Not OK, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Not OK, Google

#281

Post by devilsavocado » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

spac wrote: post #72

I'm confused as to why in this thread there's very little contrastive commentary on the different stance taken by Apple and Google about privacy. Apple has made preserving user privacy a paramount goal, investing in research and technology to achieve it with minimal loss (however much it is) of (intelligent) functionality. I find that a very strong point for the Cupertino based company. (edited for legibility)

Just one data point: After owning 4 nexus phones and being an 'android fanboy' I just bought an iPhone 7. I've decided that while still not that great, Apple's take on user privacy is much closer aligned with my own. I doubt many other people will make purchasing decisions based on that, but I still think Apple will be 'right' in the long run. I think that the resulting applications from all this data collection will never make it past the gimmicky stage for a lot of people. The general public may not care that much about privacy, but they also don't care that much about nearly everything google displayed. I think apple knows this and it's one of the reasons they can take their stance on privacy.

Re: Not OK, Google

#282

Post by nothis » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

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.

It doesn't though, does it? The only reason this is a problem is that Google's business is still advertising and they act like our problems can be solved by tools made to sell more ads. The moment I could buy an AI service for like $10 a month (it had to be good), I'd trust them with using my data responsibly.

The Star Trek fantasy is, "Computer, what were the principal historical events on the planet Earth in the year 1987?", and it could totally answer that without sending your entire fucking message history to google for deep AI inspection.

Re: Not OK, Google

#283

Post by 794CD01 » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

0xmohit wrote: post #85

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.

You should be glad that it doesn't remind you: "Hey, it's a been a while. Why don't you go to ... today? Traffic conditions are favorable too."

Personally, I wish it did have reminders like that. Offer me a coupon too, while you're at it.

Re: Not OK, Google

#284

Post by iamleppert » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

"AI" is incredibly overhyped. Most of the features and applications I've seen can be relegated into the "that's neat" category, before they are turned off and never used again.

Google recently started telling me how heavy the traffic is on my commute because they've figured out I do it every day, and when I'm doing it. That's nice, but I don't care. I could already get that information from my car's GPS and seeing how red the roads were.

I wonder how much infrastructure, fancy pants machine learning and effort when it to just creating those useless alerts?

Google, as a problem, has already solved the problem they were created to solve: search the Internet. Now they need to find something for all those twiddling thumbs to do, so we get braindead features that tell me what I already know.

Re: Not OK, Google

#285

Post by kbenson » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

Does anyone else find the tone of this article off-putting? I mean, I agree with the author, but the presentation feels like fear-mongering. Maybe this is what we need to get people to pay attention to the details, but I instinctively mistrust things I perceive as trying to appeal to by fear at a base level, and this triggers that fairly heavily.

I have very conflicted feelings about this article.

Re: Not OK, Google

#286

Post by s3r3nity » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

shaftway wrote: post #168

programmer_man wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction is that when you visit a place of business, the data is under the control of the business owner. When you visit you friend's house, the data is not under their control, it is under Google's control. Therefore, Google has a WAY bigger responsibility than most people realize, once they decided to collect this data.

You are assuming that the business doesn't use a third party monitoring firm. Ultimately, whenever you visit any place, business or home, the data is under the control of the owner and anyone they abdicate those rights to.

I tend to agree, though I tried to do some searches for a law citation here, but struggled to find anything concrete. I imagine this will be a big area of research and exploration for law in the coming years.

Some interesting scenarios to consider: If I visit a friend's house, and I start getting targeted ads for a service I didn't subscribe to without prior consent or my knowledge, can I sue her/him? What about a scenario where some service collects my data, said service is hacked, and someone commits identity theft on me, who is liable for damages? Do I need my buddy to sign a waiver when he visits to play some Xbox for a bit?

Re: Not OK, Google

#287

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

nothis wrote: post #282

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.

It doesn't though, does it? The only reason this is a problem is that Google's business is still advertising and they act like our problems can be solved by tools made to sell more ads. The moment I could buy an AI service for like $10 a month (it had to be good ), I'd trust them with using my data responsibly. The Star Trek fantasy is, "Computer, what were the principal historical events on the planet Earth in the y…

> The Star Trek fantasy is, "Computer, what were the principal historical events on the planet Earth in the year 1987?", and it could totally answer that without sending your entire fucking message history to google for deep AI inspection.

That's part of the Star Trek fantasy. But so is, "Computer, locate Commander Riker" and "Computer, use personal logs and personality profiles from compiled databases to create a personality simulation of Dr. Leah Brahms."

Re: Not OK, Google

#288

Post by lubujackson » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:03 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'…

How about the government? Isn't this exactly the access that Snowden (a contractor) had? And there are/were countless tales of people using the system to track ex-girlfriends/celebrities. Now imagine that not only do they have phone/email access, but every action the person takes in their home and potentially every single thing they say in their home (the microphone is always on).

In what way is this not exactly the nightmare scenario in 1984? You can argue you don't need to install this, but 10 years ago you didn't "need" a cellphone either. The risk is the consolidation of information and the potential for misuse/control. And not so much potential, but the inevitability.

Re: Not OK, Google

#289

Post by Hydraulix989 » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

So because Google makes phones and hardware (like it has been already for quite some time), there's somehow an even greater threat now on our privacy? I don't buy it.

N.B.: I don't work for Google.

Re: Not OK, Google

#290

Post by falcolas » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

Klathmon wrote: post #266

falcolas wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] 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…

I'm sorry but if you think that far ahead, then how do you do anything? Do you go out in public? because if you do, some company could be recording you on CCTV, and the company that makes the CCTV equipment could sell the business to Google who could update it to use the CCTV footage in AI learning, which means that someone could eventually lookup your face and see you were at a smut store 6 years ago. At some point…

You are, of course, correct. Especially in this day and age, perfect privacy is nearly impossible.

That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of these Google implements.

People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them of what it can cost them.

Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.