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

Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

bradfrost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 399 posts

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#291

Post by confounded »

turc1656 wrote: post #210

Serious question for the HN community - why do you leave your GPS on/activated by default? I have mine disabled unless I specifically need it for something, which is rare. Usually the only time I ever need GPS is for driving instructions. Otherwise, it's off. GPS is also the biggest battery hog on the device. Why would you leave this on? Do you all use it far more frequently or was it something you never thought to s…

If I was designing this feature, I'd use GPS in combination with the MAC address of the wireless AP in the restaurant; I wouldn't be surprised if this works with just WiFi enabled.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#292

Post by throwanem »

bastijn wrote: post #276
throwanem wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it serves the common good No, it serves Google.

> It serves Google and the common good. There. Fixed it for you. You can’t deny the benefits it brings to the average person having all this information a (google) search away.

I can deny that Google doing something that happens to serve its specific interests, and that Google may without gainsay or penalty discontinue doing at any instant it should so please, qualifies as a common good. I can deny that all day!

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#293

Post by rhizome »

wvenable wrote: post #155
rhizome wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your cell phone cannot function without actually knowing where you are (to some approximation) at all times. That's like saying a transistor radio needs to know where broadcast antennas are, which is obviously absurd.

It's a cellular telephone -- they need to know all the cell towers near you and direct your phone between them. It's a rough area but my phone provider definitely knows I'm at work right now.

GP said, "cannot function." How did cellphones work before they came with GPS?

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#294

Post by urda »

erispoe wrote: post #289
bastijn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you? Or did you just pay them peanuts for a tracking device that helps them make many times your peanuts with their real (real) customers?

The Google Pixel 2 starts at $649. Pixel prices are comparable with iPhones.

iPhones and Apple have demonstrated that privacy is a top concern for their users.

Google and their Pixel devices, not so much.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#295

Post by [deleted] »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #114
Raphmedia wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My memory is terrible enough that I can't do those things myself. One could argue that your memory is terrible because you know you can rely on those services.

Well, my memory is good enough to remember that in the pre-Google world I had no way to find out reviews of restaurants in a city I was visiting, let alone 'memorize' them.

[deleted]

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#296

Post by nevi-me »

erispoe wrote: post #289
bastijn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you? Or did you just pay them peanuts for a tracking device that helps them make many times your peanuts with their real (real) customers?

The Google Pixel 2 starts at $649. Pixel prices are comparable with iPhones.

I think the point being made is that a once-off amount for the hardware might be way less than what they get to make over those 2 years that you use the device (at least in aggregate as not everyone will buy a Pixel)

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#297

Post by saulrh »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #284
saulrh wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I'm all for the transhumanist aspect of this, letting the machines take care of everything they can so I can focus my intellect on the things that machines can't do, and I'll admit that (for example) I lean hard on Google when choosing whether to memorize a particular piece of information or to simply know that it exists and how it can be found. In this case, though, my parents figured out that I had an issue a…

> There's a reason I choose to describe these systems as prostheses. I choose to describe them as "external brain" ("exobrain" is the term of the art now?) - "prosthesis" feels like it implies there's something wrong with it, and that you use it only because you have no other choice.

On the one hand, that's how I feel about literally everything about myself. There is something wrong with my entire body. I do only use it because I have no better choice. To quote Eliezer Yudkowsky, "I'm sure Einstein was very smart for a human. I'm sure a General Systems Vehicle would think that was very cute of him." Like I said, I'm all aboard the transhumanism train.

On the other hand, you're right that most people don't have that intuition and that "prosthesis" may not be effective communication. This particular issue disadvantages me compared to other humans and solutions to it help me recover basic functionality, but you're right that this technology is good enough that a run-of-the-mill human can benefit from it too. They just don't benefit as much as I do. So, hm, maybe I should switch to augmentative language over assistive. I'll think about it.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#298

Post by realusername »

gerash wrote: post #161

The way I see it is Google is offering a free and optional yet pre-installed service, namely Google maps, and is sometimes asking its users to contribute to its POI dataset. It'll be both good for Google and its users if the information about a restaurant is accurate or the gas prices for a gas station is up to date. The notifications could be sent way too often and I get that would be annoying but the whole concept…

> optional yet pre-installed service

Most of these apps are system and not-deletable unless you root your phone, there are maybe free but not optional for most of them...

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#299

Post by 1_2__4 »

dwg wrote: post #146

Growing pains on the way to a true digital personal assistant. The industry has to figure out how to deal with privacy concerns, because a digital assistant which is continuously aware of your location and what you're doing will be tremendously useful. It's a little friend in your pocket that we won't be able to imagine living without. Traffic jam ahead? Got you covered. Can't remember someones name? I've got it here…

Ugh your response reminds me so much of Google PR speak at TGIFs and such that it's hard for me to believe you don't work for Google. This is exactly the picture Google PR has been trying to create for years - years, by now! - and all evidence suggests that

a) No, it's not what people want. It seems convenient in concept and even in practice, until the moment they encounter something that makes clear to them just how much a third-party companies knows (and can divulge) about their life, and they immediately start trying to turn this stuff off.

b) It's not what people need. The fact is most of these services are problems looking for solutions, and offer an overabundance of data for a user who simply does not need it and can't use it. Traffic jam ahead? Thanks for the heads up but not like I could modify my plans or route, so that's useless. Can't remember someone's name? What, am I going to take a picture of them and then whisper 'hey google who is that person' discretely into my phone? Need to remember the name of that great (elided) last time you were in the area? Chances are you could just look it up and in the process discover other interesting things - and I'm not even sure what you mean here, like, is Google going to show me a list of everyplace I went when I was there?

Why do you think so many so-called personal assistants just keep getting used for the same thing? How many things need to tell me the weather today, or traffic conditions?

c) These things don't work and what you're essentialy are advocating for is that we give up our privacy and personal data in exchange for broken systems (sorry, "growing pains" - nevermind Google's been pitching these things for years and they're still mostly used to set timers and answer silly trivia questions - poorly) that may someday offer something we don't need (see a and b). That's a garbage deal if ever I heard one.

I think you want people to want these features because they comport with your idea of the future. But the fact is reality is not playing out like that.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#300

Post by fenwick67 »

ovao wrote: post #273
fenwick67 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> google doesn't do things like look at your specific address, preferred colors, etc Who are you to say they don't try and figure out your favorite color based on all of their input data? If Google shared exactly how their secret sauce advertising algorithms work, they'd be out of business. > You can opt out of all behavior based advertiser very easily: http://optout.networkadvertising.org and http://optout.aboutads.…

Is trying to derive a person’s preferences from tangentially-related data immoral, or does it only become immoral when it’s done in an attempt to sell a product?

Deriving preferences is not inherently bad. It's immoral to undermine people's will for profit. This is the same reason the gambling industry is immoral, and making manipulative free-to-play mobile games is immoral. You're basically hacking people's subconscious for your own gain at their loss.
Post reply on HN