Not OK, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Not OK, Google

#221

Post by pdkl95 » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

halflings wrote: post #194

falcolas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sure, there are some trust issues, but just regarding your two first points: A very limited number of Google employees have access to private user data (only when it's vital to their work) and they have strict policies in place (data does not leave the data centers etc.). Which third parties are you referring to? As far as I know, Google does not give their users' private data to a third party.

> they have strict policies in place

What guarantee do you have that these policies will never change in the future? Or are you simply assuming that risks never change?

Re: Not OK, Google

#222

Post by ams6110 » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #161

jordigh wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 persona…

Can you mail 911 where you live? If not, for that reason alone I would carry a phone.

You can have a cheap, nonactivated phone for calling 911. In emergency mode you do not need a service activated.

Re: Not OK, Google

#223

Post by joe563323 » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

DavidHm wrote: post #133

darklajid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Star Trek even a currency? It always feels like a socialist/communist thing to me. You cannot compare the world's biggest seller of advertisement space with the ST universe. The motivation's aren't aligned: Google/Alphabet want to make sales based on my information. I agree that I found these oh so clever AI fantasies interesting in my youth, still do to a degree. But I always pictured the data being held inacces…

Nope, it's a post-scarcity economy.

Many articles say that. Do you have a source .

Re: Not OK, Google

#224

Post by zeveb » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

You forgot: every single state which Google is subject to.

Re: Not OK, Google

#225

Post by pmontra » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

> We are excited about building a personal Google for everyone, everywhere

Not a problem if it run on an appliance at my home, disconnected from all the other appliances in other people homes. That would be a truly personal Google.

Re: Not OK, Google

#226

Post by buckbova » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

pimlottc wrote: post #152

TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

What 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 applic…

> The idea that your own data would be stored online was almost unimaginable

Except that's what I did for many years using a computer only as a terminal for an AIX mainframe. My mail was there, I browsed what was the web, used gopher, wrote programs, all stored there.

Re: Not OK, Google

#227

Post by ProAm » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

Oletros wrote: post #202

ProAm wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

> Except the government who gets unfettered access. Does you have a source for that?

>Does you have a source for that?

Yep. They all do it.

[1] http://news.trust.org/item/20161004170601-99f8c

Re: Not OK, Google

#228

Post by mikepurvis » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #101

ozgung wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be OK for you but there are at least three real concerns here: 1- There is no way to set your privacy level. 2- Things that Google/Siri/Alexa know about you are not limited with the name of the bar you go frequently. They know much more about you. And you don't know what they know. The sky is the limit here. 3- Things that they know are not limited with you personally. They know about you, your family, your fr…

I don't know about Google, but I know that Siri and Alexa only collect and send data when you ask it to. You can monitor the traffic of the Alexa and see that it is only sending data when you ask it to do something, and furthermore, Amazon gives you a log of everything you've said to it and it recorded.

And you can also get a log of everything you've ever ordered from Amazon, but there are still loads of other signals which aren't visible to you, as evidenced by the fact that you browse a product on amazon.com today, and now for the next week, you see that product advertised back to you all over the web.

Others may be reviews left, reviews voted on, prime video consumed, audio/video/book samples consumed, kindle activity, how long you spend on a product page, how you scroll on it, the breadcrumb of how you got there, and surely dozens more.

Re: Not OK, Google

#229

Post by falcolas » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

zardeh wrote: post #193

falcolas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. (Have worked at google in the past, may in the future, am not currently). You say this as though anyone at Google (or Microsoft or whatever) can go in and search for 'falcolas'…

> [...] which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure

This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?

> I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had that power.

Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data? Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable if their data protection policies change)?

Re: Not OK, Google

#230

Post by pmyjavec » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

You really have to wonder who truly needs / wants AI in their lives? It's really just being pushed on. Google should be careful not to make themselves irrelevant.

I've been experimenting spending less time with my devices and it's hard because I'm addicted, but life is more fun when it's being lived and not having to even think about technology, leaving devices of all kinds at home and just sitting in a park is a real luxury.