7 ms·
When is privacy button not a privacy button? When Google runs it, claims lawsuit
- tmtvl 3y ago> Jonathan Hochman, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, provided a technical analysis of Google data collection, but his report remains under seal. As is common in such cases, Google has pushed for sensitive documents obtained during the discovery process to be redacted or sealed. This has become an issue in the US government's ongoing antitrust trial against Google, where much of the testimony and many of the documents have been withheld from the public. You know, I'd figure it'd be in the public interest for people whose privacy has been violated to have access to the relevant documents... I wonder if anything there could be requested under FOIA?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoNo, if it's sealed via valid court order, FOIA has no power there.
- laurex 3y agoBummer for beginning devs who spin up Firebase without understanding the implications. (To be fair, it sounds like even Google leadership doesn't understand).
- neilv 3y ago> "It looks like even Sundar Pichai is confused about how this control works because he testified in front of Congress and told them something that is just wrong from a technical perspective…," he said. If that's true, is that a jailable perjury offense for an individual? Or, as an executive representing a company, is there some analogous penalty for the corporate-person, such as the company losing its revenue and certain rights for a period?
- ceejayoz 3y ago"Confused" and perjury aren't the same thing.
- neilv 3y agoWhat is the penalty/remedy for "confused", then, when it's representing the company and providing incorrect information in testimony before Congress?
- JohnFen 3y agoThe remedy is other testimony or congressional research that shows the original testimony was in error.
- pc86 3y agoThere is no penalty for being wrong.
- ceejayoz 3y agoDo you think it's reasonable to expect Google's CEO to know the exact inner workings of one particular toggle switch buried in their privacy settings, to the point of punishment for getting them wrong? Punishment means Congressional hearings - which are, to be fair, generally useless - become nothing but "I don't know but I can check with our teams later" responses.
- joelfried 3y agoI don't know about OP, but I definitely do. If you do not know enough to answer correctly, do not answer. If you do not know enough to know if you are certain, adjust what you say to be accurate. If every answer becomes "I don't know but I can check with our teams", the Congressional response should be "We subpoena the team to answer these questions". Allowing the CEO of any company to present a factually false answer to Congress while representing the company and speaking from a position of expertise provides awfully perverse incentives for _every single CEO_ to misrepresent his company if there are no repercussions for provably false testimony.
- kornhole 3y agoThe lesson for me from this case is that these privacy controls are like a steering wheel on a child's stroller. They give you the illusion of control.
- darkclouds 3y ago[dead]
- kludgemaker 3y agoWe're lying to ourselves if we believe anything Google claims about respecting privacy. Unless your data is encrypted when you give it to the monster, and you can know with certainty that it is, then it's not private. The monster will know what the data is, and it will sell it or trade it for power from governments, etc. Who else has taken note that you can no longer create a Google account without a mobile phone? Google is linking accounts to individuals. Anonymity and privacy are no longer a reality when dealing with Google.
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- Havoc 3y agoI'm just amazed that people expect any sort of privacy from a product made by a company that has targetting as its core revenue stream. Bit like being surprised Chevron has a large fossil fuel footprint.
- pytness 3y ago:o no way