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

431–440 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#431

Post by bduerst »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #358
swalsh wrote: post #326

Imagine you're a something like a muslim in the US, and somoene like Trump is elected 5 years from now. You've been here all your life, you have a job, you pay your taxes, you're just a person who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Much like a jewish person in Poland in the 1940's. Now even back then, it was not easy to escape persecution... but it was possible. In a google world though, there's noth…

Everytime someone responds with "I have nothing to hide" I replied along the same lines as you. But I thought about it a bit more and I think the data they have on you is only a small problem when you look at how technology progressed since WWII. Imagine how much easier it would have been today for the SS to extract jews from their hiding places. We have satellites, helicopters with IR camera's, hell, even radars tha…

Bad actors exist. Hence why with every new technology comes new responsibility to use it properly - from nuclear fission to robotics to neural networks. That doesn't mean we need to reference how WW2 Nazis would use it every time a new technology is developed.

Re: Not OK, Google

#432

Post by pixelbath »

sangnoir wrote: post #239
pimlottc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The trope-namer (Star Trek AI) was a ship-wide AI - when considering the ship sizes, it definitely is closer to the "cloud" model and not limited to a private instances on officers' bunker/bridge terminals/tricorders. Perhaps a hardcore Trekk…

It's definitely a per-ship thing, because there are several episodes where they have to down/upload updated data to/from the Federation (at least in TNG canon).

I also think the comparison isn't perfect, because Federation vessels (in my mind) are similar to today's Navy vessels. All onboard systems are connected to other onboard, but opsec demands the ship systems not be influenced by external actors.

Re: Not OK, Google

#433

Post by internaut »

jacquesm wrote: post #241
internaut wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple, regular people are going to get picked off by hackers, lawyers and other predators until much like the steadily rising smog around cities in the industrial revolution, we realize 'oh shit, this is an actual problem because the wind doesn't always blow this shit away'. Meanwhile actual geeks and hackers will be fine, because we'll have used our intuitions about these things to choose privacy conscious alt…

> Cohen Powell Did you intend two write 'Colin Powell'?

Yeah, fixed.

Re: Not OK, Google

#434

Post by api »

bduerst wrote: post #431
spiderfarmer wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime someone responds with "I have nothing to hide" I replied along the same lines as you. But I thought about it a bit more and I think the data they have on you is only a small problem when you look at how technology progressed since WWII. Imagine how much easier it would have been today for the SS to extract jews from their hiding places. We have satellites, helicopters with IR camera's, hell, even radars tha…

Bad actors exist. Hence why with every new technology comes new responsibility to use it properly - from nuclear fission to robotics to neural networks. That doesn't mean we need to reference how WW2 Nazis would use it every time a new technology is developed.

"What would the Nazis do with this?" is not wholly inappropriate. It's basically a way of looking at the worst case failure mode, like asking "what would happen to this nuclear reactor if all cooling and backup systems fail at once?" or "what happens to people in the capsule if the rocket explodes during max-Q?"

In this case it's "what's the danger of all this lazily deployed insecure ubiquitous surveillance gear in a political worst case scenario like a descent into totalitarianism, mafia statism, etc.?" That's not an unlikely thing. Complex societies undergo bouts of collective insanity or descents into pervasive corruption with disturbing regularity on historical time scales.

Personally I think the USA is one 9/11 scale (or worse) terrorist attack or one seriously painful economic crash away from an American Putin or Chavez (or worse). Which we get depends on which side manages to field the most charismatic demagogue. If that happens all this total surveillance stuff will be mobilized against dissenters on an industrial scale and with a significant amount of public support.

You limit things like surveillance to limit moral hazard. Future generations are likely to look back on the wanton deployment of all this stuff and say "what were they thinking!??!?"

Re: Not OK, Google

#437

Post by wastedhours »

ubercore wrote: post #70
mojuba wrote: post #50

Earlier 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…

Had the same thing, Google swore I was supposed to be booking into a hotel in Copenhagen, but most definitely wasn't me - interesting to see what happens are these predictive features become more prevalent.

Re: Not OK, Google

#438

Post by pmyjavec »

ianai wrote: post #298
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.

Yes but the way it seems to have panned out is we need to constantly feed the machine?

Thing is, I just don't need AI for everyday things. AI to help solve big engineering, medical problems, great, but to help me schedule my life, not really.

Even when travelling, things like Google maps and translte just isolate and distract me in someways. Asking a local about something is really helpful and you can get more out of the intraction than just directions. It's rare language truly is a barrier I find.

I'm even questioning how much I really need a smart phone, it is mostly just a distraction. I remember actually being socially pressured into owning one when I was 18. Never actually stopped and asked myself if I need one, it's just some thing has become a "must have".

I know what you're saying about AI being out of the way though, and it would be excellent, if however; it was completely my data, it worked for me and not for a third party. For example, kept my data private for me, while paying my bills, that might be nice. But basically it would work to keep me focused on the real world, which could be achieved without tech ?

I might sound a by anti-progress here , but It would be nice to just see the right progress.

Re: Not OK, Google

#439

Post by internaut »

shaftway wrote: post #144
internaut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. The constraint is going to kill Google and Apple because a future competitor is going to manage to offer service without requiring the data in raw form, an example of which would be Agent Based Computation in say 15 years time. Because of that it shall become the standard. Google and Apple will be stuck because their stakeholders include parties which require the raw form even if Google/Apple did not. That…

>Did I sign anything saying Google or Apple could use my data? No. This opens up the door for class action law suits in some US states at least. I'm pretty sure that if this was going to happen, it'd already have happened. Next time you walk into any store take a look around for discrete black plastic bubbles.

No, the law differentiates between your home and a place where the public is invited in.

Re: Not OK, Google

#440

Post by internaut »

mattmanser wrote: post #28
option_greek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We always assumed they wouldn't spill their beans to third parties. I guess that was assuming too much.

It really is the big problem at the moment with the cutting edge of AI. ML relies on large data-sets and if anyone tried to release a personal device it simply wouldn't even work, let alone compete with the mass surveillance google/ms/amazon are bringing to bear. Unless the state-of-the-art in AI suddenly morphs, we seem to be stuck between giving up our privacy or having vaguely intelligent AI. I personally fall hea…

That's the thing.

As sensors become richer and the data becomes more valuable to the ML, consumers are becoming more aware of their privacy.

That means to get to a 'good seam' in the future instead of trawling through trash, you're going to have to convince millions of people their interests won't be affected.

That means in time there is an opportunity for a Google-killer with a different business model not based on using the raw data OR using by the use of intelligent agents. Google goes down because its stakeholders are contingent on getting to the raw data.

Post reply on HN