Not OK, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Not OK, Google

#451

Post by internaut » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

daenney wrote: post #126

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…

You appear to assume that companies don't change in 15 years. Considering the past 15 years where Apple was almost dead and Microsoft couldn't ever be a company contributing to and open sourcing many things I'm not sure that premise holds. Apple's approach to this is already different than Google's and has (arguably) hampered them a bit, but that might pay off long term and give them an opportunity to evolve, change…

> I see no particular reason either company couldn't change their tactics, regardless of shareholders.

I was talking about the government putting restrictions on the kinds of technology Google and Apple can invest in because some innovations do not suit their interests.

Re: Not OK, Google

#452

Post by VLM » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #95

bbctol wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! I suppose I was thinking of earlier space-age fantasy more than TNG. It was rather odd how easily people could look up details on crewmembers aboard the Enterprise, but I suppose the situation's different on an organized ship.

> It was rather odd how easily people could look up details on crewmembers aboard the Enterprise, but I suppose the situation's different on an organized ship. Not just crewmembers: TNG showed some of the broader implications (both useful and creepy) of the convenience-oriented panopticon, e.g., when Geordi used the Enterprise library computer to construct a simulation from data (including personality profiles) of Dr…

That was a substantial plot hole where she had no idea someone was simulating her.

I suspect a huge part of the panopticon culture would be / is being informed that you're being peeped at. 99% of the time someone asking "Computer locate commander Riker" involved commander Riker knowing all about who's looking for him and why and having a substantial conversation with the requester.

I don't recall any plot along the lines of Deanna getting jealous and spamming the computer all night asking where Riker is and he better not be in that cute ensign's bedroom... Because it seems logical the computer would inform him each time and he would eventually tire of the interruption and nature would take its course, WRT his relationship with Deanna.

A better analogy would be technically I could walk up to the company president's office and stalk him, but culturally that is so not going to fly and I would have a lot of explaining to do. Merely using the computer instead of walking there in flesh isn't a major cultural shift.

However, every single "holodeck creeper" plot line involved the simulated attractive real world woman not knowing she's being simulated until the plot reached maximum spaghetti spilling cringe, which is one of the few Trek panopticon situations where people being spied on did NOT know they were being spied on, which seems very un-trek, although it made for some entertaining stories.

An alternative interpretation is I believe over the course of the series every attractive woman on the ship was simulated on the holodeck at least once by at least one lonely guy, and its possible that culturally they just got used to it, although I find that unlikely. People do get conditioned to become used to the weirdest things, so its not out of the realm of possibility. Possibly a culture of what happens in vegas stays in vegas develops and its just the sexism of the TV show that they never showed the women turning the tables on their fellow male crewmen on the holodeck.

Re: Not OK, Google

#453

Post by pjlegato » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

snerbles wrote: post #294

Artistry121 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depi…

Indeed, their efforts to run the "Klingon culture is bad" thread got comically awkward in TNG, where they also really hammered on the multiculturalist "all cultures are equally valid" theme. All cultures... except for Klingons, whose barbaric and violent customs are just obviously inferior.

Re: Not OK, Google

#454

Post by pjlegato » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #249

tjl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original show there wasn't a currency but in order to have aliens who exhibit avarice and the worst part of capitalism they had to include a currency (latinum, I think it was called).

> In the original show there wasn't a currency Incorrect, in the original series, there was a currency ("credits") that was explicitly referenced several times; it was also referenced in at least one, and possibly more, early TNG episodes. Sometime in the TNG era, Roddenberry laid down an edict that money, including the "credits" that had been repeatedly referenced previously, did not exist in the federation, and so…

Currency was later re-introduced to enable the Ferengi race to be portrayed as greedy merchants.

Re: Not OK, Google

#455

Post by mkhpalm » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

I seriously wonder if this article would have a different tone if all the same products and vision were presented at an Apple Keynote with Apple branded devices.

Would it be different? My gut says this article would have had a different title.

Re: Not OK, Google

#456

Post by pjlegato » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:46 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?

There was this Snowden guy who leaked some documents about that...

Re: Not OK, Google

#457

Post by pmyjavec » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:47 PM UTC

Klathmon wrote: post #254

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…

Well, for a single data point, myself, most of my family, and most of my friends want AI in their lives. Hell that's the whole purpose behind devices like Google home and Amazon's Echo. People aren't buying them because they look nice, they are buying them because they are a simple voice-operated AI that can answer question and do things for them. You might not want or like it, and that's okay, but don't act like nob…

What do you do with it? Like what is a typical use case / interaction ? Do you ask it to put on a movie or tell you the time ?

I totally disagree people wanted all their personal information fed to private corporations in the "cloud" BTW. Completely disagree. It's Orwellian.

Re: Not OK, Google

#458

Post by piyush_soni » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #362

piyush_soni wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know for sure if they are violating their privacy policies. But as I said, if they are doing it, and it comes out by any means, it will be the dead end of their business. So it's in their best interest to not to do that and only improve upon users' trust. So yes, there's certain level of trust I put into them, just like the trust I put into big food product companies that they'd respect the ingredients list,…

> if they are doing it ... it will be the dead end of their business. I wish I could share your confidence about that. It seems to me we've seen corporate data leaks, deceptive practices, huge hack attacks, etc and all that happens is the corporations get a temporary PR black eye -- and then spring back into action as powerfully as before. In the case of Google, if it came out that, say, Russian hackers had breached…

There are two things here. One is Google secretively going against their Privacy Policy and selling my data/sharing it with other previously undisclosed parties. The other is a data breach in which Google is attacked by some very skilled hackers. If the former ever happens, I'll delete all my data (whatever they allow) from their servers, and leave them forever. For the latter though, I trust them even more than most other companies to protect my data because of their technical know-how and experience. But a data breach is always a possibility with any online company, and that will be my bad luck - so I'm taking a calculated risk here.

Re: Not OK, Google

#459

Post by deburo » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

plg wrote: post #308

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.

My impression is that (in the main) younger people have lower privacy thresholds than older people. Not for everyone (of course). Just on average. My impression also is that most early adopters of this kind of technology are younger people. (again: mostly) So this brings up an interesting question about the future. As the young early adopters age, what will happen? a) their privacy thresholds will also increase and t…

I don't think A will necessarily happen for most. We are a product of our experiences. If, as we grow up, we get comfortable using always-online technologies and never suffer any consequence from those experiences, I don't see what would motivate us to suddenly doubt these technologies. I am confident B is the most likely situation; that's how societies move forward so quickly with tech.

Re: Not OK, Google

#460

Post by majewsky » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #256

digi_owl wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if one should press for having these services accept a public key alongside the email address that they then are obliged to encrypt all outgoing emails with. Thus even if the address is wrong, the recipient can't easily read the content.

How does that solve anything? Either these services will have to publish the key on your behalf (so you can lookup the public key for bob@gmail.com with some public API), or you will have to provide the public key every time you hand out your email address. The former doesn't fix the issue at all, and the latter is unworkable because the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his…

> the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his public key

Have the browser suggest the key IDs from `gpg --list-secret-keys`.