Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

- Do you want your ISP tracking you and selling your private data? Do you think that is the place of an ISP?

- Does it bother you you are PAYING your ISP and they are reselling your data as well?

- Do you trust Comcast and Verizon and like that you are paying them to sell your data when you just want to use them to get online and are ok with this?

I don't think anyone argues Google has power but they aren't your 'gateway' to the internet that you pay for privacy.

Your argument is basically that you think Google has overreach so you want ISPs to take that from them or also do that?

I am against Google Fiber ISP having access that ISPs just won with bribery over innovation/product offerings that people want.

If Facebook had an ISP I wouldn't want them doing it either via the ISP.

> 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?

Products built on top of the internet are way different than products that are the base of the network. You should not be tracked at the network/gateway level ever.

If ISPs 'want a shot at making money off you' then let them build a service such as a search engine, social network or maybe like Comcast is doing with Hulu. Don't give up your rights at the gateway of the web just because you have a grudge or bias against Google.

> 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.

Also your points about Google are rich considering you have a @gmail account in your HN profile. If they are so overpowering why do you use them and not your ISPs email system?

Since you have no issue with ISPs selling data that you are paying them to keep private, you would be fine with Google Fiber ISP also doing that? Careful what you wish for and freedoms you give up due to bias ...

There's some discussion of known Comcast injection here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551

The response from Comcast was [2]:

> This is our web notification system, documented in RFC 6108 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108, which has been in place for many years now. It presents an overlay service message on non-TLS-based HTTP sessions. If you click the X box or otherwise acknowledge the notice it should immediately go away. If that is not the case let me know and we'll have a look at what may be happening. [2]

But ultimately no, however there may be some possibilities:

- ISP offered 'apps'. Get people to agree to an install of some monitoring app for some [insert random marketing benefit] from ISP. Maybe if you install the app you get more data cap space etc and they can monitor browser access. Further, install this in known apps or as add-ons on setup for other apps.

- ISP offered 'VPN client' that again, gives some cheaper monetary benefit like more data cap space or more speed 'free', strips out other advertising or tracking as a benefit.

- ISP offered 'email client' that does all of the above.

- Check for subsequent request after page loads to known ad networks and replace with their own in HTTPS

- ISP level proxy MITM, modem customization for 'fast lanes' that are actually slow lanes.

- DNS level data collection not to inject but to sell marketing profiles via metadata and correlate with other data from apps.

First one is the most probable but as of right now HTTPS injection is obviously hard to do if not impossible without some social or security hole.

Nobody in here would probably fall for these attempts but most would considering the outrage that they didn't know friend harvesting was happening on Facebook. If whatever they try lowers their monthly data caps or limits then majority of people will do it.

Since ISPs are your 'gateway' to the internet and you pay them, most people assume trust and privacy, most don't know they bribed their way into the tracking/ad business, many didn't know cable tv modems had mics either. With that assumption of trust since people are paying them, they'll more easily fall for any of the possible attack/tracking vectors listed and more probably.

With the ISP privacy protections removed [3], my guess is most ISPs, due to lack of competition, end up more like hotel wifi where tracking/injection is the norm [4] as it is completely legal now. With the removal of privacy protections and net neutrality, we have killed the pristine, non tracked, private gateways to the internet we cherish.

[1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/12/comcast-s...

[2] http://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Customer-Service/Are-you-aware/...

[3] https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/flake-i...

[4] https://medium.com/@nicklum/my-hotel-wifi-injects-ads-does-y...

Only if you are smart enough to know the browser has its own resolver, and that you need to turn it off first. We may not be able to turn it off in the future, meaning if you want to have privacy you have to run a privacy-specific browser.

This may end up breaking traffic as Google shifts more and more of the web into its proprietary products. For example, Google owns the .DEV gTLD, and makes .DEV domains "completely closed for the sole use of Google". It may at some point buy some other gTLD (such as ".BLOG", which it was outbid for) and decide that the only way for you to access websites with domains using that gTLD is to use Google's DNS API. It may sound crazy, but if they already shut out everyone in the entire world from having a .DEV domain, this doesn't seem much crazier to me.

If adding such an optional feature causes Uber to leave the Android platform, adding the optional feature is a net loss to Android users. "You are not the user" rings true here.

To put this another way, if your "feature" harms the ecosystem, it is not, in fact, a feature.

I asked for examples of Google lying about data collection, which was the accusation you levied. You responded with Google being transparent about responding to legally binding government requests.

While you may feel that handing data over to the government is a misuse, Google is not secretive about this. They're very straightforward about the fact that they will obey lawful requests, and they're transparent both with affected users, and the general public, about when and how they comply with those requests, as evidenced by the report you just linked.

So I'll try this again: since you accused Google of lying about collecting data or lying about what they do with it, can you substantiate that accusation, by giving examples of Google lying about what data it collects, or lying about what it does with that data?