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

Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#11

Post by yumraj »

charlesism wrote: post #2

I scanned this essay for the inevitable "there is more work to be done" line. This time it's "we know our work here is never done, and we want to do more to stay ahead of user expectations."

> we want to do more to stay ahead of user expectations.

Right now they are so behind user expectations that the above statement is not even funny, it's almost insulting.

The only company they seem to be beating is FB, and not sure if that is the company they want to keep, or probably they do...

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#12

Post by saagarjha »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #4

I suggest that Google's dependency on knowing everything about you puts them in a completely existential crisis with respect to privacy - your data is in their DNA, there's just too much at stake. MS and Apple can be far more aggressive in this regard because they simply don't really need your data in the same way to make money.

Their foray into the services business might make the last part of your argument no longer true in the future…

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#13

Post by sonnyblarney »

saagarjha wrote: post #12
sonnyblarney wrote: post #4

I suggest that Google's dependency on knowing everything about you puts them in a completely existential crisis with respect to privacy - your data is in their DNA, there's just too much at stake. MS and Apple can be far more aggressive in this regard because they simply don't really need your data in the same way to make money.

Their foray into the services business might make the last part of your argument no longer true in the future…

Good point, but Netflix for example is really not very invasive in terms of privacy. iTunes has not been really a problem for example, any more so than another e-commerce entity.

Search, e-mail, social - particularly as they relate to ads - this will be the problem.

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#14

Post by boh »

This is pretty much the same tactic finance companies are using to stem the growing political fallout. First get in front of it by acknowledging the problem, then explain how you're not part of the problem, and most importantly, outsource the solution to "legislation".

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#15

Post by olliej »

boh wrote: post #14

This is pretty much the same tactic finance companies are using to stem the growing political fallout. First get in front of it by acknowledging the problem, then explain how you're not part of the problem, and most importantly, outsource the solution to "legislation".

And then argue that they should be allowed to self regulate, and what needs to happen is the legislation limit their own liability.

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#17

Post by debatem1 »

charlesism wrote: post #9
debatem1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because such a torrent has not shown up in the last 20 years?

"Equifax was founded by Cator and Guy Woolford in Atlanta, Georgia, as Retail Credit Company in 1899" And the thing is that most people would never knowingly make the privacy vs utility trade-off. The risk (that the entire world gain access to one's search history) is not in the best interest of most users. Personalized search does not provide that much added value.

Ironic that you should bring Equifax up since they would literally sell everything they had on you to anyone who could pay until Congress stomped on them with the FCRA. If you thought they were ever a good steward of your data you weren't paying attention.

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#18

Post by ignoramous »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #4

I suggest that Google's dependency on knowing everything about you puts them in a completely existential crisis with respect to privacy - your data is in their DNA, there's just too much at stake. MS and Apple can be far more aggressive in this regard because they simply don't really need your data in the same way to make money.

> MS...simply don't really need your data

Surely, you haven't heard of Windows 10's horrendous surveillance?

Data collection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9976298

Ads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13835733

Phone home: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10053352

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#19

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

boh wrote: post #14

This is pretty much the same tactic finance companies are using to stem the growing political fallout. First get in front of it by acknowledging the problem, then explain how you're not part of the problem, and most importantly, outsource the solution to "legislation".

Don't we want companies to outsource the solution to legislation? I'd rather have Congress than Google be in charge of deciding how much privacy everyone deserves.

Re: Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good

#20

Post by fyoving »

Yes it's lip service but this whole narrative about online/digital privacy was seize on by traditional media to bash tech companies while driving traffic to their properties. It also gives some academics and "experts" an outlet to promote their books.

You have the right to choose not be watched while you're going to the bathroom but the whole online privacy "controversy" is a means by which foreign countries and other interested parties try to justify stifling US tech companies it's also more nonsense for the self appointed "elites" to philosophise over and pretend to know what's best for society, regular people don't care about it nor should they.

Post reply on HN