4 ms·

Likely better than 99.999999999% of the companies you interact with.

sfvegandude 4y ago
It doesn’t matter. When we talk about “having access to user data,” we’re talking about a humans being able to look at, I.e, the user logs of a former lover and doing something bad with it. But that’s not the real danger of Google having this data. The danger is in ML. Google’s entire business model is predicated upon using information about you to change your behavior, and to sell on the market predictions of your future behavior.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  > It doesn’t matter. When we talk about “having access to user data,” we’re talking about a humans being able to look at, i.e, the user logs of a former lover and doing something bad with it. Google is one of the few companies known to have caught, fired, and officially publicly named an employee who did something like this: https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/google-engineer-spying-fired/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/google-engineer-spying-fir... Most tech companies about which people don't routinely raise this type of concern have far weaker security controls against (and detection systems for) this threat model than Google does. That said: > But that’s not the real danger of Google having this data. The danger is in ML. Google’s entire business model is predicated upon using information about you to change your behavior, and to sell on the market predictions of your future behavior. I'm of two minds of this. I'm not thrilled about how much data Google combines and unnecessarily insists on collecting in order to allow things like the Google Assistant and Google Maps to provide full functionality. At the same time, many of Google's assistance and search services are better than their competitors exactly for this reason. I primarily wish they were more transparent in this area with fewer dark patterns and more user control, with forcing users to pick between excessive data sharing and inadequate access to Google services. Disclosure: I have worked for Google in the past, but not since early 2015. I certainly am not speaking for them here.
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    Obvious typo corrections following the end of the edit window: > I'm of two minds of this. I'm of two minds on this. > with forcing users to pick between without forcing users to pick between
  - sfvegandude 4y ago
    Google Maps and Google Assistant could work with that data and Google could also choose not to be surveillance capitalist robber barons.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > Google is one of the few companies known to have caught, fired, and officially publicly named an employee who did something like this Not disagreeing with your broader point, but that specific employee was not caught by Google but was reported externally by parents of the minors after abusing access for months. I suspect the incident you linked predates - and was the impetus for - many controls that were subsequently added Speaking speculatively: I've never worked for Google

It doesn’t matter. When we talk about “having access to user data,” we’re talking about a humans being able to look at, I.e, the user logs of a former lover and doing something bad with it. But that’s not the real danger of Google having this data. The danger is in ML. Google’s entire business model is predicated upon using information about you to change your behavior, and to sell on the market predictions of your future behavior.

jkaplowitz 4y ago
> It doesn’t matter. When we talk about “having access to user data,” we’re talking about a humans being able to look at, i.e, the user logs of a former lover and doing something bad with it. Google is one of the few companies known to have caught, fired, and officially publicly named an employee who did something like this: https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/google-engineer-spying-fired/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/google-engineer-spying-fir... Most tech companies about which people don't routinely raise this type of concern have far weaker security controls against (and detection systems for) this threat model than Google does. That said: > But that’s not the real danger of Google having this data. The danger is in ML. Google’s entire business model is predicated upon using information about you to change your behavior, and to sell on the market predictions of your future behavior. I'm of two minds of this. I'm not thrilled about how much data Google combines and unnecessarily insists on collecting in order to allow things like the Google Assistant and Google Maps to provide full functionality. At the same time, many of Google's assistance and search services are better than their competitors exactly for this reason. I primarily wish they were more transparent in this area with fewer dark patterns and more user control, with forcing users to pick between excessive data sharing and inadequate access to Google services. Disclosure: I have worked for Google in the past, but not since early 2015. I certainly am not speaking for them here.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  Obvious typo corrections following the end of the edit window: > I'm of two minds of this. I'm of two minds on this. > with forcing users to pick between without forcing users to pick between
- sfvegandude 4y ago
  Google Maps and Google Assistant could work with that data and Google could also choose not to be surveillance capitalist robber barons.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Google is one of the few companies known to have caught, fired, and officially publicly named an employee who did something like this Not disagreeing with your broader point, but that specific employee was not caught by Google but was reported externally by parents of the minors after abusing access for months. I suspect the incident you linked predates - and was the impetus for - many controls that were subsequently added Speaking speculatively: I've never worked for Google