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

571–580 of 594 posts

Re: Not OK, Google

#571

Post by ethanbond »

euyyn wrote: post #558
ethanbond wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The handwaviness is telling. Why would an algorithm or its creators even care about the difference? The highest bidder is the highest bidder.

Because the whole of Google's ad business stands on people wanting to click on the ads shown, and buy the products offered through them. That's why they spend resources on detecting misleading or fraudulent ads, which by your reasoning they wouldn't care about as long as they paid. PR is very important for this business to be sustainable: If the goal was for every user to click through one ad, and then never again, t…

What's misleading or fraudulent about those ads? Maybe you mean "morally reprehensible," in which case I ask where you draw the line between the morally reprehensible (auctioning off the method of suicide to a depressed person) and the morally questionable (say, auctioning off the final bankrupting car purchase to a financially irresponsible person)?

Re: Not OK, Google

#572

Post by halflings »

falcolas wrote: post #323
halflings wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are some trust issues, but just regarding your two first points: A very limited number of Google employees have access to private user data (only when it's vital to their work) and they have strict policies in place (data does not leave the data centers etc.). Which third parties are you referring to? As far as I know, Google does not give their users' private data to a third party.

Lots of reference to a user's private data - but what is private? Is my zipcode, gender, and birthdate private? Those three factors can be used to uniquely identify greater than 80% of the US population. Are the GPS locations I visit private? If so, why does information about them show up on lock screens? Third parties get my voice recordings for "improving the voice recognition service" - what if my name is mentione…

Yes, if data can be used to potentially locate somebody, like a combination of zipcode, birthdate and first name, it is considered PII (Personally identifiable information) and those strict policies would apply.

I'm responding to a comment that said trusting Google == trusting ALL Google employees, which is not true. Trusting Google with your data is believing that having some convenience (a mail service like Gmail, an intelligent assistant, etc.) is worth the risks you are talking about: Google drastically changing their policy, or being bankrupt and acquired by less scrupulous owners, etc.

Let's not just act like anybody at Google can look at your data and play with it, or a disgruntled employee will suddenly click a button and release all users' data on pastebin...

Re: Not OK, Google

#573

Post by lilianparks »

Hey guys i really dont know about the scam of a thing but i recommend you contact emrysghosthacker@gmail.comfor an untraceable real hacking job and PI for scammed victim to track down and trace back scammer, with much experience on the previous guy that scammed me he helped me trace and recover back my lost money..he also help me hack my ex's mail, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone conversations through the software i payed him for and installed remotely on my phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was his phone model, no physical contact.if you need help hacking any social site without password he will surely help tell him lilian referred you..he will surely help you out..you can thank me later...

Re: Not OK, Google

#574

Post by lilianparks »

Hey guys i really dont know about the scam of a thing but i recommend you contact emrysghosthacker@gmail.comfor an untraceable real hacking job and PI for scammed victim to track down and trace back scammer, with much experience on the previous guy that scammed me he helped me trace and recover back my lost money..he also help me hack my ex's mail, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone conversations through the software i payed him for and installed remotely on my phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was his phone model, no physical contact.if you need help hacking any social site without password he will surely help tell him lilian referred you..he will surely help you out..you can thank me later...

Re: Not OK, Google

#575

Post by falcolas »

timv wrote: post #538
falcolas wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI for the Enterprise D was run from three computer cores on the ship (two in the saucer, one in the engineering section), made up of Isolinear Chips subjected to a small warp field (iow, it makes computes using light faster than the speed of light). Subspace communication bandwidth is too limited (and potentially affected by latency, since it had to travel through repeaters throughout the galaxy) to provide real…

What about when someone was (permanently) transferred between ships? Was there ever an indication that their AI-level data was transferred along with their personnel file? For example did the replicator know what food to offer them on day one? If so, then it's seems reasonable to assume that the Enterprise's AI data was backed up at Federation HQ during routine maintenance, and that the "IT department" at Federation…

> did the replicator know what food to offer them

Through specific indication from the user. Recall the constant utterance of "tea, earl grey, hot"?

Ultimately, I imagine the user's information (documents, etc) was passed directly between ships, or through (as you say) Federation HQ.

> Enterprise's AI data was backed up

Ultimately, I think this is where AI will differ from ML. An AI won't have data that isn't a part of the AI - i.e. you couldn't separate out information specific to Picard from the rest of the AI code. An AI might be able to "scribble" down some notes about interacting with Picard and pass them off to another ship's AI, but the second AI would never treat Picard quite the same way as the first, even with those notes.

This stems from my belief that how ML interprets data is different from how an AI would. If you were to copy all of the data used to build a ML model and apply it again, you'd end up with the same ML model. An AI, on the other hand, if built twice twice from the same data would end creating two separate AIs.

Re: Not OK, Google

#576

Post by throwaway98237 »

euyyn wrote: post #559
throwaway98237 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not talking directly to the awesomeness of each of their individual products, which I would be the first to admit, they have many. And not speaking directly to their Assistant product. Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great counter arguments. My central point was, Google puts it's resources best where there is the…

Again, what's your point? That it's bad that Google tries to make a business out of organizing the world's information? It's the only way to keep doing it. You say: > One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information One wonders what's that 99.9% that you miss. You mention: > I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water tem…

Troll?

Re: Not OK, Google

#577

Post by pmyjavec »

Klathmon wrote: post #568
pmyjavec wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your giving up lot of personal information and potential freedom of choice to have "AI" (not sure that's the right word for it anyway), do a bunch of these tasks just for, what you perceive as convenience. For example, having content fed to you is potentially unhealthy, "Google, read me today news", are you telling me you just want to be fed any kind of information based on some kind of "preferences"? As you said it'…

> Your giving up lot of personal information and potential freedom of choice to have "AI" (not sure that's the right word for it anyway), do a bunch of these tasks just for, what you perceive as convenience. Come on now, you can't handwave away what to me are very real benefits as "perceived convenience", and just because it seems like a lot of personal information to you doesn't mean it is for me. Yes, i'm letting t…

There is no more discussion to be had, enjoy handing away your personal information and locking your front door from bed.

Re: Not OK, Google

#578

Post by jeeva »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #563
oldmanjay wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i actually had 3 upvotes until the google people started to change that. so some do. i'm not accusing anyone of shilling. i've personally seen these threads and some proportion of people admit openly they work there. others, you click their profile and see they work at goog. don't need you to condescingly assume you speak for the community. Also forgot to mention all the people who defend google because they're despe…

Sorry, but you don't think that it's somewhat unfounded paranoia?

Personally, I would have downvoted you because your original point seemed to condescendingly assume something about a large proportion of the community and their intentions - then you assume again that it's "The Google People" (and only them)?

Unless you can show that your downvotes came because of a specific reason, and from specific people...

Re: Not OK, Google

#579

Post by dmoy »

bbctol wrote: post #182
dmoy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you check that link? It looks fairly intuitive to me. Given that I'm having a hard time parsing your response. However if there's some specific setting in there that's not available, that would make sense.

I think each individual action is fine, but I don't understand how it's easy to manage privacy as a whole. Each aspect of privacy is separate, and can be finely customized in one particular way per session. There's no way to set different arrangements of settings for different times, or even just a button on mobile to whack that indicates "Ignore my data for the next few minutes."

Those are good ideas.

Re: Not OK, Google

#580

Post by krupan »

bovermyer wrote: post #569
krupan wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how are we going to know where google appliances are present or not?

By looking around and/or asking? Life isn't that hard.

"Excuse me, is that an android phone in your pocket?" Also, what about google self-driving cars with full arrays of cameras, radar, etc. recording everything as they drive past you?
Post reply on HN