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

491–500 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#491

Post by probably_wrong »

witty_username wrote: post #404
nojvek wrote: post #360

Here's why I am afraid of Google. Google could have the best intentions, but its wife NSA that Google occasionally sleeps with doesn't. Everything you say to Google Home could possibly be recorded. Storage and Computing power for google is cheap. They can record everything you say in your home. Their algorithms can connect all sorts of information about you. If trump wants to create the next Muslim holocaust, Google…

How does Google manipulate humans to click on their ads?

The story of how Target discovers and targets recently pregnant women is a good example [1].

An interesting quote: “we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.”

There's no reason to believe Google isn't doing the same thing. And I strongly suggest reading the original article[2], if only for the first two or three paragraphs.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targe...

[2] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habit...

Re: Not OK, Google

#492

Post by odbol_ »

ubercore wrote: post #232
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as mentioned above, if you don't want Google to potentially track your behaviour and preferences, "don't use their services" encompasses "don't send email to anyone with a gmail address".

Which is the digital equivalent of "Don't walk out your front door". My whole point in posting originally was to bring up the fact that the interesting discussion of different thresholds and having a spectrum of options is being lost in binary "privacy vs complete corporate control". It's not binary, and it does everyone a disservice to act like it can be for everyone.

We live in a world of Privacy Theater. Everyone is always complaining about "their privacy" as if they still have any, and it's kind of amusing.

Your phone's microphone can be turned on remotely and listen to what you say (I know several startups that do this). Security/traffic/drone/satellite cameras are everywhere. You are being watched literally all the time, but to think the watchers actually care about your personal life indicates a pretty inflated view of self-importance. We're starting to complain about it about 20 years too late.

Re: Not OK, Google

#494

Post by shostack »

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.

Bingo. The movie Her was awesome. But rewatch it. In every scene the AI does something cool, think what permissions it would need and what data it would have to have access to about you to accomplish the task. It gets scary pretty quickly.

Re: Not OK, Google

#495

Post by Oletros »

ProAm wrote: post #464
Oletros wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim is that the government have unfettered access to ALL the data. Can you provide a link to your claim or it is just your opinion because there is no proof of that?

Evidence has been slowly being released for years, what more do you need. Here is my third example for you [1], after this Im done. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...

You still have not provided any evidence for you first claim that the government has total access to those companies. And your last link also doesn't say what you think it says.

Re: Not OK, Google

#497

Post by leephillips »

jacquesm wrote: post #237
madenine wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your "crappy dumb phone" is already telling someone about your every move with a degree of accuracy ranging from an area around the closest cell tower to within a few feet. The courts are still deciding when/whether that information requires a warrant.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. That's how Dudayev got himself killed by a missile. But short of anybody wanting to aim a missile at me I figure that I'm better off with the courts in my country where such information does require a warrant at present (and without any indication that this will change), and without the company controlling those assets trying to 'mine' my profile in order to advertise to me more efficient…

Dudayev was using a satellite phone, detected by reconnaissance aircraft. But it could happen will cell tower location, too.

Re: Not OK, Google

#499

Post by rch »

kps wrote: post #484
rch wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I met a good friend and current employer because Google Now told me about an event I might be interested in a couple of years ago. Of course it also once told me how long it would take to get to an ex's house from my current girlfriend's place. How about an 'OK, funny once' command?

> How about an 'OK, funny once' command? I hope that's a Heinlein reference.

yep!

Re: Not OK, Google

#500

Post by oldmanjay »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #420
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…

a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord.

There just isn't any point to accusing people of shilling without evidence. The idea that one must be paid to hold a different opinion that you is offensive, and expressing it here isn't something the community wants.
Post reply on HN