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

291–300 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#291

Post by throwaway98237 »

mojuba wrote: post #50
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.

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…

Perhaps we need to start normalizing encrypted email. Just like https everywhere is no longer considered necessarily "tin-foil hat" SOP, moving this direction for email needs to be socially normalized.

Going further, given that an encrypted email to Gmail will simply be unencrypted and then available to GMail, include in the protocol authorized (via both white and black list means) agents of the recipient. So, if you are hosting your own email but the intended recipient is expected to be not hosting their own email, the sender can blacklist "agents" such as Gmail and Yahoo! Mail, or blacklist all except for those chosen to be white-listed such as Proton Mail.

Re: Not OK, Google

#292

Post by codemac »

51Cards wrote: post #279
problems wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's what I remembered, but it seems they replaced "Delete Location History" with a "Manage Activities" button which opens Google Maps and shows you location history, allowing you to delete it but only one day at a time. EDIT: Okay, found it. Follow your instructions then open that "Manage Activities" -> Menu -> Settings -> Scroll down -> Delete All Location History. You _must_ do this for every account if yo…

You _must_ do this for every account if you have multiple. As I would expect? I don't know of any service that has a "And also do this for all my other distinct acounts too".

It depends how you view what you're setting.

Do you think you're setting a behavior of the phone, or a behavior of your account?

Re: Not OK, Google

#293

Post by infogulch »

nine_k wrote: post #131
joncrocks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is one of targeting. It's like saying "People would never break into a bank, when they could break into someone's house and steal their stuff" It may be easier to break into someone's home-brew system, but generally it would be unlikely to happen unless you were being otherwise targetted. Whereas google has a lot of users data, which could make it a more attractive target.

Very much so! If you're a "person of interest", you'll be attacked either way. If you're just a regular person, like me, you won't likely be targeted. But my chances of getting a collateral damage are much higher in a centralized system: when it's broken into, my data have a chance of being siphoned off along with data of someone less ordinary, who was the target of the attack.

It's wider than this. A "person of interest" will be attacked either way. A "normal boring person" won't be targeted directly, but may be swept up in an attack on a "person of interest".

But there's a third case: "normal boring people" become interesting just by being together in a big group, even if no particular "person of interest" is among them.

Re: Not OK, Google

#294

Post by snerbles »

Artistry121 wrote: post #220
erdevs wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference is the Star Trek computer wasn't using its data about Kirk to provide him "enhanced advertising experiences", there wasn't a big corporation controlling the computer and no government was accessing the computer's information. A truly user-aligned AI assistant would be great. Ideally in the future these things will not be tied to indirect business models, but rather will be something you buy and all…

Capitan Kirk was a government employee. It's implied the government/StarFleet could access the ships logs. In the Star Trek world they had no advertising because they were a communist society. Everyone dressed the same or slightly differently based on rank. It's interesting how the new movies play over that. In Star Trek you couldn't choose your AI. In our world you can. At the start of their development most of them…

It would be more accurate to say that most of Star Trek depicts life in Starfleet, a pseudo-military institution (Roddenberry insisted that it isn't, while war isn't Starfleet's main purpose it shares enough traits with modern armed services to suffice for this discussion). There is always a lesser expectation of privacy for military personnel, even in the US armed services.

While there are elements of communism depicted in the Federation as a whole, those are facets of a global post-scarcity society that has somehow evolved beyond the less "progressive" bits of human behavior. I'd argue that the biggest fantasy of Star Trek isn't warp drive, but the notion that humans are somehow less violent than Klingons.

Re: Not OK, Google

#295

Post by Ph0X »

mcguire wrote: post #276
Ph0X wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but that just sounds like blind fear mongering. What you're saying is vague and doesn't really mean much. It's like saying we shouldn't use prescription glasses, or medication, or cars, because it's not "us". Humans invent all these tools and systems to improve and optimize our life. Make our vision better. Make our health better. Make us move around faster. In the case of AI, make us do perform certain thi…

Imagine that you were trying to quit smoking and your electronic secretary kept updating you on the cheapest place to find your favorite cigarettes? With no way to tell it not to do that.

So your issue is your secretary doing it's job poorly?

First, there is a way to tell it to not do that. With Google Now, you simply tap the menu and say "No more notification like this". With the assistant, you will probably be able to ask directly.

Second, let's be honest, humans fail pretty often too, so that's just a weak argument.

Lastly, I think it's unfair to dismiss a new technology just because it could maybe fail, without having even tried it.

Re: Not OK, Google

#296

Post by peeters »

iamleppert wrote: post #284

"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 ho…

> 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 guess people have different experiences. Personally, I know how to get home from work, so I don't feel the need to turn on my GPS every time I drive home. So I appreciate getting notified when there's notable variances in drive times, without me having to look for it every day.

Re: Not OK, Google

#297

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

"Hi Ubercore, Google and your health insurance company here. We are worried that you are frequenting a facility that serves too much alcohol and wings. We care."

Re: Not OK, Google

#298

Post by ianai »

pmyjavec wrote: post #230

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 rea…

You just answered your own question. A truly awesome AI assistant would be as minimally present as you prefer. If all you do is talk to AI you don't need to interact with a tablet screen, for instance. If you figure out how to make people productive with that then you may have an idea of the next big thing.

Re: Not OK, Google

#299

Post by Shivetya »

well my iPhone and my navigation systems both will tell me how far I am from home/work/parents depending on my location all without my asking.

Re: Not OK, Google

#300

Post by ProAm »

Oletros wrote: post #268
ProAm wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its safe to say all major tech company's have have NSL's, and are required to allow the government to search and request data, it would be foolish to think otherwise. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/technology/subpoenas-and-g...

Are you aware that your new link doesn't talk about unfettered access?

Yes, but this is all we know about now, every day there is a new revelation about what the government has access too that we previously thought they didn't. I think it's naive to assume they don't have access to all of it.
Post reply on HN