4 ms·

funny you say that. Google is upfront about their intentions, but nobody believes them that they are not data mining this for behaviour tracking. Can't win in

• srazzaque 3y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't aware Google had actually stated "we don't use this data for tracking, and we only use it for link protection" (does it?). Assuming true: you are right in that it's basically no-win. The fact that Google draws so much revenue from advertising makes it difficult to reconcile. Nothing short of a third-party code audit of Google's code against their asserted privacy policy would appease everyone. And even then, there would be doubters.
  • TeMPOraL 3y ago
    If they did state that, this would probably be legally binding in the EU under GDPR.
• glimshe 3y ago
  They can't win as a result of their own actions. Once you lose trust, it's hard to regain it.
• nerdponx 3y ago
  Why would anyone believe that they aren't? Or that they won't start doing it?
  • sneak 3y ago
    More importantly: Google is in a jurisdiction that can mandate warrantless surveillance orders that require realtime surveillance of given selectors (i.e. IPs or users). They comply or they go to jail. Even if the stated and official policy of Google is to never track these, and everyone at Google is 100% on board with this and will never change, they are subject to being Agent Smith'd at any time by the FBI/DHS and NSA and CIA and the rest of the US IC, critically: without probable cause or a search warrant. The US has abandoned the rule of law and the constitutional protections against unreasonable search. This applies to every single US-managed services vendor. The decision to track or not track is simply not in their hands. If they get handed an NSL, a FISA order, or a regular old search warrant, they have to start turning over everything they have.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • Tijdreiziger 3y ago
      I would assume anyone trying to evade state-level actors wouldn’t be using Google Docs in the first place.
      • sneak 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal These secrets were kept in gmail drafts.
    • lern_too_spel 3y ago
      > The US has abandoned the rule of law and the constitutional protections against unreasonable search Those constitutional protections protect US citizens anywhere and noncitizens while they are in the US. Warrantless surveillance of communications affects noncitizens outside the US. The US is still very much a nation of laws.
      • sneak 3y ago
        Human rights to privacy do not hinge upon location or citizenship. Indeed, the declaration (written by British crown subjects) makes it clear: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. It doesn’t say “all americans”. The constitution doesn’t grant the rights, it merely recognizes the existing ones... but you already know this. > Warrantless surveillance of communications affects noncitizens outside the US. We have also learned, again and again, that it affects US citizens, too, in violation of the law. The IC doesn’t care that much beyond keeping up appearances that they comply with the law. These are the same people who ran torture centers, lied to Congress, got caught, and hacked Congressional computers to delete evidence, then got caught doing that, too. Nobody went to jail or was even charged. The laws simply do not apply to the CIA.
        • 3y ago
• nonrandomstring 3y ago
  This old problem. It's the word "win" that bothers me in this context. Until one sees that conflicting models can make "security" a zero sum game, in which your security is my insecurity and vice versa, there is only psychological splitting, posturing and clamour for the "moral high ground". Indeed, even using the word "security" as a bare noun is a mark of presumptuousness. One must always ask; Security for whom? Security against whom or what? Security to what end? Unilaterally imposing a harm (leaking of data) upon others is disdainful, but then offering "security" as your reason/excuse, is condescending, since you do not know what my security needs are and how they are prioritised. When it comes to messing with my data or devices "for my own good" the only proper response is "I'll be the judge of that!" Many then respond that "people are too stupid and need a firm hand", which is not a good look, and frankly cuts to the core of so many problems in technology today. Companies like Google need a better moral, sociological and psychological map of reality before putting on their boots and marching off down the road of good intentions in the direction of Hell.
• yafbum 3y ago
  You could say f-ck it, if nobody believes us anyways, let's just track the sh-t out of everything then
• ladzoppelin 3y ago
  That's because they straight up lie about some things and use half truths for other things all while thinking they are being clever.