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

Google in, Google out

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–135 of 135 posts

Re: Google in, Google out

#131

Post by pawadu »

jankey wrote: post #16
pawadu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically they are not yet uploading everything into the cloud Don't they upload every "Hey, Google!" command to their cloud? I assume they would upload some background sound to train their algorithms against background noise.

Sure, you can review and delete everything here: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_so... (I work for Google)

jankey, if Google had any respect for my privacy this information would never have left my phone in the first place.

Re: Google in, Google out

#132

Post by pawadu »

pacala wrote: post #20
jankey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can review and delete everything here: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_so... (I work for Google)

Right. opt-out vs opt-in. http://danariely.com/2008/05/05/3-main-lessons-of-psychology PS. Kindly explain why Google Maps really wants to stalk my location even when not using it actively. It's been forced down Android users a few years ago via a "Yes/Not now" dark pattern, it's coming on iPhone under the guise of "share location with your friends". PS2. Kindly explain why anyone would ever trust Google to not expand…

Did you knew Chromecast refuses to register in your network unless Google has your exact GPS coordinates?

Try setting up one from a phone with GPS turned off and see what happens (assuming the wifi AP you are using is not already in their location mapping database)

Re: Google in, Google out

#133

Post by pawadu »

aiiane wrote: post #81
cf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but is it actually deleted? Or is this still stored somewhere in Google ready to be retrieved if needed?

It's actually deleted, though it can take some time for deletions to propagate through various Google systems and backups - we can't violate the speed of light and​ we wouldn't want a bug in the deletion code to result in a catastrophic loss of things users wanted us to keep.

But what if my data has already been used somehow. For example to train next generation speech recognition AI.

What will happen to that information?

Re: Google in, Google out

#134

Post by euyyn »

pawadu wrote: post #130
euyyn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> remember google street car password gathering? What? Wasn't that "SSID gathering", as in "the name you give your WiFi network, which is then visible to anyone that passes by"? How could a streetview car gather passwords?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2137145/Googl...

Thanks for the link!

From Alan Eustace himself, too: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-pr...

Re: Google in, Google out

#135

Post by Mathnerd314 »

cyphar wrote: post #43
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referring to "the history" is just wrong, there are always conflicting perspectives and facts. See http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173396 ; there have been plenty of (presumably sane) people who depended on a single corporation. It's not clear whether they're better off for it, and there is a slippery-slope argument, but monopolies and lock-in are…

> It's not clear whether they're better off for it, and there is a slippery-slope argument, but monopolies and lock-in are not intrinsically evil. They are only not intrinsically evil if you make the assumption that they will never harm you (act in a way you didn't bargain for) or disappear. A company which does either has given you no way out of a service you now depend on and are fucked if it doesn't work for you a…

> fucked if it doesn't work for you anymore.

There are plenty of responses: sue them under antitrust statutes, break in and steal their tech, go the politics route and seize it via eminent domain, etc.

It's true though, a lot of those are impractical. But in the end you're pretty much back where you started before you began a relationship with the company; fucked is a relative term, when you should be thinking on an absolute scale of reference.

> all companies will do evil inevitably and thus are intrinsically evil

I guess it depends on your philosophy of evil. Sure, corporations are like hungry tigers, in that if you're in the same room as them without protection you're likely to get killed and eaten eventually. But does that make tigers (or corporations) evil? Consensus seems to be "no" or "mu": https://www.quora.com/Are-tigers-lions-and-hyenas-evil-creat...

(mu being defined as in http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/mu.html)

Post reply on HN