5 ms·

I very much doubt this. Often deletes are just soft deletes, and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies. They might not use it for

I very much doubt this. Often deletes are just soft deletes, and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies. They might not use it for advertisement directly, but I am 100% convinced they’ll build up your profile and use the profile for advertisement instead.

gruez 2y ago
>Often deletes are just soft deletes It probably is, with purges (including backups) happening a few months later. Otherwise they're setting themselves up for fraud lawsuits (see also: the recent incognito browsing lawsuit which arguably has less merit than a straightforward "we told you we'd delete it but didn't"). > and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies. 1. Source? 2. If your threat model is intelligence agencies operating extrajudicially, you probably shouldn't be trusting googles delete functionality at all. At the very least they can pull up a copy that they captured before you deleted it from google?
- moi2388 2y ago
  1. Prism and the snowden leaks, and EU regulation which prevents the transfer of EU citizens data to the US specifically because all of it is being harvested under PRISM and FISA. 2. Very true, which is exactly why all EU data had to remain in the EU and could not be transferred to the US, until recently, with the express statement that US intelligence would still have access.
  - gruez 2y ago
    AFAIK the Snowden/PRISM leaks only revealed that tech companies were part of the program, but not whether they were compelled or voluntarily gave the information up.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      I didn’t state if they gave it up willingly or compelled. There are also reports of the US buying lots of data from data brokers, as well as hackers. I mean, I would too, if I were an intelligence agency. It just means I’m more careful about which data I put where

5 ms·

I very much doubt this. Often deletes are just soft deletes, and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies. They might not use it for

by moi2388 2y ago

gruez 2y ago
>Often deletes are just soft deletes It probably is, with purges (including backups) happening a few months later. Otherwise they're setting themselves up for fraud lawsuits (see also: the recent incognito browsing lawsuit which arguably has less merit than a straightforward "we told you we'd delete it but didn't"). > and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies. 1. Source? 2. If your threat model is intelligence agencies operating extrajudicially, you probably shouldn't be trusting googles delete functionality at all. At the very least they can pull up a copy that they captured before you deleted it from google?
- moi2388 2y ago
  1. Prism and the snowden leaks, and EU regulation which prevents the transfer of EU citizens data to the US specifically because all of it is being harvested under PRISM and FISA. 2. Very true, which is exactly why all EU data had to remain in the EU and could not be transferred to the US, until recently, with the express statement that US intelligence would still have access.
  - gruez 2y ago
    AFAIK the Snowden/PRISM leaks only revealed that tech companies were part of the program, but not whether they were compelled or voluntarily gave the information up.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      I didn’t state if they gave it up willingly or compelled. There are also reports of the US buying lots of data from data brokers, as well as hackers. I mean, I would too, if I were an intelligence agency. It just means I’m more careful about which data I put where