4 ms·

That is a laudable and idealistic goal, but we don't live in that world. Furthermore Google itself knows more than we do about how easily governments can acces

That is a laudable and idealistic goal, but we don't live in that world. Furthermore Google itself knows more than we do about how easily governments can access the data it accumulates. If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data. Google understands the risks better than its users but chooses to expose them because doing so is aligned with its business model and philosophy whereas protecting them is not. It's a bit like recommending someone travel through a war zone on a bicycle when a tank is an available alternative, because the bike carries advertising you profit from and the tank does not.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Still, you do want to remove that dangerous war zone itself. The problem is, to do that, a few group of people at best needs to stick their neck out for the benefit of everyone else. The way I see it, the problem is that mass cooperation just isn't going to happen. Incentives and benefits must be found at the individual level (altruism counts as a weak incentive), and drawbacks must be dealt with, starting with the gazillion trivial inconveniences that an otherwise privacy aware citizen would have to put up with. There's a reason why I don't encrypt my hard drive: my OS doesn't do it by default, and taking the time to set it up is just such a drag.
- embolism 13y ago
  My OS does do it by default. It also provides me with a messaging system with end to end encryption by default. The inconveniences can be removed by engineering - that's what we do. It's a matter of priorities and Google's are conflicted in this area.
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    Which OS? That sounds interesting.
burntsushi 13y ago
> If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data. I'm perplexed that you'd call me idealistic for not wanting a coercive third party secretly taking a company's data by force, and in the next sentence suggest that a company should provide services to me in exchange for nothing. I give my data to Google. In exchange, I get their services and they get to serve me advertisements. I am happy with this arrangement. Wanting my government to have some semblance of the checks and balances encoded in our founding document is neither unreasonable nor idealistic.
- embolism 13y ago
  I'm not calling you idealistic for what you want. I want a trustworthy government too. I'm calling you idealistic because you are putting your hopes in an idealistic solution when Google could provide you with a technical solution now. One type of check and balance against untrustworthy governments is robust civil institutions. Technology companies could be helping to provide those. It seems to me that in the presence of an untrustworthy government, a state of affairs that had existed throughout history, you prefer ad-supported free email to privacy.

loup-vaillant 13y ago

Still, you do want to remove that dangerous war zone itself. The problem is, to do that, a few group of people at best needs to stick their neck out for the benefit of everyone else. The way I see it, the problem is that mass cooperation just isn't going to happen. Incentives and benefits must be found at the individual level (altruism counts as a weak incentive), and drawbacks must be dealt with, starting with the gazillion trivial inconveniences that an otherwise privacy aware citizen would have to put up with. There's a reason why I don't encrypt my hard drive: my OS doesn't do it by default, and taking the time to set it up is just such a drag.

embolism 13y ago
My OS does do it by default. It also provides me with a messaging system with end to end encryption by default. The inconveniences can be removed by engineering - that's what we do. It's a matter of priorities and Google's are conflicted in this area.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Which OS? That sounds interesting.

burntsushi 13y ago

> If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data. I'm perplexed that you'd call me idealistic for not wanting a coercive third party secretly taking a company's data by force, and in the next sentence suggest that a company should provide services to me in exchange for nothing. I give my data to Google. In exchange, I get their services and they get to serve me advertisements. I am happy with this arrangement. Wanting my government to have some semblance of the checks and balances encoded in our founding document is neither unreasonable nor idealistic.

embolism 13y ago
I'm not calling you idealistic for what you want. I want a trustworthy government too. I'm calling you idealistic because you are putting your hopes in an idealistic solution when Google could provide you with a technical solution now. One type of check and balance against untrustworthy governments is robust civil institutions. Technology companies could be helping to provide those. It seems to me that in the presence of an untrustworthy government, a state of affairs that had existed throughout history, you prefer ad-supported free email to privacy.