Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

Post by hellbanner » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:38 AM UTC

rifung wrote: post #76

DannyBee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've made very clear when i speak for Google and when I don't, and i pretty much never do (except on some licensing issues). If you want official statements from me, go elsewhere. If you want HN to be a place of real discussion and debate, it's stupid to try to tie people to their companies. I think very different from my company on quite a lot of issues, and i happily point that at too. To your point, however, I did…

I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake. As an employee and likely a shareholder, presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light. I don't think it's so much about thing people to their companies but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions. If people just accuse you of hid…

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 1:51 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #106

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the problem. The problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable, and this context is important for others reading. You might think you are completely objective and unbiased, as do most others, and maybe you are. But, most people are fooling themselves a little. Nobody will admit to themselves, let alone others, that they work for someo…

"he problem is that ones opinions regarding the entity responsible for issuing their paycheck are inherently less valuable" No, they aren't, and it's horrendously biased to say that. "So really, if you want a place of real discussion and debate, it's important to tie people to their companies in cases where they are participating in discussions about these companies. " No, it isn't, precisely because your premise is…

Post by jancsika » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 3:12 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #37

CivilianZero wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still can't see why I should care if some stranger has my purchase history. I suppose some people might feel weird letting strangers or anyone know what they buy, but that's an argument for the ability to opt-out, not for filing a complaint with an agency or starting a lawsuit.

There's plenty of people who get up to things that would result in severe professional damage if it became public knowledge - I know a handful of teachers who are into BDSM in their private lives who are eternally terrified of their employers or a journalist catching wind. "Some stranger" isn't necessarily the issue, it's someone who has the ability to harm you that's the issue.

Post by rifung » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 3:29 AM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #111

rifung wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake. As an employee and likely a shareholder, presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light. I don't think it's so much about thing people to their companies but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions. If people just accuse you of hid…

Origin comment said they didn't want data to be sold to anyone. I interpreted that to be including Google (and their other comments back it up). While I agree that because of Google's intimate symbiosis with internet, it's nice to have transparency from employees when they protect Google, I don't think the Original Comment was protecting Google. They were arguing that instead of being upset that Google can now get yo…

Post by rifung » Tue, Aug 01, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #78

rifung wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake. As an employee and likely a shareholder, presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light. I don't think it's so much about thing people to their companies but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions. If people just accuse you of hid…

"I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake." I'm very strongly against disclaimers for my personal opinions on random discussion forums , and will continue not to do so right up until i'm forced to (at which point, i'll probably just stop contributing). When I write or post articles in a public news setting or something, or get paid to write them, i'll be happy to. When i'm ju…