Live data from Hacker News

Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

blog.google

431–440 of 475 posts

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#431
post #85

One positive, is that the response was fast and direct. In the past, negative user feedback has tended to be buried, or felt like it, or ignored, or felt like it. This time, somebody decided the only clean path out was to be responsive: to make changes which reflected community concern and to tell people about them Which I think, is good. I vastly prefer the google which tells people it listened, to the one which say…

Well, in my opinion the only reason Google listens, is because people started uninstalling the Google Chrome browser, which means less profit.

So... the market works... stunning revelation

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#432
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be surprised if it didn't affect google's capacity to track you nominally. When I flush all cookies from my browser session, and open a new session, I am a new user to google's various tracking mechanism. If I am an authenticated google user, then I am not.

I would agree that there was at least potentially an issue due to it re-logging you in. But I'll note that no one wrote a blog post about that. Someone just mentioned that on twitter after this was already a big "controversy". In other words, you had half of HN claiming to be leaving Chrome over something they had no reason to believe had any privacy implications, and in reality, has either 0, or really close to 0, a…

No the problem is tracking. It basically makes google tracking cookies un-deletable. I don't see how this is a non-issue from a privacy point of view.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#433
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that there was at least potentially an issue due to it re-logging you in. But I'll note that no one wrote a blog post about that. Someone just mentioned that on twitter after this was already a big "controversy". In other words, you had half of HN claiming to be leaving Chrome over something they had no reason to believe had any privacy implications, and in reality, has either 0, or really close to 0, a…

No the problem is tracking. It basically makes google tracking cookies un-deletable. I don't see how this is a non-issue from a privacy point of view.

Well no, logging out in the browser would still delete them.

This is kind of what I mean, you can't talk about this without hyperbole.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#434
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the problem is tracking. It basically makes google tracking cookies un-deletable. I don't see how this is a non-issue from a privacy point of view.

Well no, logging out in the browser would still delete them. This is kind of what I mean, you can't talk about this without hyperbole.

But if it re-logs you back in when you re-open the browser, it may be technically a different cookie, but it is a cookie with your real identity attached to it (as opposed to an anonymous cookie like if you started a fresh session on an older version of the browser). So practically, that has the same effect that if the cookie was never deleted.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#435
post #275

Won’t change my mind and will stick to Firefox after having switched because of this. First I don’t want to be logged in in my browser at all. Second, and probably more important, software is about trust. Even for an open source project, no one has the time to review millions of lines of code. So unfortunately one has to rely on what one believes is the behavior of the authors of the software. And what google did is…

First I don't want to be logged in in my browser at all.

OK but I expect that most Chrome users feel different about that. Most are probably happy that this UI change makes things less confusing.

Second, and probably more important, software is about trust. [...] And what google did is to shatter that trust by sneaking that change discretely.

Why did the UI change shatter trust for you? It doesn't enable syncing so I don't see what the big deal is. With syncing out of the equation, I can imagine that you don't like being logged in in the browser for aesthetic reasons or something, but to have one's trust shattered?

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#436
Was holding back updating to 69, and after restarting le browser, boom I'm now im forced to use this crap with no way to go back.

Spent hours trying to figure out how to disable automatic updates on a Mac. Everything is so deliberately hidden it's disgusting. Find com.google.Keystone.xxx, LaunchAgents, plists, edit this XML, and edit that UpdateDefault field, policies, etc. [1]

Then, being fed up with Chrome, lets see Chromium website, maybe those guys without any bad motives can provide a developer friendly way to disable updates.. It should be somewhere in about:about right? Nop, clicking on how to turn off updates guide[2] redirects to a a Google page irrelevant to auto updates..

This reminds me of the time that Chrome didnt have any password (keychain) protection and they were claiming it was a Feature!

[1] https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7591084?hl=en

[2] https://www.chromium.org/administrators/turning-off-auto-upd...

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed paren't point. It's not about if you can see the changes immediately in the next release, it's that you have to be constantly vigilant as to what they're going to do next, like looking over your shoulder. You can do that, but it's time consuming and exhausting. You're better off switching browsers.

That's overly dramatic. Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see. They are examples of open source done right.

> Both Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers, and are developed in the open for all to see.

I still think you're misunderstanding. The problem is that Google as an organization has the incentive to pull shady shit. It may be noticed, but watching Reddit/HN to see if your browser, which should protect you/be trustworthy, is pulling shady stuff, or whether you may've missed a story of it doing so is still exhausting and keeps you wondering.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#438
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, logging out in the browser would still delete them. This is kind of what I mean, you can't talk about this without hyperbole.

But if it re-logs you back in when you re-open the browser, it may be technically a different cookie, but it is a cookie with your real identity attached to it (as opposed to an anonymous cookie like if you started a fresh session on an older version of the browser). So practically, that has the same effect that if the cookie was never deleted.

The parent means, logging out and staying logged out of the browser, would have exactly the same behaviour as logging out of your Google Account would in Firefox.

The whole point of the feature was just that:

1. “are you logged into your Google Account from the perspective of Gmail et al” is now the thing the browser chrome itself reports; and

2. you now need to be logged into your Google Account in the cookies sense for Chrome sync to function; logging out of your Google Account turns off Chrome sync.

Before, people could be in a state where they have Chrome sync enabled with foo@gmail, but are not logged into foo@gmail from a cookies perspective, and are potentially even logged into bar@gmail.

This is the state that has been eliminated—now, the browser chrome’s login state reflects your Google Account web-cookie login state, because they’re one-and-the-same; and every method that logs you out of your Google account from a web-cookie perspective, also logs you out of Chrome (and vice-versa.)

Consider the privacy implications of someone who logs out of Gmail, but is still logged into Chrome sync as said Gmail user; and then lets someone else use the computer. That is what is no longer possible.

It’s a privacy improvement targeted at the people who expect “logging out” of their Google account to be one unilateral action that frees a computer of all artifacts related to their original logging-in. Which, until recently, wasn’t true: if you originally logged in by entering your credentials into the “new Chrome profile wizard” (where they set up the credential as both your synnc and web-cookie credential), and then logged out of one, it wouldn’t affect the other.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#439
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, logging out in the browser would still delete them. This is kind of what I mean, you can't talk about this without hyperbole.

But if it re-logs you back in when you re-open the browser, it may be technically a different cookie, but it is a cookie with your real identity attached to it (as opposed to an anonymous cookie like if you started a fresh session on an older version of the browser). So practically, that has the same effect that if the cookie was never deleted.

No, I mean you can log out of your Google account in the browser and it actually logs you out. Deleting your cookies does re-create a cookie (which is weird), but logging out in browser (I see it as "Exit Joshua" on Chrome on OSX) deletes Google cookies and doesn't recreate any.

Re: Product Updates Based on Your Feedback

#440
post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-population-in-extre... It's a straightforward extrapolation from data.

This is not poverty. It is "extreme poverty", very different thing.

The trend is general: the tide is rising and lifting all boats.

> We are living through a period of rapid global poverty reduction. According to recent estimates, high, sustained growth across most of the developing world has helped nearly half a billion people escape $1.25-a-day poverty between 2005 and 2010. Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/two-trends-in-global-pove...

500,000,000 people, 5 years.

Post reply on HN