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

Not OK, Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#111

Post by gok »

AJ007 wrote: post #15

Something to think about -- making the assumption that in the future, a bunch chunk of things currently done with search engines and forms are done by voice command: Ok Google, order new toilet paper -- order is routed to any ecommerce provider which outbids everyone else to fulfill the order. Alexa, order new toilet paper -- order copies previous toilet paper order and goes to merchant with lowest advertised price t…

Siri supports a limited version of this today. "Siri, get me a ride" will show which ride apps are available (say, Uber, Lyft and Curb, if you have those installed)

It's interesting you assume that Google will route you to the lowest bidder. When I search for "New toilet paper" on Google right now, the top 6 results are advertisements. Why would they want to anger their customers and allow you ignore them?

Re: Not OK, Google

#112

Post by wisevehicle »

The reaction to this seems awkwardly negative when contrasted with the praise that gushed for Amazon's Alexa products. I am having a hard time tracking why folks seem to feel so differently about google and Amazon having similar access to personal information.

Re: Not OK, Google

#113

Post by arkem »

shaftway wrote: post #84
arkem wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since both make products and sell advertising. Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold? Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but…

> Probably if 99% of their revenue comes from advertising you can call them an advertising company So what is Google then? As of 2015 Q4, ~90% of revenue comes from ads and it's trending down vs. other sources. http://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphab...

Google is an advertising company, but is it also a product company?

Is Apple also an advertising company?

How about the local minor league hockey team? Are they an advertising company?

Re: Not OK, Google

#114

Post by problems »

ubercore wrote: post #11

Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night. Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

This location history is really bad though. I added a test gmail account to my device a few weeks ago, but didn't remember location tracking was a per-account setting - now Google has nice big logs to hand whoever wants them and I can only delete them on a day-by-day basis (from the Android app at least).

Extremely annoying. This sort of thing should not be acceptable, an honest mistake results in every place I've been being logged in such a way that anyone with access to my Google account, access to Google servers or with a subpoena can have my full location history in a matter of seconds.

This needs to be a big red option every time you add an account "we're gonna log everywhere you go and hand it over to whoever we feel like, you cool with that?". It'd be different if the log and analysis were done only on my device, but doing this on Google's servers is completely unacceptable by anyone with even the weakest standards of privacy.

Re: Not OK, Google

#115

Post by Koshkin »

ubercore wrote: post #78
Eupolemos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear you will be unable to recognize when that burger was your choice and when it was a reaction. You probably won't notice. And that is harmless. I also fear you will be unable to notice in which areas of life and information the distinction between choice and reaction is harmless and which it isn't. Of course, I'm not talking about "You" you, but just people. Me as well. I feel we are widening the field of uncons…

To my mind, leading a simple life is enjoying a burger at a restaurant/bar I frequent already. Simplicity _is_ accepting that Google algorithmically noticed a trend and just helped me do things I already do.

Yes, traps are usually designed so that it is simple to get into them. It is not that cheese is bad, it is that you are trapped.

Re: Not OK, Google

#116

Post by msabalau »

jpalomaki wrote: post #16

For consumers this will be a choice between keeping their data private and having intelligent systems that perform better. So far I haven't seen much, but based on my limited experience I believe customers are going to continue handing over their data to Google and Facebook in exchange for personalised services. The truth is, the only times my smartphone has actually felt smart is when Google has been mining my infor…

There 50 million domestic workers in the world: living, breathing, naturally intelligence, autonomous human beings that people welcome into their homes. Not surprising, given that during almost the entirety of our evolutionary experience everyone one knew knew everything about one. The notion that people would object to a company knowing some things about one in order to place slightly more relevant ads is silly. It just doesn't seem that way in a message board echochamber because their are rewards for self righteous indignation, and not for making the commonplace observation that people willingly make tradeoffs without being victims of "false consciousness".

Re: Not OK, Google

#117

Post by tedunangst »

arkem wrote: post #89
quickben wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More money coming from advertising than products? 90.4% revenue from advertising for Google https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8... vs Apple: http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-stor...

Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company. If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company? Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?

Is Apple really in the ad business, or do they have an ad division because that's just something that every ecosystem operator is expected to provide these days?

Re: Not OK, Google

#118

Post by throwanem »

falcolas wrote: post #81
pat2man wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Siri.

Siri recordings are uploaded to the cloud for transcription, and reviewed by third parties to improve transcription and the AI. It also can arbitrarily decide to query search engines to answer questions. So, better, but nowhere near "on the device only".

> reviewed by third parties to improve transcription and the AI

Cite?

Re: Not OK, Google

#119

Post by quickben »

arkem wrote: post #89
quickben wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More money coming from advertising than products? 90.4% revenue from advertising for Google https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8... vs Apple: http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-stor...

Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company. If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company? Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?

It's probably more on the lines of could a company survive without the advertising revenue?

For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.

Re: Not OK, Google

#120

Post by chillingeffect »

falcolas wrote: post #66
aRationalMoose wrote: post #21

I have an open ended question-- mostly born out of ignorance; But why is this a bad thing? Isn't an artificial assistant that not only knows and understands us but anticipates our needs incredibly useful? In the process, sure they'll collect your info for better advertising, but short of Totalitarian Surveillance or Data Breach Concerns (The former is a bit of a reach if you live in the west, and they can survey you…

> But why is this a bad thing? Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large. Totalitarian Surveillance is here. In the west. Secure document releases aside, it's too easy to do to imagine a state actor not doing it. Data bre…

I agree with you. To help convince people, I realize that we often imagine benevolent leadership, so it helps to give an example such as, "Imagine if you were a Muslim or illegal and Donald Trump were elected president. What could he do with your data?" E.g. find you, search your residence based on your purchasing and travel habits and send you home.

E.g. Wakes up at 5:30 am, travels to a construction site, lives in a house with a large number of people -> signals possible immigrant. Or this:

Detecting Islamic Calendar Effects on U.S. Meat Consumption: Is the Muslim Population Larger than Widely Assumed?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41554/

We have to think about data not just in terms of our relative safety, but in terms of what could happen in adverse circumstances. And not even just in terms of our own government, but foreign governments.

Post reply on HN