121–130 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but a decent chunk of my day job is making sure that it's true.
'justcodebruh' your comment is marked as dead, but to answer your question I work on Google's privacy engineering team.
This comment and all the comments beliw it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809168
It would have been fairer to let the users decide how many days precisely they want to keep history, and let everyone find their sweet spots. And, sure, it's deleted from Google. Is it also deleted from ads networks after Google shared the data with them? I doubt about it.
- Check the latest user status after 3 months before deleting user history.
- Compare it with the previous 3 months and update the difference ona separate table that are not facing the end user.
- Scrub location and web history from user facing database.
It saddens me now that all google apps on my mobile phone are no longer allowed to access nothing. I try to only grant access if i really need to. This is how it became unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. I don't think it's reasonable to require these permissions in order to use a Google Home device or the Google Assistant, for instance. I can understand needing to remember the last query, in order to provide context for the next one. Automatic scrubbing would be helpful...but it's missing an "every 10 minutes" option. (Today, my solution is a completely separate Google account that only gets used for Google…
It would surprise me if Google didn't have those accounts linked anyway, thus undermining your policy. A Google employee once called me on my personal cell phone when I was a few minutes late to a business meeting. I still don't see how that could've happened unless they'd linked my work (g-suite) account with my personal (gmail) account, and then allowed their employees to access personal data in a totally inappropr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'justcodebruh' your comment is marked as dead, but to answer your question I work on Google's privacy engineering team.
Your team is doing a shitty job, to be completely honest. This comment and all the comments beliw it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19809168
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One nice form of regulation would be a mechanism to let companies in this situation make a formal and binding privacy claim, that would then expose them to painful consequences if shown to be untrue. Or you could just make making false representations to get anything of value from people a tort generally , and in egregious cases a crime as well, rather than making it a privacy-specific regulation, and without makin…
Your scenario means you have to sue Google and win, as well as prove damages. That has historically just not worked. When Snapchat was shown to be collecting location data after explicitly promising not to, for example, they just got a slap on the wrist. I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment. That would allow companies…
So does a proposal about a special ceremony which makes the claim binding; you still have to take action when they break it, and prove that they did.
> I'm taking about a system that would let companies voluntarily increase their legal exposure to specific claims as a proof of commitment.
Increased exposure in what specific way? Lowering the standard of proof below preponderance of the evidence? Keeping that standard but allowing statutory minimum damages? Adding a damages multiplier?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> detailed written policy Oh we're all good then!
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but breaking a written policy is (AFAIK) fraud and has some teeth to it.
The entire burden of proof would be on you, vs. a behemoth corp whose bottom line depends on maximizing data collection and retention.
Go to court on your own dime, prove it, and yes, the penalty might have some teeth. Might.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that even possible? If you use X data to generate a model and then delete the data and keep the model, you could in theory use the model to re-identify that user that deleted the data with a high degree of confidence.
In general models trained on individual users' data get rebuilt when the underlying data changes so as to properly reflect the current state of the source data.