Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#21

Post by kbart »

joosters wrote: post #6

These privacy articles make a big deal about law enforcement being able to access messages. Surely a much bigger concern is Google being able to access the content?

Yeah, I found tone of these articles distasteful as well. It looks like only criminals are worried about their privacy. I'm pro-privacy, but not so much worried that police gets a warrant and wires my chat as I'm concerned about Google and all kind of 3rd party companies circulating and selling my personal data around for who-knows what purposes and that stays around indefinitely.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#22

Post by tombrossman »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #8
joosters wrote: post #6

These privacy articles make a big deal about law enforcement being able to access messages. Surely a much bigger concern is Google being able to access the content?

One implies the other.

A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#23

Post by alanwatts »

tombrossman wrote: post #22
NetStrikeForce wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One implies the other.

A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

Dr. King was monitored by the NSA for "thought crimes". Is that "100% tinfoil hat mode"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_mon...

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#24

Post by sanxiyn »

Filligree wrote: post #15
sidlls wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's some kind of homeomorphic encryption scheme. Hey it technically leaves the original message encrypted!

Ifmeaningful homomorphic encryption was an option, then we'd be living in a quite different world.

Surprisingly, homomorphic encryption is now practical enough to run a Kaggle-like data science competition, but without disclosing data. At least one such competition is known to run with real money prize.

https://medium.com/@Numerai/encrypted-data-for-efficient-mar...

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#25

Post by nevir »

retox wrote: post #2

>Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms. 'using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms' So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then?

Probably stored under the same security infrastructure as Gmail and hangouts messages.

Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Algorithms are allowed access, but only if they emit data that is similarly secured, or emits data in aggregate (where, I think, aggregate was defined as 100k+ users per aggregate data point)

It's extremely hard for a Googler or product team to do something directly nefarious, but you do have to trust Google's privacy infrastructure.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#26

Post by 0xmohit »

croon wrote: post #20
0xmohit wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then? One could also think of it as your private key being with (1) you, (2) Google. It's in safe hands ;-)

Sure, whatever safe hands mean. Safe in an NSA datacenter. Safe in the hands of the Chinese government. Safe with whatever sysadmin has access to it. Instead of worrying about what "safe hands" mean, just keep it accessible only to me, and each respective conversation with the people I communicate with.

> just keep it accessible only to me

One could also argue that the service is free and the service provider needs a (or yet another) way to monetize it.

If the privacy settings are insecure by default, one shouldn't have high expectations anyways.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#27

Post by vbcr »

romanovcode wrote: post #17

First thing I thought when saw the release of this app is that it will record everything I do because it's google. Thanks but no thanks, google. Stay evil.

> Stay evil.

Wow. Google went a full 180 from being a company that promoted itself by saying "Don't be evil" to something evil. Couldn't Google have made its billions still being not evil, without its privacy issues, without its obnoxious desire for tracking everything. Did they turn to this evil for the money or just because they can do it (or if not someone else will).

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#28

Post by kbart »

alanwatts wrote: post #23
tombrossman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

Dr. King was monitored by the NSA for "thought crimes". Is that "100% tinfoil hat mode"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_mon...

And how many "Kings" do you know personally?/s What me (and presumably, OP) trying to say is, that an ordinal person should be much more worried about their private data being collected and used (virtually) unconstrained by the shady companies than three letter agencies. This doesn't imply that mass surveillance isn't wrong and evil, these two things are orthogonal.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#29

Post by romanovcode »

vbcr wrote: post #27
romanovcode wrote: post #17

First thing I thought when saw the release of this app is that it will record everything I do because it's google. Thanks but no thanks, google. Stay evil.

> Stay evil. Wow. Google went a full 180 from being a company that promoted itself by saying "Don't be evil" to something evil. Couldn't Google have made its billions still being not evil, without its privacy issues, without its obnoxious desire for tracking everything. Did they turn to this evil for the money or just because they can do it (or if not someone else will).

>Couldn't Google have made its billions still being not evil

No. Google is advertising company and advertisement companies need a lot of user data for targeted ads.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#30

Post by jtrip »

nevir wrote: post #25
retox wrote: post #2

>Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms. 'using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms' So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then?

Probably stored under the same security infrastructure as Gmail and hangouts messages. Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Algorithms are allowed access, but only if they emit data that is similarly secured, or emits data in aggregate (where, I think, aggregate was defined as 100k+ users per aggregate data point) It's extremely hard for a Googler or product team…

I don't think that is enough. Here we are relying on Google being magnanimous enough to not use the data to increase their profitability. And even beyond that, your opinion is a little naive to hold in a post-snowden world.
Post reply on HN