Not OK, Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Not OK, Google

#581

Post by euyyn » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

throwaway98237 wrote: post #576

euyyn wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you prefer that, instead of answering :)

Re: Not OK, Google

#582

Post by euyyn » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #571

euyyn wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Detecting misleading and fraudulent ads is just an example of things they wouldn't spend resources on, if following your reasoning of "short-term money is the only thing they care about."

There's not only the "morally reprehensible" metric ("Don't be evil"); there's also the "absolute PR catastrophe" metric that printing such an ad for a rope would mean.

Re: Not OK, Google

#583

Post by euyyn » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #565

euyyn wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the strongest guarantee is that the sustainability of their business very much depends on that. Billions of incentives to make not a single ex-employee able to say "I managed to hack my way to user personal data".

That's not much of a guarantee. First, you're relying on everyone acting rationally. I hope they would, but humans often act irrationally, especially if grudges or money is involved. More important is your assumption that the decision would even be made by Google. Outside forces such as governments may force Google's hand. > able to say It doesn't matter what is said . If Google had sufficient deniability (perhaps an…

Sorry, the policies the parent commenter was talking about were about employees' (lack of) access to user data.

Being ordered by a judge to do something obviously supersedes any policy, but that's the case for any person and business.

Re: Not OK, Google

#584

Post by r00fus » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

marak830 wrote: post #482

r00fus wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can move to Mac, AppleID is not really required.

Without trying to look like an arse, why? I have been on pc since dos, I can hack my way around any pc. I will fully admit I have not spent enough time in Mac to figure out the file system, but from what (little) I have seen, your not in control. I like my pc because I can see what sub-processes are running, who is taking up how much memory, install things to where I want and if worse comes to worse, manually change…

So go Hackintosh. At least you don't have to distrust your OS vendor.

To answer your questions, you're in complete control with macOS, you can turn off SIP, turn off Gatekeeper and install whatever kernel extensions you want. Apple doesn't snoop on you like with Win10 telemetry.

Re: Not OK, Google

#585

Post by Dorisb85 » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

When people say hackers are not reliable i laugh at them. I was introduced to this hacker when i had marital issues with my husband,he helped me hack into his emails. Him and his team are professional hackers and they offer other services such as clearing bad driving and criminal records, background checks, monitoring locations, locating missing people, tracking scams e.g (online dating scams, cyber frauds), bank account hacks and transfer, facebook, whatsapp,text messages, phone records, email hacks, teaching individuals on how to become pro hackers and counter hacking hackers. They offer same day services too, and of cause he provides proof of legitimacy. If you need a hacker contact Mikhail Saratov via his email-(cyberlord7714@gmail.com). Him and his team saved my life literally, at least i owe him publicity. If he doesn’t respond tell him (Daniella) recommended him…

Re: Not OK, Google

#586

Post by throwaway98237 » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

euyyn wrote: post #581

throwaway98237 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Troll?

If you prefer that, instead of answering :)

troll.

Re: Not OK, Google

#587

Post by zardeh » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 11:44 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #229

zardeh wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large. (Have worked at google in the past, may in the future, am not currently). You say this as though anyone at Google (or Microsoft or whatever) can go in and search for 'falcolas'…

> [...] which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google? > I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had that power. Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data? Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How…

>This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?

I think is incredibly important. If your information is put at risk due to bad practices by Google/Yahoo/Apple/Facebook/whomever that's a problem to be taken up with the company. If you use insecure passwords and someone is able to access your information that way, then the problem is with your passwords, not with the platform.

>Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data?

As far as I'm aware, no one. Like I said, from my experience, accessing personal data and user information as an engineer required a lot of red tape and approval from 'the powers that be', and violating those rules would get you fired faster than anything else.

>Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable if their data protection policies change)?

Here I agree with you, probably not (or very little). They obviously have public privacy policies, but you have no proof that they abide by those, and I don't know (and doubt that) they get audited or whatnot to make sure that those policies are followed. Which is why being an employee made me more comfortable. If nothing else, it meant I'd know ;)

Re: Not OK, Google

#588

Post by pdkl95 » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

euyyn wrote: post #583

pdkl95 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not much of a guarantee. First, you're relying on everyone acting rationally. I hope they would, but humans often act irrationally, especially if grudges or money is involved. More important is your assumption that the decision would even be made by Google. Outside forces such as governments may force Google's hand. > able to say It doesn't matter what is said . If Google had sufficient deniability (perhaps an…

Sorry, the policies the parent commenter was talking about were about employees' (lack of) access to user data. Being ordered by a judge to do something obviously supersedes any policy, but that's the case for any person and business.

> was talking about were about employees' (lack of) access to user data

Which we have to take their word on and hope that never changes in the future, even though Google might not be the party with the authority to make that decision. Even when they are, business plans change and a pile of potentially profitable user data is a very powerful temptation towards moral hazard. Only a fool would claim that this wasn't a risk.

> that's the case for any person and business.

Only if you deliberately ignore the entire point that the data shouldn't be stored at all by 3rd parties. A business that sold a real product (instead of a service masquerading as a product) would run locally and no data would be put at risk.

If a judge orders me personally to reveal something, they probably need a warrant and there is a process by which I can challenge that order. If, however, that data is stored on Google's servers then I don't have standing to challenge any interaction between Google and the government.

Re: Not OK, Google

#589

Post by Fang_ » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 10:27 AM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #278

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…

I feel your message is the most important in this thread because it's the crux of the whole concern about privacy and the cloud. Where technology has failed us most is in the utterly stagnant evolution and maturation of secure private networks. The following is a utopian notion, but had private networks seen as much R&D as the public clouds, they would be significantly less cumbersome than today's clunky VPNs. Imagin…

>I still feel this ideal will eventually be realized

Quick shoutout to Urbit here.

Re: Not OK, Google

#590

Post by jimkri » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 1:25 PM UTC

I was really against getting updates about where I usually travel or other notifications that are constantly tracking me. But after a while I really like some of the tracking and notifications. Now I love when google reminds me to leave for a appointment and gives me directions, it really saves.

I do hate being tracked, but I have slowly started to like the connivence of it. Having all my information on Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram, and everything else privacy has really gone down. If my Nexus 5x can save me time, I will sacrifice some privacy.