24 ms·
Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it
- gorenb 3y agoLol im using https://searx.be https://searx.be now
- dylan604 3y agoIt is not uncommon to abide by some regulation that you don't agree with while at the same time working to have the regulation removed.
- voisin 3y agoIt’s wild that anyone believes Google supports privacy in any manner whatsoever. You cannot simultaneously support privacy while relying on a targeted advertising business model.
- qbrass 3y agoGoogle still wants their own privacy, so they're going to support the things that protect that.
- arciini 3y agoWhile I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it'll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market. Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved. If you don't think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It's better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don't care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense. The following only makes sense if you buy this argument: The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it's not worth it. Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". The Chrome topics API and mathematical/statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies/data brokers. That being said, I don't love the concentration of power (that's why the DOJ is going after them) - I'd much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.
- Nullabillity 3y ago> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Ads are, at best, malware for the brain. What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.
- JohnFen 3y ago> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point. It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.
- jkubicek 3y ago> It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads. I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_. I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline. What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.
- naniwaduni 3y agoYou can have your restricted concerns, I'm going to keep taking issue with (a) data collected being data that can get accidental public backups, and (b) ads being an unwanted imposition on my attention.
- 3y ago
- brookst 3y agoSo tired of the “[company] claims to support my definition of [topic] while advocating different version of [topic]” Privacy is an ambiguous term. Probably no two of us agree on 100% of the implementation details. Yes, Google’s approach does not align with my desires. But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one. How about “Google’s is lobbying for a weaker form of privacy than customers expect”?
- JohnFen 3y ago> But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one I am arrogant enough to know what is acceptable to me, though, and to work towards that. Just like Google (or most anyone else) does, albeit Google outguns me by many orders of magnitude.
- shadowgovt 3y agoThe thing Google knows is that once the law decides what privacy means, neither Google nor you get to have your own definition anymore.
- JohnFen 3y agoSure we do. It's just not a definition encoded in law. But what the law says doesn't change my view of what's right and wrong. If the law says I have no privacy whatsoever, all that would mean is that I need to put a great deal more effort into safeguarding my privacy.
- shadowgovt 3y agoIt will however change whether you go to jail for acting on your beliefs of right and wrong.
- JohnFen 3y agoPossibly, but that doesn't change anything.
- ehhthing 3y agoRegardless of who wrote this, I find it hard to trust an article written by a direct competitor to the company being scrutinized -- there is a clear conflict of interest here.
- zilchnotta 3y agoThe adversarial system is the best we've come with in law and government. It seems, relying on opponents to keep each other honest, is a tool worth using.
- callalex 3y agoYou’re right, Google’s stalking and manipulation conflict with my interests.
- asadotzler 3y agoYou're not gonna like how our justice system works if you think the adversarial approach discounts the results.
- ehhthing 3y agoBut I'm not a judge and this isn't court. The adversarial system has a time and a place, but in this case it's not like Google ever publishes blog posts on why ProtonMail may or may not be bad, and it would be quite impossible for them to debunk every accusation against them. This isn't the adversarial system as much as it is just one company making marketing material for themselves by attacking another company.
- more_corn 3y agoGoogle is the worst offender in creating the current state of zero privacy. Real privacy is privacy by default. Opt out is bullshit and everyone knows it. Just try to opt out of information sharing for every service you have. It’s simply not possible. Why don’t our lawmakers advocate for real privacy? Because powerful tech advertising lobbies prevent it. Google doesn’t even respect opt out. There’s no role for user privacy advocate at google . There’s no room for the discussion. They regularly and actively subvert even the weak privacy laws we have here. Notice how they nag you forever to log into google maps? That’s so they can share your location data across all properties. They aren’t legally allowed to do it unless there’s a reason. The login service is their reason. How do I know this? They said it openly. Is this conscious, active and continuous violation of privacy law? I’d say it is.
- roody15 3y agoGoogle supporting privacy… lol
- shadowgovt 3y agoThe article pretty much gets Google's philosophy on this correct. Google, having cut their teeth on being pioneers in search in a world where people were still figuring out what the consequences of vastly collating human data at scale were, found themselves all too often the moral and philosophical pioneers as well, whether or not they wanted to be. As a consequence, they have heavy skepticism about both government and public capacity to self-regulate here. Neither group has usually done either the deep reflection or trial by fire that Google has in figuring out all of the parameters of the problem, all of the consequences of the decisions, etc. In short, they trust themselves more than they trust anybody else and they put their lobbying money in places that allow them to maximize acting on that self-trust. They'd rather be making mistakes and correcting them than forced to make what they perceive to be the wrong decision by bad ideas baked into unmovable law. Good bad or indifferent, that's where they're coming from. (And to be clear, this is not an endorsement of their position. I think people who believe that there is a gap between that self-image and of the reality of the decisions they've made as de facto arbiters of privacy online have plenty of evidence to bring to the table to support their position.)
- davinci123 3y agoPrivacy is a myth in today's world. It has become a marketing anthem for many including Apple. If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data. Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.
- davinci123 3y agolo and behold: https://karl-voit.at/cloud/ https://karl-voit.at/cloud/
- CharlesW 3y ago> If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data. In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.
- smoldesu 3y agoSo... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less? Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".
- CharlesW 3y ago> So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less? I don't feel very captive. Plus Apple devices have great resale value should Apple's interests ever stop aligning with mine.
- smoldesu 3y agoI don't feel very captive on my Samsung handset either. All that emotion does very little to let me read the modem firmware, much less ensure the privacy of the device. That's what OP's point was, that you were responding to. They were saying that privacy is always a reductive argument; your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe. That feels more like you're addressing your own insecurity instead of what the commenter actually wrote.
- endisneigh 3y agoIf you accept free speech then you accept advertisements. If you accept advertisements, then you might as well accept the obfuscation to preserve some semblance of "privacy." Only the naive believe it's possible to not have advertisements. Advertisements even existed in Ancient Rome.
- deely3 3y agoI do accept free speech and also I accept possibility to block all and any advertisements from showing on my devices.
- endisneigh 3y agoSure, but you can't block someone from saying, hey "Applications are open for Y Combinator Winter 2024". There you go, an advertisement, straight to your brain.
- 93po 3y agoSure I can. I can add filters for that or use hckrnews dot com
- tomjen3 3y agoI accept free speech as in I am free to listen to any speech of my choosing without interference from a third party. I do not accept that I have to hear any specific speech. The fact that reality lacks a good filter is a very serious bug that I hope gets fixed immediately.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Nullabillity 3y agoFreedom to speak is not freedom to hire goons to shove it down people's throats.
- endisneigh 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AlbertCory 3y agoWhen I was in Google Ads, someone explained to me that Search ads were 10x more profitable than banner ads. The reason is the search tells you something about what the user wants. Our canonical example was "flowers." It's perfectly reasonable to show you ads for 1-800-FLOWERS. Of course, over time that's been corrupted so you see only ads. Don't bother beating that dead horse. All the "targeted advertisement" efforts are to figure out what you want when you didn't say anything, and reduce that 10x to 5x or less. I don't see a good reason not to prohibit those, if people object to them. There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoWhen I was at Google I almost got in trouble a couple of times by asking if Google might have a monopoly. I was told to delete messages and to never say "The M Word".
- gretch 3y agodisclosure: work at Google This makes sense if your genuine perspective is that you don't have a monopoly. Like if I sent a bunch of emails saying "Hey guys, we are making great progress on committing genocide" - people would say "wtf man, we don't commit genocide, we just make software, why are you talking like that?" Then you're all like "shhh don't say the G word..." I'm not sure what you did in the company, but unless you had a VP+ level position, how are you qualified to know whether Google has a monopoly or not? Like, how do you have omniscient data on what competitors sales look like? You're just speculating in an unhealthy way. And that's why people told you to be quiet.
- AlbertCory 3y agoActually, I reject the argument from qualifications. (That doesn't mean he was right to say what he said.) Having climbed the greasy pole of management doesn't make you on expert on anything except pole-climbing. You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has. Judging whether a company is or isn't a monopoly is something anyone can do, although if you're not the judge you have no impact.
- exabrial 3y agoWhen Google does it, it's fine. When others do it, it's "Invading Your Privacy!!!"
- rmbyrro 3y agoEver imagined a tech giant with a "don't be evil" mantra? Google is a big company. That's why it has conflicting ideas about privacy... They can't all talk to eachother there! After all, they're not evil, are they?
- davesque 3y agoGoogle's business model is such that it needs to invade privacy in order to make money. It's also made up of human beings who are subject to self-serving bias (believing that they have no bad intentions, therefore nothing will go wrong). So yeah, they're going to lobby for less privacy and claim that they want more of it and feel just fine about doing that.
- __jambo 3y ago"...Google and tech industry allies responded with a massive lobbying campaign... convince lawmakers banning targeted ads would hurt the global economy. The gambit worked, and the draft law no longer threatens Google’s advertising." Lol, sounds like Google and the tech industry used targeted advertising to prevent a ban on targeted advertising.
- nojvek 3y agoReminds me of 1984. Google is the Ministry of Privacy. Minister of Privacy: “Let us gather to celebrate a trillion dollars of profit in one quarter. Our goal is to harness the world’s data and exploit it. Surveillance is Privacy” — Minister of Peace: “Comrades, our Ministry has an important duty to ensure the perpetual war that maintains our control. War is peace.” Minister of Plenty: “Let us not forget our crucial role of the in rationing resources and keeping the populace in a state of need. Scarcity is Abundance.” Minister of Truth: “The past is mutable, and it is our duty to control the narrative. Ignorance is Strength.” Minister of Love: “Our goal is to eliminate dissent and ensure the loyalty of our citizens. Fear is Love.”
- alphanullmeric 3y agoPrivacy washing: half of these commenters claim to support privacy while whining about financial privacy under any post involving cryptocurrencies
- lakomen 3y agoPro digital services act propaganda
- fennecfoxy 3y agoBasically everyone I know and most people I see on HN: I don't like ads and also I won't pay for content/a service. So what're their options, then? People get real, reeeeeal mad that YT offers premium as if for some reason they deserve to use things like Youtube for free? Granted, if we actually taxed the rich and focussed money on more important stuff yeah we could totally have all of these service for free, sponsored by tax dollars. But that is _never_ gonna happen as long as we're dragging the chains of evolution behind us.