11 ms·

That's a fun trick Google

273 points by tenpoundhammer 13y ago

ananth99 13y ago
LOL.
res0nat0r 13y ago
> Thanks Google! What a fun way to say, “I hope we can squeeze every dime possible out of your tiny little life. “ Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure?
- sbarre 13y ago
  They should figure out how to do it without tricking people into joining things they don't want to join.
- grandalf 13y ago
  Google is not alone in using dark patterns -- Facebook got tons of growth by using dark patterns around privacy. Google is copying that strategy a few years too late. The age-groups that are leaving Facebook are doing so b/c they understand the dark pattern maze for what it is and don't want to deal with it.
  - Estragon 13y ago
    It'd be interesting to read survey statistics on who's leaving FB and why. Is there anything like that out there?
    - 27182818284 13y ago
      Nobody leaves Facebook, it is just used differently. That's a big detail that only a few articles seem to get correct. Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad, but they also have a Tumblr account.
      - grandalf 13y ago
        >Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad As such the value of the young peoples' engagement puts FB on par with an email service.
- ebertx 13y ago
  It's less about covering infrastructure and more about maximizing return for shareholders.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; that profit is the difference between how much our privacy is worth and the cost of the services we receive in exchange for it. " (Bruce Schneier => https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_as_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...)
  - GeorgeOrr 13y ago
    Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.
    - jerf 13y ago
      I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.
- 27182818284 13y ago
  >Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? They paid for that before without being annoying, Facebook pays for theirs by being less annoying than Google. (Wow, thinking about this just now who would've thought the day would come so soon that Facebook is less annoying than Google.)
  - xauronx 13y ago
    They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. If he wasn't looking for it, or didn't want to become enraged by it, he probably could have just ignored/dismissed the alert and never known better. Right now complaining about G+ is like complaining about Facebook privacy a few months ago. It's low hanging fruit that anyone with a blog can complain about to seem enlightened.
    - sbuk 13y ago
      >They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. So essentially signing you up for things without consent is OK? It's never OK, irrespective of motive.
      - xauronx 13y ago
        So, if you're running a... time management tool, let's say it's just a todo list. Then you create another tool, a time tracker so you can log your hours on your todo items. You should force them to sign up for it in order to use it? Personally, even if the tools were made to be able to operate separately of each other, I would give the users of my first tool access to the second one and link the accounts. G+ is just an extension of their offerings. Just because the tides of the internets have flowed against it doesn't mean that anything involving Google plus is practically rape.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - 13y ago
mkaziz 13y ago
I'm not a fan of post-2011 Google.
- FrankenPC 13y ago
  Ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Works every time.
tjbiddle 13y ago
I'm assuming it must still be more beneficial to Google to continue to press G+ on it's users than cease doing so, because even with all of the bad publicity they receive for it - they continue forward. Bummer.
ams6110 13y ago
Funny... a year ago I would have said Chrome[ium] had Firefox on the ropes. Now it's looking like Firefox has the upper hand on protecting privacy. And I am surprised to find myself thinking that even IE is probably preferable.
- kzrdude 13y ago
  Firefox is the browser market's biggest proponent of the open web; for me the choice is a no-brainer.
- gbl08ma 13y ago
  This has nothing to do with what browser is used. The user is being redirected to the login page to accept some new ToS, instead of being automatically logged in. This would happen with any browser that supports redirects and cookies, and if for some reason the redirect didn't work, they'd just politely ask you to click on a certain link to continue (and if cookies are disabled, auto-login would not work).
  - NotOscarWilde 13y ago
    If I understand the link's post correctly, the user is being logged out of his Google Chrome profile (which is used to save your browsing data across devices) and being redirected to the login page to accept some new ToS. Accepting that ToS for the browser setting set up his Google+ profile, it seems. As far as I know, no other browser (IE,Firefox,Safari) has a social network (and very few actually nudge you into logging in to some profile when using it) and so this has a lot to do with what browser is used. The author would likely not get this behaviour on any other browser (I'm on Firefox, I use some of Google's services and my Google+ account is still disabled), which is another reason to believe this has a lot to do with what browser is used.
wellboy 13y ago
And with Google and Facebook screwing over their users with dark patterns, their demise was all set. They will soon realize by finding it hard to recruit talent. Google and Facebook used to be the best companies to work at, nowadays you're starting to get looked at strangely if you work there. What, you've been part of the NSA thing? What, did you work on G+? LOL was it you who redesigned youtube comments? 2 new horsemen in tech pls.
GeorgeOrr 13y ago
And of course, outraged and harmed by this you proceeded to stop using Google services. They are paying for it by acting in a way you find distasteful, so of course you will show them by no longer using their services. Or ... are you using their services while moaning about it? No, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  Thanks for posting!
- the_watcher 13y ago
  Or, you continue using their services since they are the best value available, but also complain and point out problems you have with it. I think Google is happiest with this option, so they at least know what their users complain about.
  - GeorgeOrr 13y ago
    I hear you. But I will point out that they are often just the default option not necessarily the best available. I learnt that when they stopped supporting their news reader. It forced me to look at what had been out there all along, but I had simply not looked because their reader was good enough. They taught me in this way to look for alternatives that are often better. For instance, I've come to appreciate the features at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q= https://duckduckgo.com/?q= For search. Google isn't any more evil than they have ever been - they are however huge and it's almost certain that some aspect of what they do will rub lots of people the wrong way. I don't avoid them like the plague, but I also don't stick to services I don't like and I suggest as much as I can seeking out alternatives. If you don't like being the product that is sold, leave. If you like the trade for the value you get, than it's worked out well for you. I can't blame them for making an offer you chose to accept.
    - the_watcher 13y ago
      >> But I will point out that they are often just the default option not necessarily the best available. That seems like the optimal place for Google to be. Aware of its user's complaints, but also aware that they haven't moved on, as well as what alternatives are being brought up.
macNchz 13y ago
Just last week I started using Firefox as my main browser (after three years of using Chrome), mostly due to "Sign in to Chrome" annoyances. At one point I inadvertently signed into Chrome with my Google apps account, which then stored a lot more personal data in the cloud than I'd ever intended. When I noticed this sometime later, I tried to disconnect my account from Chrome—which is apparently not possible for a Google apps account—so the only fix was to delete the Chrome account and to lose my browser history and saved passwords...which I did, right before opening Firefox.
- xauronx 13y ago
  I love being signed into Chrome. If I looked something up on my phone while I was walking into work, I can quickly open it in a tab on my desktop. If I searched for a specific coffee shop on my desktop and only remember a couple of letters in the name later, chrome on my phone auto-completes. Among many other sweet features, I think it's worth just... signing in.
  - kibwen 13y ago
    Firefox does this as well, and it doesn't require an account to do so. It also encrypts your personal data in the client, and allows you to set up your own sync server so that even your encrypted data never touches their servers if you don't want it to.
  - macNchz 13y ago
    Hey, if it works for you then go for it, I just didn't like the way it seemed to be foisted on me. Perhaps it was an easier break for me as I've never cared too much about having my stuff—aside from email and calendar—perfectly synchronized between my phone and computer.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Huh? When you click the big "disconnect your google account" button in settings, it explicitly says you won't lose anything stored locally (including browser history and saved passwords), and you get a host of checkboxes allowing you to decide what to connect with your google account (including nothing), as well as an option to use a passphrase that encrypts everything locally before leaving your machine, ensuring that google couldn't read it even if it tried. Honestly I can't understand how you reached any of the conclusions in your post -- they simply aren't true. There are plenty of things to complain about with how google in "unifying" their accounts, but Chrome sync isn't one of them. The only thing I'd want them to add is the ability to sync to your own sync server like Firefox (essentially no does it, but the option is important), but encrypting everything locally is equivalent enough for me.
joshfraser 13y ago
Google gives us all a lot of amazing technology completely free of charge. I use their search engine, email client and browser every day and for me their products are second to none. Google is one of the few companies that is really investing in the future with things like Google Glass and self driving cars. Personally, I'm okay with a few ads if that's what it takes for them to keep innovating and making the world a more interesting place. That said, all these attempts to strong arm people into using Google Plus are really getting old.
- Kequc 13y ago
  It is because Google + is their new identity service. Everything requires it, instead of a gmail account. Google + is your Google identity. At the same time it is also a social platform because so what? Don't use it. Or, use it since it's really really useful. The amount of rage people express about being "forced" to use Google + is as perplexing to Google as it is to me. It's an identity service. You don't need to have a gmail account to use Google's services anymore you just need a Google identity. That's what Google + is. I don't know how many times I can say it but so far it seems like a lot of times. People want to rage.
  - antoko 13y ago
    Right, but the confusion is that both the identity service and their social network are called Google+. So it is hardly surprising that people get confused when they call two supposedly distinct services by the same name. Why not just call the identity service Google Account and then all the perception problems go away. Seems like a huge PR blunder. But then I'm not actually sure how much google really care about this, I think the rage about it is amplified in our HN crowd. Most google customers probably don't notice and of the ones that do the majority likely don't care.
    - Kequc 13y ago
      I agree to a certain extent. But Google + and the identity service are so closely linked that I am having trouble imagining how they could have called it Google Account since everyone would be wondering what they need Google + for. Which is happening anyway but people haven't figured out the part where Google + is your Google identity yet. Even on, or especially on HN/Youtube. The ability to comment and talk about stuff is going to permeate all of Google's services. I don't really see how else they could do it. Maybe if they didn't force you to use your real name then everyone wouldn't be having freak outs?
ywyrd 13y ago
"If they can't even get search right, who would trust them with anything more?"
libria 13y ago
Perhaps the new TOS includes reactivation of a disabled G+ account. Anyone else seen them? The article is light on details.
andywood 13y ago
This has been the very essence of Google for the past two years. Forcefully assimilating existing services, where users already had data, into G+, changing functionality and terms, and generally leaving users to feel insecure about how privacy and access to their long-held data might or might not change. What a far cry from '99-'03 Google, which used to release clever and surprising new data-browsing tools, each with a singular purpose, that just worked.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  ...and none of them talked to each other at all. Yeah, I happen to like the integrated Google. When I get GMail confirming a flight, it automatically shows up in my Google Now. I can search for it with "When is my next flight?" I can search my Docs and Gmail both at once. I happen like how far Google has gotten from those old, random, completely non-integrated days.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    Exactly. When Google bought all these companies, it was disappointing to see them sitting as isolated buckets. I mean, did people thing these purchases were done as a Pokemon game? "Yay, Google got all 151 verticals!". How long did they let Blogger sit as a wasteland of spam? Now? Now Blogger is Picasa for prose, and Picasa is Youtube for still images, and your Plus homepage is your central hub for all the discussion happening on those services. Obviously, Plus has problems, and lots of them. It's far too opinionated for something that's being used as a general-purpose comment-engine. Plus is a good Facebook, but it's a piss-poor Disqus, and Google is using it as Disqus. But the overall strategy of consolidation? Long overdue. Google is finally turning their holdings into a single impressive platform instead of a balkanized mess of isolated services. I don't like the privacy implications, of course. But that's always been Google's business model ever since they launched GMail - they give you something awesome for free and in exchange they get to spy on you to provide targeted ads.
    - indubitably 13y ago
      Well, Gmail isn't all that free, in practice. I imagine a lot of the people around here have enough email to have capitulated to Gmail's inevitable demands for cash. I did.
vraj5 13y ago
While I hate this tactic of pushing monetization more obviously down our throats, what real option do they have? Amazon has slowly been eating their lunch in terms of product sales (heck, they even piggy back off of Google Ads and rake higher margins) and people are willingly telling Facebook what they like and dislike, so it seems that the end is nigh for advertiser spend primarily going to Google Search based ads. In this case, the pie of "eyeballs" getting bigger, advertiser spend isn't rising commensurately, and neither Google Search's share (they're both still rising, hence Google's recent stock boom). I'm not saying I have an answer, but nobody is really providing a viable alternative for them.
nfoz 13y ago
While you're complaining about Google, how about you fix your website to stop giving away your viewers' data to third-party advertising/technology companies? A cursory glance at the source reveals: - tumblr.com - googleapis.com - netdna.bootstrapcdn.com - ogp.me - google-analytics.com - yimg.com - nol.yahoo.com Think you could tone that down?
- xauronx 13y ago
  Jeeze, you think he can just do all that typing for free? He has to pay the bills somehow. Unlike those greedy corporations! </sarcasm>
- chadwickthebold 13y ago
  How does using CDNs to load jQuery, font awesome, and some google fonts give away viewer data to third parties? I'm not sure about the tumblr stuff but I don't see how loading these scripts is malicious...
  - minimalist 13y ago
    It is no different than linking to any third-party / external resource. Specifically, profiling information is delivered across the referrer and user-agent to name a few. There is a more complete discussion on the network security stackexchange group[0]. [0] http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38415/privacy-risk-in-using-google-apis http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38415/privacy-ri...
  - gbl08ma 13y ago
    The tumblr stuff is because the website is hosted on tumblr (as can be seen by the feed at the bottom of the post).
pouzy 13y ago
It feels like the upper management at Google switched from being a tech-oriented company to a money oriented company. It's always been an ad agency, but the products used to be great. Now I have a hard time using their products, and EVERY SINGLE product I'mn still using is from lesser quality than 2 years ago. And google+ is not helping.
ricardobeat 13y ago
Yesterday I was editing a spreadsheet on Google Docs and pressed Cmd+C to copy some text. A window popped up saying "You need to install the Google Drive app to enable copy & paste functionality". Good one.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Wait, on what platform? Chrome? Desktop? What?
- talles 13y ago
  You kidding... right?
- evilmushroom 13y ago
  You do realize that was for special pastes, right? Cells + functions, drawings etc
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    It was a plain text field containing a URL, using Chrome.
    - evandena 13y ago
      Just a hunch, but maybe you had the cell selected and tried to copy that, instead of selecting the text within the cell?
      - Pxtl 13y ago
        ... that's not really better. Requiring the desktop installation of Drive for trivial cases like that means that the web-application isn't really a web-application, but rather a desktop application that uses the browser as a GUI.
        aiiane 13y ago
        Actually, that's due to Drive trying to support the system clipboard intelligently (e.g. such that if you pasted into MS Office, you'd actually get a table/cell structure, rather than just text). Browser APIs don't provide support for that level of copy-paste, so it has to be worked around. Plain text copy and paste works fine without.
duked 13y ago
I'm still using gmail but I fear that one day they will do the same thing with new TOS on gmail. This day I even get prompted to create a g+ account every time I login. Is there an alternative, where I would have 15GB and the option to use my own domain. I'll happily pay to avoid creating a g+ account and have decent space for my emails without managing the security.
- masnick 13y ago
  Yep! FastMail is great. http://www.maxmasnick.com/2013/07/19/fastmail/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2013/07/19/fastmail/
  - duked 13y ago
    Man thank you so much ! I didn't know they offered the option to use your own domain name. I will definitely give it a try since it's very affordable ($40/year in my case).
    - masnick 13y ago
      No problem! Hopefully you like it. So far I have nothing but good things to say about FastMail. They just had a big storage bump for all the different plans, which helps a ton.
Pxtl 13y ago
Google never should've tried to be "polite" about G+. It's only bit them in the ass and become a repeatedly-broken promise. The intent here is reasonable: They have dozens of services with dozens of comment engines and user-systems and they need to consolidate that crap into something more coherent. Picasa/YouTube do functionally similar services but one uses video and one uses pictures, so it makes sense for Google to try to make their common-ground more common. The problem is that fundamentally, G+ was too opinionated and Google leadership was too polite. The relationship should've been the other way around - G+ needed to be more flexible (better support for anonymous/pseudonymous posting) while Google should've moved decisively instead of soft-peddling it so many times and breaking promises to the users that implied that they had a choice about these changes. You can't not-have Plus. What they should've offered is "I don't want a Plus homepage" and "I don't want to participate in Circles" which is an agreement they could have honoured.
- talles 13y ago
  Exactly. You should write an article on that (:
- fareesh 13y ago
  Isn't one of the prevalent complaints from YouTubers about G+ integration that the new G+ system allows too many pseudonyms?
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    I hadn't heard that - my understanding was the problem was that G+ elevated the pseudonymous trolls too high in the ranking - because they're part of the G+ "culture", G+ treats them and their upvoters as popular power-users and gives them premium placement. But either way, in any other general-purpose comment-engine, the host of the channel/blog/page/whatever would be able to allow/deny anonymous or pseudonymous users. AFAIK, all YouTube allows is whether you want to allow or deny comments in general.
    - judk 13y ago
      There is only one adolphhitler on YouTube. There are hundreds of "Adolph Hitler" +Pages.
venomsnake 13y ago
Dear google, please add a subscription option to your services - lets say 2USD monthly. In return - no tracking, no forcing and no data collection and totally turned off safe search - I have survived goatse, you have nothing to scare me with. I would gladly pay them and you probably make less from me in our current relationship. Thanks.
- if_by_whisky 13y ago
  They would never forego data collection. Almost all paid services still collect data.
  - waqf 13y ago
    "forgo". See http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forego.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forego.html.
- tvladeck 13y ago
  Just as a quick reality check: Google has about 300m MAUs [0] and for their last quarter made 14.8b in revenue [1], which with quick-and-dirty math leads to about $14.6/user/month [0] http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active-monthly-in-stream-users-540-million-across-google-63354 http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active-mont... [1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=sJmTUqjvHIKSiQLSVw https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=...
  - mjhagen 13y ago
    $15/m for an actual Google+ service where I'm guaranteed that I'm not being tracked, and I'd get no ads and all my personal data is completely safe and encrypted doesn't sound that bad.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    Yes, but Google could still collect ad revenue on non-tracked users, they would just be restricted to the same kind of ads they use to target non-logged-in browsers. Obviously the ads within Gmail would be worthless on an untracked user - nix those. But the ads on the Google search pages? On sites that host AdSense (or whatever they call it now)? They would still have tremendous value. I do wonder if this wouldn't break Google Now though.
methodin 13y ago
We have been in the age of entitlement for quite a while. I don't quite understand why more people just don't do instead of talking about doing. We all have things that we hate and annoy us but most deal with the issue and carry on. I feel that it is wrong that something gains notoriety simply because it is agreeable to a large consensus of people who feel the same way. What is the merit?
rjohnk 13y ago
Here's one thing holding me back from G+: Our gmail account is one that my wife and I share. It's our family email address. Call me old-fashioned, but the profile is neither a him nor her, and it isn't one person The day they require G+ will be the day I transfer to Fastmail permanently.
anoncow 13y ago
I really like the pricing of Google Apps. Flexible and not very costly. I wish they had kept free email with single user Google apps accounts (a requirement for appengine custom domains) though. Even something with a 10 mb inbox would have worked. Google has played the long waiting game and has given users some excellent services for free(which has benefitted Google too). Now that the services are mature, they have to make sure that these services are self sufficient.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mehSoWhat 13y ago
...which is why "logging into YOUR BROWSER" is the most retarded abomination ever conceived in the history of internet privacy.
- dudus 13y ago
  Strangely everyone is fine with logging in your cellphone which is even more broad. I log with my Google Account and I can use all Google Services without logging in, that's great, why can't we have that on the Desktop?
  - mavhc 13y ago
    You can if your desktop is ChromeOS
byjove 13y ago
This has very little to do with logging in with Chromium. Picasa was the first service to integrate with G+, they then allowed high resolution picture hosting and the like. This also has nothing to do with "maximizing profits" (at least not directly) it has more to do with phasing out Picasa web albums for G+ photos. And if I remember correctly the new terms prompt does specifically mention G+ integration, and it has a 'dont accept' option.
pearjuice 13y ago
So without reading the terms of agreement bad stuff happens and then you complain? They told you it would happen yet you agreed. If you are not happy with those "tricks", then don't agree with the terms of agreement which you are supposed to READ before you agree with them. Or do you sign any contract presented to you without hesitation?
drivingmenuts 13y ago
They can tie all this stuff together all they want -- it doesn't really matter to me. I use GMail and that's about it. I was on G+ for a bit - it's interesting - but I have too much time invested in Facebook to switch. So, go ahead, change the ToS, Google. Things being what they are, I can still get thru the day without the pain of switching.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
I think it is silly how every new feature or slight bug introduced by Google is viewed from negative standpoint. I guess Google is new Misro$oft. But really, I wonder how many of those things are really to increase number of G+ users (I suspect quite a few), and how many are simple setting resets because of a bug/move to a new system with different setting encoding.
mzs 13y ago
Where's the beef? How have the terms of picasa changed? (That's a no-cost downloadable Mac and Windows software right?) Also what did s/he get notifications about? Does s/he mean some emails about ToS changes?
o0-0o 13y ago
I have been trying to find a way to view my old google.com/photos (which used to be picasa), without having to sign up for Google+. So far, have not found a way to do this. They want me to accept terms and 'upgrade' my account. Upgrade for who? Them? Normally, the term upgrade is something the end-user desires. I am really starting to hate Google.
gohrt 13y ago
Isn't there far more coherent rants than this one that we can use as the launchpoint for today's Google+ 2-Minute Hate?
shmerl 13y ago
Google created a dummy G+ account for my Youtube user recently. I had hard time reverting that, and just found a way to unlink Youtube from that G+ page. When I try to delete that G+ page, it warns me that it would nuke my corresponding Google Talk service (which I don't want to lose). This is very annoying. Is there a clean way to revert all this G+ nonsense without disturbing other services?
robert-wallis 13y ago
Maybe change your perspective. Google is trying to integrate everything into one Google account. Imagine if Github created the Wiki product with a separate login, and then wanted to integrated Wikis into the rest of Github, but then lots of Wiki haters got mad because they wanted the old Github and didn't want to sign-up for all that Wiki stuff. The point is, if you sign up for Google, you get Drive, Docs, Spreadsheets, YouTube, and G+. They are different services that are all part of having a Google account. The real thing you should be complaining about is that G+ notifications are annoying, and you just want to turn it off because you don't use G+. That would be like if every time you logged into Amazon.com to watch an instant movie you got notifications from S3 saying your bill for the month is $0.00, or your workmate you gave access to your EC2 account just bought a new TV. It's the notifications that are problem, not the integration.
IgorPartola 13y ago
Can someone explain to my why creating a blank profile with Google Plus and not using it is so much worse than not creating a profile? It's not like you are sharing any more information with Google through the G+ UI vs GMail, or am I missing something crucial?
- aryastark 13y ago
  Presumably, you are using the G+ profile. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What your blank G+ profile will do is connect your YouTube video views, with your Google Map searches, Google searches, GMail, and whatever else you do. If you log in to G+ on a cell phone in NYC, they will know it. Then you take your cell phone back home to SF, they will know that G+ profile was logged in from NYC and SF. You're sharing the fact that you're the same person doing all these activities across various services, various locations, various times, various devices, and with various people.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    I guess that implies that Google did not know this before. If you are logged into GMail, are you not logged into Maps at the same time? Also, I believe you do not have to be logged into Maps on your mobile phone to use it. Lastly, what are we worried about here? The NSA can figure out how to do a join between all the different databases Google has to uniquely identify you and Google will not ask you for consent on that. What Google is trying to do is combine the info from various services to get better targeted ads. Is that exactly a tragedy or an invasion of privacy? At the end of the day, no matter how they collect it, store it, organize it, or analyze it, you end up voluntarily giving them all the information. Don't want to do that? Sign out of YouTube.

273 points by tenpoundhammer 13y ago

LOL.

> Thanks Google! What a fun way to say, “I hope we can squeeze every dime possible out of your tiny little life. “ Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure?

sbarre 13y ago
They should figure out how to do it without tricking people into joining things they don't want to join.
grandalf 13y ago
Google is not alone in using dark patterns -- Facebook got tons of growth by using dark patterns around privacy. Google is copying that strategy a few years too late. The age-groups that are leaving Facebook are doing so b/c they understand the dark pattern maze for what it is and don't want to deal with it.
- Estragon 13y ago
  It'd be interesting to read survey statistics on who's leaving FB and why. Is there anything like that out there?
  - 27182818284 13y ago
    Nobody leaves Facebook, it is just used differently. That's a big detail that only a few articles seem to get correct. Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad, but they also have a Tumblr account.
    - grandalf 13y ago
      >Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad As such the value of the young peoples' engagement puts FB on par with an email service.
ebertx 13y ago
It's less about covering infrastructure and more about maximizing return for shareholders.
lazyjones 13y ago
> Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; that profit is the difference between how much our privacy is worth and the cost of the services we receive in exchange for it. " (Bruce Schneier => https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_as_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...)
- GeorgeOrr 13y ago
  Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.
  - jerf 13y ago
    I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.
27182818284 13y ago
>Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? They paid for that before without being annoying, Facebook pays for theirs by being less annoying than Google. (Wow, thinking about this just now who would've thought the day would come so soon that Facebook is less annoying than Google.)
- xauronx 13y ago
  They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. If he wasn't looking for it, or didn't want to become enraged by it, he probably could have just ignored/dismissed the alert and never known better. Right now complaining about G+ is like complaining about Facebook privacy a few months ago. It's low hanging fruit that anyone with a blog can complain about to seem enlightened.
  - sbuk 13y ago
    >They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. So essentially signing you up for things without consent is OK? It's never OK, irrespective of motive.
    - xauronx 13y ago
      So, if you're running a... time management tool, let's say it's just a todo list. Then you create another tool, a time tracker so you can log your hours on your todo items. You should force them to sign up for it in order to use it? Personally, even if the tools were made to be able to operate separately of each other, I would give the users of my first tool access to the second one and link the accounts. G+ is just an extension of their offerings. Just because the tides of the internets have flowed against it doesn't mean that anything involving Google plus is practically rape.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - 13y ago

mkaziz 13y ago

I'm not a fan of post-2011 Google.

FrankenPC 13y ago
Ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Works every time.

tjbiddle 13y ago

I'm assuming it must still be more beneficial to Google to continue to press G+ on it's users than cease doing so, because even with all of the bad publicity they receive for it - they continue forward. Bummer.

ams6110 13y ago

Funny... a year ago I would have said Chrome[ium] had Firefox on the ropes. Now it's looking like Firefox has the upper hand on protecting privacy. And I am surprised to find myself thinking that even IE is probably preferable.

kzrdude 13y ago
Firefox is the browser market's biggest proponent of the open web; for me the choice is a no-brainer.
gbl08ma 13y ago
This has nothing to do with what browser is used. The user is being redirected to the login page to accept some new ToS, instead of being automatically logged in. This would happen with any browser that supports redirects and cookies, and if for some reason the redirect didn't work, they'd just politely ask you to click on a certain link to continue (and if cookies are disabled, auto-login would not work).
- NotOscarWilde 13y ago
  If I understand the link's post correctly, the user is being logged out of his Google Chrome profile (which is used to save your browsing data across devices) and being redirected to the login page to accept some new ToS. Accepting that ToS for the browser setting set up his Google+ profile, it seems. As far as I know, no other browser (IE,Firefox,Safari) has a social network (and very few actually nudge you into logging in to some profile when using it) and so this has a lot to do with what browser is used. The author would likely not get this behaviour on any other browser (I'm on Firefox, I use some of Google's services and my Google+ account is still disabled), which is another reason to believe this has a lot to do with what browser is used.

wellboy 13y ago

And with Google and Facebook screwing over their users with dark patterns, their demise was all set. They will soon realize by finding it hard to recruit talent. Google and Facebook used to be the best companies to work at, nowadays you're starting to get looked at strangely if you work there. What, you've been part of the NSA thing? What, did you work on G+? LOL was it you who redesigned youtube comments? 2 new horsemen in tech pls.

GeorgeOrr 13y ago

And of course, outraged and harmed by this you proceeded to stop using Google services. They are paying for it by acting in a way you find distasteful, so of course you will show them by no longer using their services. Or ... are you using their services while moaning about it? No, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

badman_ting 13y ago
Thanks for posting!
the_watcher 13y ago
Or, you continue using their services since they are the best value available, but also complain and point out problems you have with it. I think Google is happiest with this option, so they at least know what their users complain about.
- GeorgeOrr 13y ago
  I hear you. But I will point out that they are often just the default option not necessarily the best available. I learnt that when they stopped supporting their news reader. It forced me to look at what had been out there all along, but I had simply not looked because their reader was good enough. They taught me in this way to look for alternatives that are often better. For instance, I've come to appreciate the features at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q= https://duckduckgo.com/?q= For search. Google isn't any more evil than they have ever been - they are however huge and it's almost certain that some aspect of what they do will rub lots of people the wrong way. I don't avoid them like the plague, but I also don't stick to services I don't like and I suggest as much as I can seeking out alternatives. If you don't like being the product that is sold, leave. If you like the trade for the value you get, than it's worked out well for you. I can't blame them for making an offer you chose to accept.
  - the_watcher 13y ago
    >> But I will point out that they are often just the default option not necessarily the best available. That seems like the optimal place for Google to be. Aware of its user's complaints, but also aware that they haven't moved on, as well as what alternatives are being brought up.

macNchz 13y ago

Just last week I started using Firefox as my main browser (after three years of using Chrome), mostly due to "Sign in to Chrome" annoyances. At one point I inadvertently signed into Chrome with my Google apps account, which then stored a lot more personal data in the cloud than I'd ever intended. When I noticed this sometime later, I tried to disconnect my account from Chrome—which is apparently not possible for a Google apps account—so the only fix was to delete the Chrome account and to lose my browser history and saved passwords...which I did, right before opening Firefox.

xauronx 13y ago
I love being signed into Chrome. If I looked something up on my phone while I was walking into work, I can quickly open it in a tab on my desktop. If I searched for a specific coffee shop on my desktop and only remember a couple of letters in the name later, chrome on my phone auto-completes. Among many other sweet features, I think it's worth just... signing in.
- kibwen 13y ago
  Firefox does this as well, and it doesn't require an account to do so. It also encrypts your personal data in the client, and allows you to set up your own sync server so that even your encrypted data never touches their servers if you don't want it to.
- macNchz 13y ago
  Hey, if it works for you then go for it, I just didn't like the way it seemed to be foisted on me. Perhaps it was an easier break for me as I've never cared too much about having my stuff—aside from email and calendar—perfectly synchronized between my phone and computer.
magicalist 13y ago
Huh? When you click the big "disconnect your google account" button in settings, it explicitly says you won't lose anything stored locally (including browser history and saved passwords), and you get a host of checkboxes allowing you to decide what to connect with your google account (including nothing), as well as an option to use a passphrase that encrypts everything locally before leaving your machine, ensuring that google couldn't read it even if it tried. Honestly I can't understand how you reached any of the conclusions in your post -- they simply aren't true. There are plenty of things to complain about with how google in "unifying" their accounts, but Chrome sync isn't one of them. The only thing I'd want them to add is the ability to sync to your own sync server like Firefox (essentially no does it, but the option is important), but encrypting everything locally is equivalent enough for me.

joshfraser 13y ago

Google gives us all a lot of amazing technology completely free of charge. I use their search engine, email client and browser every day and for me their products are second to none. Google is one of the few companies that is really investing in the future with things like Google Glass and self driving cars. Personally, I'm okay with a few ads if that's what it takes for them to keep innovating and making the world a more interesting place. That said, all these attempts to strong arm people into using Google Plus are really getting old.

Kequc 13y ago
It is because Google + is their new identity service. Everything requires it, instead of a gmail account. Google + is your Google identity. At the same time it is also a social platform because so what? Don't use it. Or, use it since it's really really useful. The amount of rage people express about being "forced" to use Google + is as perplexing to Google as it is to me. It's an identity service. You don't need to have a gmail account to use Google's services anymore you just need a Google identity. That's what Google + is. I don't know how many times I can say it but so far it seems like a lot of times. People want to rage.
- antoko 13y ago
  Right, but the confusion is that both the identity service and their social network are called Google+. So it is hardly surprising that people get confused when they call two supposedly distinct services by the same name. Why not just call the identity service Google Account and then all the perception problems go away. Seems like a huge PR blunder. But then I'm not actually sure how much google really care about this, I think the rage about it is amplified in our HN crowd. Most google customers probably don't notice and of the ones that do the majority likely don't care.
  - Kequc 13y ago
    I agree to a certain extent. But Google + and the identity service are so closely linked that I am having trouble imagining how they could have called it Google Account since everyone would be wondering what they need Google + for. Which is happening anyway but people haven't figured out the part where Google + is your Google identity yet. Even on, or especially on HN/Youtube. The ability to comment and talk about stuff is going to permeate all of Google's services. I don't really see how else they could do it. Maybe if they didn't force you to use your real name then everyone wouldn't be having freak outs?

ywyrd 13y ago

"If they can't even get search right, who would trust them with anything more?"

libria 13y ago

Perhaps the new TOS includes reactivation of a disabled G+ account. Anyone else seen them? The article is light on details.

andywood 13y ago

This has been the very essence of Google for the past two years. Forcefully assimilating existing services, where users already had data, into G+, changing functionality and terms, and generally leaving users to feel insecure about how privacy and access to their long-held data might or might not change. What a far cry from '99-'03 Google, which used to release clever and surprising new data-browsing tools, each with a singular purpose, that just worked.

VikingCoder 13y ago
...and none of them talked to each other at all. Yeah, I happen to like the integrated Google. When I get GMail confirming a flight, it automatically shows up in my Google Now. I can search for it with "When is my next flight?" I can search my Docs and Gmail both at once. I happen like how far Google has gotten from those old, random, completely non-integrated days.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Exactly. When Google bought all these companies, it was disappointing to see them sitting as isolated buckets. I mean, did people thing these purchases were done as a Pokemon game? "Yay, Google got all 151 verticals!". How long did they let Blogger sit as a wasteland of spam? Now? Now Blogger is Picasa for prose, and Picasa is Youtube for still images, and your Plus homepage is your central hub for all the discussion happening on those services. Obviously, Plus has problems, and lots of them. It's far too opinionated for something that's being used as a general-purpose comment-engine. Plus is a good Facebook, but it's a piss-poor Disqus, and Google is using it as Disqus. But the overall strategy of consolidation? Long overdue. Google is finally turning their holdings into a single impressive platform instead of a balkanized mess of isolated services. I don't like the privacy implications, of course. But that's always been Google's business model ever since they launched GMail - they give you something awesome for free and in exchange they get to spy on you to provide targeted ads.
  - indubitably 13y ago
    Well, Gmail isn't all that free, in practice. I imagine a lot of the people around here have enough email to have capitulated to Gmail's inevitable demands for cash. I did.

vraj5 13y ago

While I hate this tactic of pushing monetization more obviously down our throats, what real option do they have? Amazon has slowly been eating their lunch in terms of product sales (heck, they even piggy back off of Google Ads and rake higher margins) and people are willingly telling Facebook what they like and dislike, so it seems that the end is nigh for advertiser spend primarily going to Google Search based ads. In this case, the pie of "eyeballs" getting bigger, advertiser spend isn't rising commensurately, and neither Google Search's share (they're both still rising, hence Google's recent stock boom). I'm not saying I have an answer, but nobody is really providing a viable alternative for them.

nfoz 13y ago

While you're complaining about Google, how about you fix your website to stop giving away your viewers' data to third-party advertising/technology companies? A cursory glance at the source reveals: - tumblr.com - googleapis.com - netdna.bootstrapcdn.com - ogp.me - google-analytics.com - yimg.com - nol.yahoo.com Think you could tone that down?

xauronx 13y ago
Jeeze, you think he can just do all that typing for free? He has to pay the bills somehow. Unlike those greedy corporations! </sarcasm>
chadwickthebold 13y ago
How does using CDNs to load jQuery, font awesome, and some google fonts give away viewer data to third parties? I'm not sure about the tumblr stuff but I don't see how loading these scripts is malicious...
- minimalist 13y ago
  It is no different than linking to any third-party / external resource. Specifically, profiling information is delivered across the referrer and user-agent to name a few. There is a more complete discussion on the network security stackexchange group[0]. [0] http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38415/privacy-risk-in-using-google-apis http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/38415/privacy-ri...
- gbl08ma 13y ago
  The tumblr stuff is because the website is hosted on tumblr (as can be seen by the feed at the bottom of the post).

pouzy 13y ago

It feels like the upper management at Google switched from being a tech-oriented company to a money oriented company. It's always been an ad agency, but the products used to be great. Now I have a hard time using their products, and EVERY SINGLE product I'mn still using is from lesser quality than 2 years ago. And google+ is not helping.

ricardobeat 13y ago

Yesterday I was editing a spreadsheet on Google Docs and pressed Cmd+C to copy some text. A window popped up saying "You need to install the Google Drive app to enable copy & paste functionality". Good one.

Pxtl 13y ago
Wait, on what platform? Chrome? Desktop? What?
talles 13y ago
You kidding... right?
evilmushroom 13y ago
You do realize that was for special pastes, right? Cells + functions, drawings etc
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  It was a plain text field containing a URL, using Chrome.
  - evandena 13y ago
    Just a hunch, but maybe you had the cell selected and tried to copy that, instead of selecting the text within the cell?
    - Pxtl 13y ago
      ... that's not really better. Requiring the desktop installation of Drive for trivial cases like that means that the web-application isn't really a web-application, but rather a desktop application that uses the browser as a GUI.
      - aiiane 13y ago
        Actually, that's due to Drive trying to support the system clipboard intelligently (e.g. such that if you pasted into MS Office, you'd actually get a table/cell structure, rather than just text). Browser APIs don't provide support for that level of copy-paste, so it has to be worked around. Plain text copy and paste works fine without.

duked 13y ago

I'm still using gmail but I fear that one day they will do the same thing with new TOS on gmail. This day I even get prompted to create a g+ account every time I login. Is there an alternative, where I would have 15GB and the option to use my own domain. I'll happily pay to avoid creating a g+ account and have decent space for my emails without managing the security.

masnick 13y ago
Yep! FastMail is great. http://www.maxmasnick.com/2013/07/19/fastmail/ http://www.maxmasnick.com/2013/07/19/fastmail/
- duked 13y ago
  Man thank you so much ! I didn't know they offered the option to use your own domain name. I will definitely give it a try since it's very affordable ($40/year in my case).
  - masnick 13y ago
    No problem! Hopefully you like it. So far I have nothing but good things to say about FastMail. They just had a big storage bump for all the different plans, which helps a ton.

Pxtl 13y ago

Google never should've tried to be "polite" about G+. It's only bit them in the ass and become a repeatedly-broken promise. The intent here is reasonable: They have dozens of services with dozens of comment engines and user-systems and they need to consolidate that crap into something more coherent. Picasa/YouTube do functionally similar services but one uses video and one uses pictures, so it makes sense for Google to try to make their common-ground more common. The problem is that fundamentally, G+ was too opinionated and Google leadership was too polite. The relationship should've been the other way around - G+ needed to be more flexible (better support for anonymous/pseudonymous posting) while Google should've moved decisively instead of soft-peddling it so many times and breaking promises to the users that implied that they had a choice about these changes. You can't not-have Plus. What they should've offered is "I don't want a Plus homepage" and "I don't want to participate in Circles" which is an agreement they could have honoured.

talles 13y ago
Exactly. You should write an article on that (:
fareesh 13y ago
Isn't one of the prevalent complaints from YouTubers about G+ integration that the new G+ system allows too many pseudonyms?
- Pxtl 13y ago
  I hadn't heard that - my understanding was the problem was that G+ elevated the pseudonymous trolls too high in the ranking - because they're part of the G+ "culture", G+ treats them and their upvoters as popular power-users and gives them premium placement. But either way, in any other general-purpose comment-engine, the host of the channel/blog/page/whatever would be able to allow/deny anonymous or pseudonymous users. AFAIK, all YouTube allows is whether you want to allow or deny comments in general.
  - judk 13y ago
    There is only one adolphhitler on YouTube. There are hundreds of "Adolph Hitler" +Pages.

venomsnake 13y ago

Dear google, please add a subscription option to your services - lets say 2USD monthly. In return - no tracking, no forcing and no data collection and totally turned off safe search - I have survived goatse, you have nothing to scare me with. I would gladly pay them and you probably make less from me in our current relationship. Thanks.

if_by_whisky 13y ago
They would never forego data collection. Almost all paid services still collect data.
- waqf 13y ago
  "forgo". See http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forego.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forego.html.
tvladeck 13y ago
Just as a quick reality check: Google has about 300m MAUs [0] and for their last quarter made 14.8b in revenue [1], which with quick-and-dirty math leads to about $14.6/user/month [0] http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active-monthly-in-stream-users-540-million-across-google-63354 http://marketingland.com/google-hits-300-million-active-mont... [1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=sJmTUqjvHIKSiQLSVw https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=...
- mjhagen 13y ago
  $15/m for an actual Google+ service where I'm guaranteed that I'm not being tracked, and I'd get no ads and all my personal data is completely safe and encrypted doesn't sound that bad.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Yes, but Google could still collect ad revenue on non-tracked users, they would just be restricted to the same kind of ads they use to target non-logged-in browsers. Obviously the ads within Gmail would be worthless on an untracked user - nix those. But the ads on the Google search pages? On sites that host AdSense (or whatever they call it now)? They would still have tremendous value. I do wonder if this wouldn't break Google Now though.

methodin 13y ago

We have been in the age of entitlement for quite a while. I don't quite understand why more people just don't do instead of talking about doing. We all have things that we hate and annoy us but most deal with the issue and carry on. I feel that it is wrong that something gains notoriety simply because it is agreeable to a large consensus of people who feel the same way. What is the merit?

rjohnk 13y ago

Here's one thing holding me back from G+: Our gmail account is one that my wife and I share. It's our family email address. Call me old-fashioned, but the profile is neither a him nor her, and it isn't one person The day they require G+ will be the day I transfer to Fastmail permanently.

anoncow 13y ago

I really like the pricing of Google Apps. Flexible and not very costly. I wish they had kept free email with single user Google apps accounts (a requirement for appengine custom domains) though. Even something with a 10 mb inbox would have worked. Google has played the long waiting game and has given users some excellent services for free(which has benefitted Google too). Now that the services are mature, they have to make sure that these services are self sufficient.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mehSoWhat 13y ago

...which is why "logging into YOUR BROWSER" is the most retarded abomination ever conceived in the history of internet privacy.

dudus 13y ago
Strangely everyone is fine with logging in your cellphone which is even more broad. I log with my Google Account and I can use all Google Services without logging in, that's great, why can't we have that on the Desktop?
- mavhc 13y ago
  You can if your desktop is ChromeOS

byjove 13y ago

This has very little to do with logging in with Chromium. Picasa was the first service to integrate with G+, they then allowed high resolution picture hosting and the like. This also has nothing to do with "maximizing profits" (at least not directly) it has more to do with phasing out Picasa web albums for G+ photos. And if I remember correctly the new terms prompt does specifically mention G+ integration, and it has a 'dont accept' option.

pearjuice 13y ago

So without reading the terms of agreement bad stuff happens and then you complain? They told you it would happen yet you agreed. If you are not happy with those "tricks", then don't agree with the terms of agreement which you are supposed to READ before you agree with them. Or do you sign any contract presented to you without hesitation?

drivingmenuts 13y ago

They can tie all this stuff together all they want -- it doesn't really matter to me. I use GMail and that's about it. I was on G+ for a bit - it's interesting - but I have too much time invested in Facebook to switch. So, go ahead, change the ToS, Google. Things being what they are, I can still get thru the day without the pain of switching.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

I think it is silly how every new feature or slight bug introduced by Google is viewed from negative standpoint. I guess Google is new Misro$oft. But really, I wonder how many of those things are really to increase number of G+ users (I suspect quite a few), and how many are simple setting resets because of a bug/move to a new system with different setting encoding.

mzs 13y ago

Where's the beef? How have the terms of picasa changed? (That's a no-cost downloadable Mac and Windows software right?) Also what did s/he get notifications about? Does s/he mean some emails about ToS changes?

o0-0o 13y ago

I have been trying to find a way to view my old google.com/photos (which used to be picasa), without having to sign up for Google+. So far, have not found a way to do this. They want me to accept terms and 'upgrade' my account. Upgrade for who? Them? Normally, the term upgrade is something the end-user desires. I am really starting to hate Google.

gohrt 13y ago

Isn't there far more coherent rants than this one that we can use as the launchpoint for today's Google+ 2-Minute Hate?

shmerl 13y ago

Google created a dummy G+ account for my Youtube user recently. I had hard time reverting that, and just found a way to unlink Youtube from that G+ page. When I try to delete that G+ page, it warns me that it would nuke my corresponding Google Talk service (which I don't want to lose). This is very annoying. Is there a clean way to revert all this G+ nonsense without disturbing other services?

robert-wallis 13y ago

Maybe change your perspective. Google is trying to integrate everything into one Google account. Imagine if Github created the Wiki product with a separate login, and then wanted to integrated Wikis into the rest of Github, but then lots of Wiki haters got mad because they wanted the old Github and didn't want to sign-up for all that Wiki stuff. The point is, if you sign up for Google, you get Drive, Docs, Spreadsheets, YouTube, and G+. They are different services that are all part of having a Google account. The real thing you should be complaining about is that G+ notifications are annoying, and you just want to turn it off because you don't use G+. That would be like if every time you logged into Amazon.com to watch an instant movie you got notifications from S3 saying your bill for the month is $0.00, or your workmate you gave access to your EC2 account just bought a new TV. It's the notifications that are problem, not the integration.

IgorPartola 13y ago

Can someone explain to my why creating a blank profile with Google Plus and not using it is so much worse than not creating a profile? It's not like you are sharing any more information with Google through the G+ UI vs GMail, or am I missing something crucial?

aryastark 13y ago
Presumably, you are using the G+ profile. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What your blank G+ profile will do is connect your YouTube video views, with your Google Map searches, Google searches, GMail, and whatever else you do. If you log in to G+ on a cell phone in NYC, they will know it. Then you take your cell phone back home to SF, they will know that G+ profile was logged in from NYC and SF. You're sharing the fact that you're the same person doing all these activities across various services, various locations, various times, various devices, and with various people.
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  I guess that implies that Google did not know this before. If you are logged into GMail, are you not logged into Maps at the same time? Also, I believe you do not have to be logged into Maps on your mobile phone to use it. Lastly, what are we worried about here? The NSA can figure out how to do a join between all the different databases Google has to uniquely identify you and Google will not ask you for consent on that. What Google is trying to do is combine the info from various services to get better targeted ads. Is that exactly a tragedy or an invasion of privacy? At the end of the day, no matter how they collect it, store it, organize it, or analyze it, you end up voluntarily giving them all the information. Don't want to do that? Sign out of YouTube.