From the article: So the actual price for building a “personal Google for everyone, everywhere” would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere. That has no basis. It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's privacy policy, that's exactly what they are doing. And I think it's in their best interest to keep it that way, because the…
> It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's ToS, that's exactly what they are doing. Could you give examples of how that can be achieved and how the ToS goes about stating that they are doing this?
Not OK, Google
151–160 of 594 posts
Re: Not OK, Google
#152What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.
Nobody was thinking about "the cloud" back in those days. Back then, your data, you programs all lived and ran on your own computer in your home. Most people didn't go online, and if you did, it was mostly to read and download data to use locally on your own computer. Connections were intermittent and slow. The idea that your own data would be stored online was almost unimaginable; even using network-depending applications like usenet or email involved downloading everything first before using it. Online applications were hardly even dreamed of.
Our expectations of how "Star Trek AI" would actually be implemented were completely different than how highly connected cloud-based services like Google Assistant work today.
Anyway, the point being, if the assistant lived entirely in your own computer, it would entirely different. Most people are not concerned about what their "computer" knows about them, they're concerned about what companies and their employees do.
Re: Not OK, Google
#153From the article: So the actual price for building a “personal Google for everyone, everywhere” would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere. That has no basis. It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's privacy policy, that's exactly what they are doing. And I think it's in their best interest to keep it that way, because the…
"Zero privacy" here means privacy from Google. Based on your reading of their ToS and your beliefs about their best interest, you may trust them to do no wrong and you may therefore be comfortable with Google knowing everything about your life, but not everyone feels the same.
Re: Not OK, Google
#154So, at the risk of making myself ridiculous and branded a Luddite: I've totally passed on the 'mobile revolution', I do have a cell phone but I use it to make calls and to be reachable. This already leaks more data about me and my activities than I'm strictly speaking comfortable with. So far this has not hindered me much, I know how to use a map, have a 'regular' navigation device for my car, read my email when I'm…
I'm even more Luddite than you are. I don't have a phone at all (landline or otherwise). You wanna reach me, you email me. The people in my life that care about me have come to accept this. For other things, I read paper maps, plan appointments ahead of time[1], memorise routes, and look up stuff online from my laptop when I find a place to sit down and wifi.
Reading stories like this makes me want to carry a personal tracking device even less.
---
[1] People tend to have fewer emergency reasons to cancel when they can't reach you 5 minutes before the appointment.
Re: Not OK, Google
#155Earlier 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…
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...
Apple shut down iAd. That article isn't about Apple's ad business, although certainly some developers have in-app ads, but now they're moving away from iAd.
They're looking at search ads for apps in the app store, but that's pretty limited to just the store.
Re: Not OK, Google
#156So, at the risk of making myself ridiculous and branded a Luddite: I've totally passed on the 'mobile revolution', I do have a cell phone but I use it to make calls and to be reachable. This already leaks more data about me and my activities than I'm strictly speaking comfortable with. So far this has not hindered me much, I know how to use a map, have a 'regular' navigation device for my car, read my email when I'm…
Same here. Have one of those old Nokias and carry it only when I need to be reachable. Cant remember when this has been a hindrance.
Re: Not OK, Google
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the population who don't use Google much. The simplest example being, even if you don't use GMail, still some part of your emails inevitably end up in GMail inboxes. Now also consider this: just being a guest in a Google-stuffed house means you are under surveillance. So no, it…
Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times. I think this example serves both our points. To your point, it's totally leaked this other person's info into my "google world" because I'm on gmail. On the other han…
This is often useful even if you're not the flier. When I'm picking someone up it lets me know when their flight was delayed, and when I'm traveling it lets my wife know when I'm available.
Re: Not OK, Google
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
We always assumed they wouldn't spill their beans to third parties. I guess that was assuming too much.
Google doesn't "spill their beans" to third parties-- what Google actually sells is the opportunity for third parties to be included in the advertisements Google is targeting to their users. Google has a strong incentive to not allow their aggregated user data to leave Google-- the behavioral data Google collects is the reason why Google is valuable; if they start shipping that data off to third parties, suddenly the…
> Google doesn't "spill their beans" to third parties
Except the government who gets unfettered access. Not into conspiracy theories but Im definitely not a fan of this (and it goes for all social media and technology companies)
Re: Not OK, Google
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about an Android phone?
Lots of us don't use mobile phones at all for this reason. The Internet and the occasional use of a stationary landline is all many of us need.
No landline for me either. For the ultra-rare cases when I need to make a phone call, I borrow the landline at work.
Re: Not OK, Google
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sorry, who's mind? It sound like you are renting it out.
Presumptuous much? Comments like yours are what makes discussions like this so difficult, and so much less interesting.