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

Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 378 posts

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#51

Post by grandmczeb »

gunnihinn wrote: post #28
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

I don’t think it’s more messed up for companies to follow the law of the country they’re operating in. Do you think it’s messed up that foreign companies comply with US laws?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#52

Post by 394549 »

codeddesign wrote: post #17
394549 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the sudden concern over tech companies mining our habits? Because tech companies have broad, detailed, individual-level visibility into our habits. Neither traditional advertisers nor the government have ever had data that detailed.

Having extensive experience in adtech - besides reading your emails I can assure you they have the same level of sofistication and tracking. Major brands know more about you than your spouse.

Adtech is still tech, and some of the biggest tech companies, Google and Facebook, are adtech companies. When I said "traditional advertisers" I meant old-school advertisers that were used old-school techniques like consumer surveys, etc.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#53

Post by tomlagier »

gunnihinn wrote: post #28
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

If that's your stance, shouldn't it apply to every company[1][2][3] that is already engaging in this? What makes Google a target for litigation here?

edit: Not saying that because other companies do something similar that Google should get carte-blanche, just trying to see what the differentiation is.

1: https://qz.com/990662/microsoft-released-a-new-version-of-wi...

2: https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-icloud-data-china-...

3: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-congress...

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#54

Post by forapurpose »

bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

> I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things.

Should government oblige Boeing to make safe airplanes? Google and others not to violate user privacy? All businesses not to sell dangerous munitions to terrorist and enemy states?

> it looks like this whole thing is Google specific

Nothing has been done or even proposed yet; what is that based on?

In the U.S. at least, generally the government can't make laws for individual companies or businesses; Congress couldn't pass a law that bilbo0s can't sell laptops in China, for example. They would have to make a law about every business doing things in China. However, I don't know the specifics of that legal principle and how it is applied here.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up.

Things already seem messed up. I don't see private enterprise as more reliable than the voters and their representatives, and the latter seems like a more fair way to resolve public affairs. I guess I have faith and confidence in democracy. It is flawed, of course, just like every other human institution from Google to religious institutions to everyone here on HN.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#55

Post by notriddle »

thrillgore wrote: post #19
noreddit323 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the sudden concern over tech companies mining our habits? Advertisers have been doing it for years, using government funded research in military propaganda that made it's way into universities after WW2 as marketing and journalism programs. This rhetoric is something like "Kill this particular witch!" without questioning whether the belief we hold on how the world works is rational. EDIT: let me re-state: Why is…

I think after the last election, the moral panic du jour was aimed at tech companies. Russian hackers on Facebook, clickbait...it's all lead to this. And the dialog is manufactured to make Google a villain. I'm not sure who the bigger villain is here: Google, or whoever wants to cut them down.

More specifically, the political pundits latched onto a thing that has been around for over a decade. Tor has been around since 2006, and mixmaster is even older than that.

The anti-adtech privacy movement is not new, but the interest coming from mainstream political talking heads is.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#57

Post by noreddit323 »

scrollaway wrote: post #20
noreddit323 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the sudden concern over tech companies mining our habits? Advertisers have been doing it for years, using government funded research in military propaganda that made it's way into universities after WW2 as marketing and journalism programs. This rhetoric is something like "Kill this particular witch!" without questioning whether the belief we hold on how the world works is rational. EDIT: let me re-state: Why is…

> Why the sudden concern over tech companies mining our habits? Oh enough. There's been concern since the beginning, it's just getting more press right this minute. One step at a time.

Ok, "dad".

Way to cherry pick the obvious counter-argument to make.

I'll take that as a tacit agreement with the rest of what was said.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#58

Post by bogomipz »

tensor wrote: post #42
gunnihinn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

>"Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?"

No but it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. Or are values just things you can draw arbitrary borders around when it's convenient?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#59

Post by kodablah »

vkou wrote: post #43
kodablah wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or don't use your winnings for lobbying for new laws heaped on everyone. Instead, use them to build what you consider the ideal, give grants to promote your principles, finance populace-educating groups, fund pro-privacy thinktanks/projects/foundations, etc. Please don't waste money or time on heavy-handed government internet intervention.

There are fifty million reasons for why 'Just build a better competing product' may be a less successful solution to this problem.

And hundreds of millions of reasons why government-led heavy-handed internet oversight is worse. I also included other options such as education. But I'll take any option, including the status quo, over what I consider the nuclear option that often has unintended consequences regardless of original intent.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#60

Post by notriddle »

qubax wrote: post #38
jostmey wrote: post #2

My take in the issue is that Google is being mismanaged. China will not allow a foreign company to compete against its home grown search engines, so why bother? By bowing to Chinese censorship, Google hurts its public image. Google's management should have expected that its employees, who joined Google on the premise of "Do not evil", would leak this to the public. In short, the people at the top of Google look like…

> China will not allow a foreign company to compete against its home grown search engines, so why bother? No. China will let a foreign company compete against its home grown search engines under its own terms. There's no way we'd let a chinese company take over search in the US. Why should they allow an american search engine take over? > By bowing to Chinese censorship, Google hurts its public image. Google has bowe…

> There's no way we'd let a chinese company take over search in the US.

Why not? Korea and China dominate the manufacturing part, why should search be any different?

Post reply on HN