Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Mess with The Google

dansdeals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 504 posts

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#451

Post by CJKinni »

I've been thinking a lot about my personal dependencies, and how I can mitigate points of failure. The mental exercise I've been going through is basically imagining Netflix's Chaos Monkey [1] running loose on my life.

How can I be resiliant to data loss? Job loss? Cognitive loss? There are ways I can mitigate these risks, and some ways I can test to see if my mitigation strategies will work in practice. But how do I do that without devoting my life to it?

It's nice to dream of some kind of antifragile existance going forward, but for now the easy conclusions tend to come down to the 'two is one and one is none' variety. Backup everything I can, including but certainly not limited to my data and services.

[1]: http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/chaos-monkey-released-in...

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#452

Post by oridecon »

nilved wrote: post #438
jdietrich wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domains can be stolen or seized, but somehow the internet still manages to function. If you're not doing anything silly or shady, domain names are extremely durable. They're certainly more durable than an e-mail address or a subdomain on someone else's domain, more durable than a phone number or a street address. If you can choose only one identifier by which people can contact you, there is no better choice than a d…

Your definition of "silly" or "shady" might not be congruent with every other person's. com domains have been seized for a variety of reasons. However, them being stolen is much more likely. As a security-inclined person, the domain registrar is the first thing I would target as an adversary. Very often they don't have 2FA; and once you have access, e-mail follows. It goes without saying that this is only a small par…

Not to mention they are stealing not only your e-mail data but your entire digital identity. Now they can reset the password of all your accounts, send e-mails in your behalf, buy things in your name.

I just don't trust DNS, domain registrars and all the things I would need to secure to have a custom domain e-mail.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#453

Post by dbot »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #399
peller wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree, and I'm not sure if this applies specifically to Google in this case, but as a general trend oftentimes users sign their class action rights away in the EULA by way of an arbitration clause.[0] This, in and of itself, is also IMO a huge abuse of power. But it's perfectly legal and only serves to further entrench the power of the monopolists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause

Agree and disagree. Nobody reads these things. Ergo, nobody agrees to them. Let's get it in front of a Jury. What do you want to bet that not one person in the Jury has ever read these incredibly one-sided, purposely obscure, usually incredibly long and complex agreements? Nobody. Not the Judge nor the Jury. Not to get political, this is precisely one of those things that earned Democrats a defeat. Demeaning and dimi…

Getting in front a jury means surviving summary judgment. A good contract is designed to allow any disputes be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

It's been a while since I've looked at the enforceability of clickwrap class-action waivers, but it's either enforceable or not as a matter of law. No factual issues in dispute = no jury required.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#454

Post by ocdtrekkie »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #120

Disclaimer: I don't speak for Google and don't have any real context into why this occurred. Speaking as myself, a private citizen. I work in Spam & Abuse and it's possible that this is the result of some clustering algorithm that was trying to take down sharders / phone buying rings. It's very possible that the SWEs responsible didn't consider this possibility (that legitimate customers would be used to shard purcha…

I recommend the takeaways you get from this thread (especially as someone in Spam & Abuse) to communicate with those you work with and your superiors at El Goog.

- Automation is going to be the end of your job. Not because your job will be replaced by an algorithm, but because overuse of algorithms is leading to the collapse of trust people place in Google. Major actions like the banning of someone's Google account should never be done by algorithms. If you can't afford the humans[0], you shouldn't be in the business of holding people's valuable data.

- The support and appeals process must be human. Ever tried Microsoft's Answer Desk? Talking to humans isn't difficult even with one of your largest scale competitors, even for free tier products. Humans want to talk to humans, and Google's customer base consists of humans. FastMail ticket support? Incredible. It feels like Google isn't even trying to treat customers well in comparison.

- Google shafted 200 of their customers, and from the looks of it, this thread has another 200 ready to leave. The Guardian just picked up the story, so expect this effect to continue. One bad behavior by automation can cost you multiples of damage, especially if someone writes a blog post about the incident.

[0]Google can definitely afford the humans, especially with that princely sum they have stashed in offshore accounts.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#455

Post by peeters »

nilved wrote: post #378
vilhelm_s wrote: post #8

This really seems like it needs to be regulated in law. For telephone companies, there are rules about when they may disconnect you, e.g. the Arizona Utilities Division write > f I am unable to pay my entire bill, what can I do to maintain local dial tone? > The Arizona Administrative Code specifically states that a telephone company may not disconnect a customer for failure to pay an unregulated portion of their bil…

> This really seems like it needs to be regulated in law. Or use backups. Don't go crying to the government when you can handle it yourself.

It's not a question of backups. Even with no data loss, the cost of most people being shut out of their Google account is absurdly high. Missed texts. Missed calls. Missed emails. Can't log into third party sites.

If Google wants to have a monopoly on all of that stuff, they need to be subject to regulation that compartmentalizes their services and what they can and can't do arbitrarily.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#456

Post by peeters »

amelius wrote: post #238
mooman219 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions about regarding Google as a utility aside, I think the comparison this argument makes isn't as comparable as you make it sound. Using your example with telephone companies, this situation is like saying a specific 3rd party service accessed via telephone should be regulated without actually regulating the telephone companies first. I would like to see ISPs be regulated as a utility before individual web site…

Gmail is part of the chain of technology that lets me communicate, so I think a comparison with a telco is fair. Also there could be a distinction in the law for mass communication, e.g. #users > 1M.

> Gmail is part of the chain of technology that lets me communicate, so I think a comparison with a telco is fair.

And it's actually harder to switch to a secondary. With my ISP, if they cut me off I can fall back on my cell provider within minutes. I have no such failover for my Google services.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#457

Post by nilved »

peeters wrote: post #455
nilved wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This really seems like it needs to be regulated in law. Or use backups. Don't go crying to the government when you can handle it yourself.

It's not a question of backups. Even with no data loss, the cost of most people being shut out of their Google account is absurdly high. Missed texts. Missed calls. Missed emails. Can't log into third party sites. If Google wants to have a monopoly on all of that stuff, they need to be subject to regulation that compartmentalizes their services and what they can and can't do arbitrarily.

They don't want a monopoly, you want them to. You opted in to it, and you only end up in such a horrible position when you make a series of horrible decisions.

Missed texts and phone calls? How did you even get into the position where Google controls your telephony? Missed emails? Why are you using gmail.com? Third-party authentication? Did they not have the option to use e-mail or a username?

You can't fix every problem by band-aiding regulation on top of it. Sometimes you need to step back and wonder how you got here, and solve that instead.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#458

Post by intelliot »

lmm wrote: post #368
smonff wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way Google made us used to transform an email box as a storage and backup place is terrifying. Sending 2Mo attachments become a norm[1] and lots of people consider having their life stored there. It just seem not sustainable. If you would do this with paper in the past, your place would just be full of junk. Our cloud life is an horrific stack of garbage. We just don't need most of the things we store, keeping ev…

> [1] Yes I know storage is cheap, but then forget about ecology and climate change control, I have no proof of this but can't believe that all the Google servers of the world don't have an impact, even if it seems quite clean This is ridiculous reasoning. The best (though imperfect) proxy for the climate impact of a given service is how much it costs. If Google is giving away the service for free, it can't be costin…

I don't have a good answer here, but I believe it may be instructive to consider externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). For instance, think carefully about how they may apply here.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#459

Post by peeters »

nilved wrote: post #457
peeters wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of backups. Even with no data loss, the cost of most people being shut out of their Google account is absurdly high. Missed texts. Missed calls. Missed emails. Can't log into third party sites. If Google wants to have a monopoly on all of that stuff, they need to be subject to regulation that compartmentalizes their services and what they can and can't do arbitrarily.

They don't want a monopoly, you want them to. You opted in to it, and you only end up in such a horrible position when you make a series of horrible decisions. Missed texts and phone calls? How did you even get into the position where Google controls your telephony? Missed emails? Why are you using gmail.com? Third-party authentication? Did they not have the option to use e-mail or a username? You can't fix every pro…

> They don't want a monopoly, you want them to.

Of course they do. Every strategic decision the company has made over the last two decades is to try to secure a monopoly on your data.

You make it sound like it's easy to run your own full stack of all web-connected applications. It's not. The cost is INSANELY high. So your real choice is whether to use one company, or dozens of individual companies for every individual service. The latter protects you against the risk of something like this happening. But it comes at a day-to-day expense which will far outweigh the prevented risk for 99.9% of people.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#460

Post by rebootthesystem »

dbot wrote: post #453
rebootthesystem wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree and disagree. Nobody reads these things. Ergo, nobody agrees to them. Let's get it in front of a Jury. What do you want to bet that not one person in the Jury has ever read these incredibly one-sided, purposely obscure, usually incredibly long and complex agreements? Nobody. Not the Judge nor the Jury. Not to get political, this is precisely one of those things that earned Democrats a defeat. Demeaning and dimi…

Getting in front a jury means surviving summary judgment. A good contract is designed to allow any disputes be resolved at the summary judgment stage. It's been a while since I've looked at the enforceability of clickwrap class-action waivers, but it's either enforceable or not as a matter of law. No factual issues in dispute = no jury required.

I could very easily argue they are fraudulent. The technology has existed for years to ensure that people agree to such important matters as giving up all your rights. Of course they don't want to put that in front of people because they'd have massive push-back. Imagine an interactive EULA being presented to a user clause-by-clause with clear large print and a clause-by-clause agreement button.

I'd be surprised if these things could survive a well mounted legal challenge purely based on common sense. The intention of these companies is to take it all from the user and have exactly zero responsibility and exposure. Way too one-sided for companies that affect hundreds of millions of people, particularly if they claim not to do evil.

If public shaming won't do it maybe government intervention will.

Post reply on HN