Live data from Hacker News

Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

nautil.us

291–300 of 360 posts

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#291
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very few ISPs can track you no matter where you physically go, as your mobile, home, and work ISPs are likely all different. There's a lot of consolidation happening in that space. Verizon offers FiOS and phone service. Comcast is getting into the mobile game. That aside, any device by itself is enough to get a picture of the user using only tracing IP addresses (i.e. DNS lookups and outbound requests). They don't…

Google also has Fiber and Fi, but in reality, I think the likelihood any given user has land and mobile access through the same company is relatively low, and you usually have the option to switch at least one of them. AT&T is probably the biggest player in succeeding at being the ISP for you everywhere though.

I doubt it's _that_ uncommon in the UK -- most of the mobile providers offer home broadband services, often at a discount for mobile subscribers. Struggling to find specific/up-to-date numbers, but e.g. Vodafone have >300,000 home broadband customers (which is not an insignificant amount) and EE have around 900,000. I'd imagine a fair percentage of those are also mobile subscribers.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/02/vodafone-uk-ho...

https://www.choose.co.uk/guide/home-broadband-market-overvie...

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's still SNI in TLS. Hopefully that changes in 1.3, but I don't know how prevalent that is yet.

Wait. Wait a minute. I was planning literally this month to figure out how to implement domain traffic analytics on my LAN by using SNI via libpcap or similar (something tiny). Will I have to configure a root cert and build a full DPI proxy to make this futureproof? >_<

It'll be coming, and yes you will. On the bright side, nobody else without a root cert on your box can do it.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re talking about privacy of tor vs VPN, I want my entire network protected at the gateway, so not sure how the tor network keeps up with streaming video etc? I wasn’t aware of the attack surface reduction, I’ll take a look at that, thanks for the recommendation. My ground truth for this is usually to ask full-time exploit dev friends which is a harder target, although that’s probably flawed in that if you’re ta…

> I want my entire network protected at the gateway, so not sure how the tor network keeps up with streaming video etc? With Qubes you can have a Whonix-ws VM have all its traffic go through Tor, and have another VM with all its traffic through some VPN to use with streaming.

What about my TV, my phone, my iPad? The way I see it the only workable solution to privacy against my ISP is to do it all at the gateway. And in that instance, I need ~50mbit which tor can’t provide.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#295

Disclaimer: I work for Google and these views are only my opinion, etc. From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or consolidating Google's power. To me, Facebook ha…

> From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services.

Ah yes. From "Don't be evil" to "Improve the world"? Who asked google to "improve" anything?

> To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations.

Which is why they are being attacked. They are neutral.

> Plus, I keep seeing studies of how increased Facebook usage correlates negatively with peoples' moods

The same applies to google. The more you use youtube/google/google news/etc, the more depress you are. This also translates to news media itself.

> so Zuckerberg's evident goal of "get everyone on Earth on Facebook" feels gross.

Google is even worse. Censorship + agenda peddling + discrimination + google has far stronger monopoly on people's attention and far more information.

No offense, but I wouldn't work for either google or facebook. Both are terrible for society and freedom and mental health.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#296
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's idea of improving the world is hardly apolitical. Consider the YouTube rule changes on firearms -- whether or not they improve the world is going to depend on your views, but Google is surely throwing its weight around in a political way.

Only in the US can actions regarding firearms be considered a political move. (Most of) Rest of the world sees it as a safety issue and is happy to give away their firearms.

> (Most of) Rest of the world sees it as a safety issue and is happy to give away their firearms.

Because we should aim to be more like china, russia, europe, middle east, africa, etc. No thanks. You guys can have your tyranny. We'll stick to our rights.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#297

I'm really confused by the whole anti Facebook thing. Agree they messed up on privacy, but calling them evil, useless, etc seems over the top. I like FB and find it useful and don't care if somebody has my public profile data, since its public already

What's even more shocking is google's PR team here claiming that google is working to "improve" the world. It's so disgusting and tacky.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, Google and Mozilla and a handful of organizations are converting all web traffic to HTTPS through subtle manipulation of standards and user interface. They even proxy mobile traffic from their search engine. ISPs can't even see what IP you're visiting because it's all fronted by CloudFlare. Even your DNS is being hidden by an HTTPS tunnel in the browser. Your ISP soon won't be able to see anything you do online.…

Do you trust the EFF? > The number one creepiest thing on our list of privacy-invasive practices comes courtesy of Verizon (and AT&T, which quickly killed a similar program after Verizon started getting blowback). > Snooping through your traffic and inserting ads Which ISPs did it before? AT&T, Charter, CMA > Hijacking your searches Which ISPs did it before? Charter, Cogent, DirecPC, Frontier, Wide Open West All of t…

> Snooping through your traffic and inserting ads

Ok, so Google doesn't inject ads into your web traffic. But they inject ads into websites using AdSense, and into search results, and their products, and any technology linked to their ad platform (which is basically all technology related to the web). To increase ad revenue, they snoop on any personal data you store with Google. And they use their ads to collect more info about where you go on the web.

> Hijacking your searches

So, Google doesn't need to hijack your search, because they are most people's preferred search engine. But they do proxy your browser's connection when you click on a search result from a mobile browser (AMP). They're starting to do this with your e-mail, too. And they sometimes do this with your DNS records, so they know every site you load, period. I would call that connection hijacking, tracking, and snooping.

Re: the other points in that article, they already sell your data to marketers, all their software is already pre-installed on your phone/tablet/chromebook/desktop/laptop, and they definitely track you with cookies.

Google has a competitive advantage in that they have a walled-off platform where nobody else can make money off of you. The ISPs want a shot at making money off you, too. Since both are doing virtually the same thing, I don't see a big difference. Just the means by which they do them.

Google has been reshaping the entire internet and web just to maximize the way they can profit off my personal information. I don't see the ISPs doing that. What I'm curious about is, why is the EFF so upset about what ISPs do, but not upset about what Google does, when Google's actions are literally affecting an entire industry and most of the world, and not just its own customers?

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#299

Your ISP tracking your every move is scarier than all of them after the ISP privacy bill passed. At least Facebook and Google give you something for it and you can route around them if you desire. No routing around ISPs unless you use a VPN but even then they are blocking those. Broadband/cable/telcos capture everything you do and can now sell that information and do[1]. That bill was the pre-cursor to removing net n…

Thanks for bringing this up. ISPs are huge dick-heads, and they track the shit out of their users, including censoring some content themselves.

What are some ways to prevent all the tracking? I get HTTPS makes things better in terms of confidentiality, but it does nothing to prevent the ISPs from scraping the URLs, which exposes scary amount of information, too.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still see every DNS request.

Not if your browser sends it over HTTPS. Mozilla implementing it: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/03/20/firefox-dns-over-https-and... Google's: https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns-over... Apparently Chrome uses this over QUIC, and Chrome's Data Saver also uses it IETF charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/doh/about/ The unfortunate side-effect of preventing your OS from doing DNS queries is DNS-bas…

Can't the ISP still have reverse dns on whatever IPs you connect to?
Post reply on HN