3 ms·

Let's leave the internal disquiet issue aside for now. The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions, I think. Of course yo

Let's leave the internal disquiet issue aside for now. The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions, I think. Of course you're right that there's always the potential for misuse, and the only way to avoid misuse completely is to never gather data. It's parallel to the argument against big government. It's also parallel to the argument against nuclear power. But in each of these cases it's a matter of cost/benefit and risk analysis. You have to weight the risk and cost of misuse against the benefit of Google having that data. It seems that you're ok with the data Google has collected up til now, but you're worried about more data collection in the future. That's valid, but to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost. Part of this is that Google's structured in such a way that its incentives are to keep the data private (within its own network) because it makes money by having sole proprietorship over it. I think a salient distinction here is between privacy and confidentiality. Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique. > Google has served us so well so far because our interests are aligned; it's the surest way to prevent an abuse of trust in the future and why I'm so concerned about their new strategy. Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google's?

nbm 15y ago
> Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. Facebook doesn't sell anyone's data. Facebook, like Google, allows advertisers to target advertisements to a particular demographic of users without divulging that user's identity or data. (I work at Facebook.)
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Is there somewhere in the Facbook ToS that I can reference? I tried to find it, but couldn't.
  - nbm 15y ago
    You can read more about how ads work in non-legalese at: https://www.facebook.com/about/ads/ In non-legalese, how Facebook uses information it receives on users: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info#howweuse The actual data use policy: https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy The path to these last two - click "Privacy" at the bottom of a Facebook page.
5l 15y ago
> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions So far, but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free. > Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data They use it for exactly the same purpose. To sell ads. Neither platform has, or likely ever will, sell our data outright. That is absolutely the last thing I'd be worried about. Of course, like the government, you don't know who will be in charge tomorrow or what their intentions might be. > These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique. All institutions will try and do terrible things if you set up the wrong incentives. > Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google We are paying for this with our privacy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get. Improvements to Google's index used to cost us nothing. Now they cost us our data. The more data they collect, the more money they will make. That sets their interests squarely against ours; yes, true, we want good search results. We also want the government to arrest all the terrorists. I'm not prepared to live my life as an open book to achieve these results. > to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost. You've asked me a lot of questions, let me ask you some. What happens when the benefits no longer outweigh the risks but Google tell you sorry, our profiling isn't finished yet. What if through some change in your personal circumstances the data they hold suddenly becomes damaging to you. What will you do if they go too far? Will you know straight away? Will you have time to make a decision? Will you be able to tell them to stop? How will you get Google to delete your data if you want them to leave you alone? Are you expecting the government to step in and help even though they're directly benefiting from all this data collection? Are you perfectly happy that they have access to it all? Would you so willingly hand over the same data to them directly?
- joebadmo 15y ago
  > We are paying for this with our privacy. I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me. Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control in the future. But back to the point of the thread: I don't think data collection is evil in and of itself, and so I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil.

nbm 15y ago

> Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. Facebook doesn't sell anyone's data. Facebook, like Google, allows advertisers to target advertisements to a particular demographic of users without divulging that user's identity or data. (I work at Facebook.)

joebadmo 15y ago
Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Is there somewhere in the Facbook ToS that I can reference? I tried to find it, but couldn't.
- nbm 15y ago
  You can read more about how ads work in non-legalese at: https://www.facebook.com/about/ads/ In non-legalese, how Facebook uses information it receives on users: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info#howweuse The actual data use policy: https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy The path to these last two - click "Privacy" at the bottom of a Facebook page.

5l 15y ago

> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions So far, but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free. > Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data They use it for exactly the same purpose. To sell ads. Neither platform has, or likely ever will, sell our data outright. That is absolutely the last thing I'd be worried about. Of course, like the government, you don't know who will be in charge tomorrow or what their intentions might be. > These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique. All institutions will try and do terrible things if you set up the wrong incentives. > Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google We are paying for this with our privacy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get. Improvements to Google's index used to cost us nothing. Now they cost us our data. The more data they collect, the more money they will make. That sets their interests squarely against ours; yes, true, we want good search results. We also want the government to arrest all the terrorists. I'm not prepared to live my life as an open book to achieve these results. > to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost. You've asked me a lot of questions, let me ask you some. What happens when the benefits no longer outweigh the risks but Google tell you sorry, our profiling isn't finished yet. What if through some change in your personal circumstances the data they hold suddenly becomes damaging to you. What will you do if they go too far? Will you know straight away? Will you have time to make a decision? Will you be able to tell them to stop? How will you get Google to delete your data if you want them to leave you alone? Are you expecting the government to step in and help even though they're directly benefiting from all this data collection? Are you perfectly happy that they have access to it all? Would you so willingly hand over the same data to them directly?

joebadmo 15y ago
> We are paying for this with our privacy. I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me. Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control in the future. But back to the point of the thread: I don't think data collection is evil in and of itself, and so I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil.