Tatum Hunter reported that Google (as well as Facebook and TikTok) was sent personal information when patients use the Planned Parenthood website scheduling pages. The problem was marketing embedded in the code of the page — and Chrome does little to stop that kind of tracking." You scheduled an abortion. Planned Parenthood’s website could tell Facebook (June 29) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/29/planned-parenthood-privacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/29/planned... https://archive.ph/3HHtt https://archive.ph/3HHtt That's on Planned Parenthood.

zozbot234 4y ago
Chrome's Incognito mode is doing its job here, by making sure that the user is logged out of her Facebook account during that browsing session. What the tracking code does is a different matter altogether, and even Facebook has tried and failed to stop it from sending all sorts of sensitive data, including stuff that might well fall under HIPAA.
js2 4y ago
> That's on Planned Parenthood. Only in part. Ultimately it's the browser that's sharing the data from PP to FB. It's not like PP is making a direct connection from their backend to FB's backend. It's Chrome that's connecting to FB. Apple has demonstrated with Safari that browsers can fight this tracking if they want to. Google has no interest in doing so because their browser doesn't work for the user. It works for the likes of Google, FB, and yes, PP.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > It's not like PP is making a direct connection from their backend to FB's backend. But it’s possible from the backend: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/app-event-api/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/app-event...
  - js2 4y ago

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Although technically an idiot who carried his phone with him and took almost no forensic precautions the police officer Wayne Couzens who murdered Sarah Everard probably had various levels of access to digital privilege that allowed him to plan the abduction and killing. At least that's the discussion my class brought up recently when we were talking about LOVEINT and stalking by people who operate CCTV cameras and so on. Why do we persist with this incredibly naive assumption that behind digital power are actors who deserve an assumption of benevolence first, and the odd rogues are just bad-eggs? When it comes to this abortion issue, Google are in a privileged position of power and should be handled accordingly. Surely, if we think "zero trust" is a fit way to conduct cyber-security, it also applies to civic security? Shouldn't anyone who handles public data be positively vetted to within an inch of their sanity and themselves be placed within panopticon of radical transparency? Protecting any vulnerable group, including women, from digital harms requires a change of mind-set, a new kind of digital literacy.

pessimizer 4y ago
The murders that justified the universal collection and permanent storage and indexing of the DNA of anyone arrested or suspected of a crime were committed by a cop who was never forced to give up his DNA, and who was discovered through the search of DNA collected by a private company that uses it to sell novelty racial classifications. In the future, the cops could bust an "illicit" gay club, and sample the place for DNA to find likely homosexuals to round up. They wouldn't need any better data than they currently have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo The Killer Inside Us: Law, Ethics, and the Forensic Use of Family Genetics https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1136717 https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1136717
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Never knew "night stalker" was a cop. That second Joseph Zabel article also looks interesting, cheers.

random_upvoter 4y ago

Either you agree with Google collecting data in a way that facilitates enforcing the law, or you don't. You can't be picky about Google facilitating the laws that you happen to like or not.

madeofpalk 4y ago
Why not? Why can managers at Google not make a decision to collect less of the data that could be used to prosecute under a law they don't think is just?
- hnfong 4y ago
  You guys still have a democracy and only have to follow your own country's laws. Don't just give that power away to some faceless megacorp just because you just happen to dislike a couple laws.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  The danger is that by calling upon Google to solve these issues, we concede more and more power to them. Google is a tech company with about 140k employees, about 1/5 the population of San Francisco. Do we want this tiny minority of people to have such a huge influence on which laws get enforced (eg Google giving police data about people selling weed over Gmail) and which laws don't (eg Google deleting data about visits to abortion clinics). Laws should be determined by lawmakers, not tech companies.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    The law against abortion still exists regardless of what Google does. There's no law that that says Google must collect data of who searches for abortion clinics (I presume/hope). It's not Google's responsibility to enforce or facilitate a law.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Because you vote for your politicians/laws. Having a company decide what law is just or not isn't a step in the right direction.

majkinetor 4y ago

This is easilly fixable - have an browser extension or OS service that randomly does things on the internet. If you dont want to delete my data let my data be garbage.

onion2k 4y ago
Removing noise from data is a large, and very well researched, field of data science. Unless it was done incredibly well it probably wouldnt work.
- majkinetor 4y ago
  I very much doubt that it cant be done right. I am not talking about "sleep 5; search random"
- fragmede 4y ago
  Fascinating. Do you have any terms to help me find research on this topic?

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Is there an emergency plan for when a country turns into Gilead? How many of us are daily incriminating ourselves on social media?

mxuribe 4y ago
I used to think that any such sliding into a country like Gilead would happen fast, and the population would not allow it to happen, at least not to such a crazy degree. But lately, it certanly feels like we're all frogs in a slowly boiling pot, which is slowly turning into Gilead.

quest88 4y ago

What about ISPs? Other trackers? The problem is Government's abuse of power.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
That would not be as click-able of an article.

superb-owl 4y ago

There's an interesting contradiction at the heart of US law regarding free speech. Does the first amendment give you the right to merely voice your opinions, or does it give you the right to amplify those opinions via mass media? Citizens United pretty thoroughly says it's the latter. But calls to reign in Fake News and to force tech companies to censor their users contradict this.

madeofpalk 4y ago
First Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech. It says nothing about letting other private individuals/companies promote your speech.

mikl 4y ago

Asking Google to collect less data is like asking a tick not to bite you. Sure, you can ask, but that won’t change the nature of the beast.

civilrightsftw 4y ago

What if, just what if, everyone in Texas and other backward places starts ddos-ing government by searching for and visiting abortion clinics? Houston, Dallas, Austin n San Antonio have a population of ~6M. Even if 1% of them do a search and visits once per week, that is 60k cases to investigate. Per week.

mixmastamyk 4y ago

It's a bit bizarre that this is the route that folks are becoming aware that privacy has been decimated in the last decades. I'll take it I suppose. Yes, everyone deserves privacy until a lawful warrant has been issued. Not the current reality unfortunately.

golemiprague 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

foota 4y ago

From the article, and announced afterwards, Google will be deleting visits to Abortion clinics (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/01/google-delete-location-data-abortion-clinic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/01/google-de...).

juunpp 4y ago

> We know there’s zero chance Google will overnight exit the lucrative personal data business. And frankly, Congress has been asleep at the wheel on protecting our data rights for decades. Google is part of the state apparatus. Congress is not asleep, it is lobbied by this and other companies. This naive idea that you can just ask Big Tech companies to find two cents in their moral bank is old and tiresome. Control of Congress must be taken back before any real change can be effected.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Don't forget the courts and executive. Without consistent (or at least truly random) enforcement laws are worthless paper or selective tools to punish those without power.

mlang79 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago
> quite a lot of women who would not want to have an abortion performed There are certain situations such as ectopic pregnancy where there is no chance of a successful live birth and the life of the mother is in danger which are now classified as abortion, and prosecutions are happening for the life-saving treatment in these cases now.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Which is definitely something that needs fixing. Yet, I also see plenty of advocates for REALLY late abortions and such, along with people being proud of getting abortions. remember "Safe, Legal and rare?"
  - mlang79 4y ago
    The new wave of feminism apparently doesn't want to remember this phrase anymore: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/the-brilliance-of-safe-legal-and-rare/603151/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/the-brilli...
  - pjc50 4y ago
    "Legal" is a pre-requisite for "safe", and comprehensive sex education is a pre-requisite for "rare". Nobody's getting abortions just for the sake of it, I assure you. Since there's no appetite for compromise or even fact-based discussion from the anti-side, here you are.
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      > "Legal" is a pre-requisite for "safe", and comprehensive sex education is a pre-requisite for "rare". Legal can have different extents. For example, no questions asked for the first 12 weeks, questions asked next 12, under VERY specific conditions on the last 12 weeks. Another extent could be no questions asked, period. And yeah, proper sex-ed is pretty important. > Nobody's getting abortions just for the sake of it, I assure you. Sure, nobody is getting pregnant just to have an abortion. A, IMO, worrying amount of cases use abortions as a replacement for contraception. > Since there's no appetite for compromise or even fact-based discussion from the anti-side, here you are. Same could be said for the pro side.