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

51–60 of 77 posts

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

#51

Post by flukus »

orcthwy012 wrote: post #50
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Until the legislation is written by the industry and doesn't rein them in one bit but imposes large compliance burdens on smaller competitors and further entrenches the incumbents. The actual solution isn't corporations or governments, it's people being…

What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean? Right now, people are in control and they choose to use software that is convenient for them, which happens to upload their data to the cloud. How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this? It's also unclear whether in practice people being in control over their devices better protects the users - back when that was the case, malware was…

People don't choose to notify facebook that they're visiting a website that has a like button, the don't choose to let google track them across devices. Most tracking happens without any sort of awareness from users.

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

#52

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

djschnei wrote: post #33
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You want congress to decide how much privacy you deserve? Yikes...

I know how much privacy I want, and I take the appropriate steps to get it, even if that means not using otherwise convenient services. The question is how much privacy people should get even if they don't care or think about it.

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

#53

Post by blub »

ramraj07 wrote: post #48
mark_l_watson wrote: post #28

Way back when, I had two Android phones and really liked them. I switched to Apple phone, tablet, and watch because of privacy. The title is a little strange, almost like saying you don’t need those luxury Apple devices to get privacy, but that is wrong. For the mass market, I think Apple is the company that is least bad on privacy. I use some Google services like GSuite, Play Books, and Play Movies heavily but I cri…

I made the Android - Apple jump for the same reason four years back. Indeed I was so happy with Apple's privacy features and their business model in general. I did miss the tight integration of Google Maps and mail but felt justified for the privacy gains. Then their growth started to slow so they jacked their prices to ten Benjamins, when really good Android phones cost half that. I really had to evaluate how much I…

Looks like you figured out by yourself that privacy is indeed a luxury good, in spite of what Pichai claims.

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

#54

Post by blub »

scarface74 wrote: post #26
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You really trust the government to both be competent enough to legislate technology and not be beholden to private interests? The last thing I want is more government power.

USA: bravely limping along to the worst privacy on the planet (China aside) lest the government should govern.

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

#55

Post by blub »

fyoving wrote: post #40
jasonhansel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never listen to experts! They think they can advise us on what to do, just because they happen to have deep knowledge and relevant experience with the issues at hand. How arrogant of them!

There is a difference between actual experts and academic title profiteers.

Just like there's a difference between a month old account defending the tech behemoths with dubious claims and a real argument. We can figure the difference by ourselves no worries.

Zuboff, Solove, Schneier, etc.

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

#56

Post by blub »

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."

I think they meant that literally: our work here is never done because we do other work instead that violates your privacy.

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

#57

Post by orcthwy012 »

flukus wrote: post #51
orcthwy012 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean? Right now, people are in control and they choose to use software that is convenient for them, which happens to upload their data to the cloud. How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this? It's also unclear whether in practice people being in control over their devices better protects the users - back when that was the case, malware was…

People don't choose to notify facebook that they're visiting a website that has a like button, the don't choose to let google track them across devices. Most tracking happens without any sort of awareness from users.

They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties. Trust in this sense is necessarily transitive. In a complex world with long supply chains, almost everything works that way - I don't get to choose every ingredient in a restaurant meal either. Either way, the point is that users do have control today and that they use this control to maximize convenience at the expense of privacy. Thus the idea that "people being in control of their own stuff" will help is kind of meaningless - they are already in control. Even choosing not to be informed is a choice - people are not informed because consequences so far have been minimal relative to other threats in their lives.

My estimate is that nearly all negative consequences of lack of privacy on the internet have not been due to any sort of nefarious tracking and data gathering on the part of tech companies, but due to people voluntarily sharing information about themselves and those close to them and using various apps as intended. There's a lot of paranoia about how much data is out there, but I can't think of really any major consequences, especially given how pervasive this is all supposed to be. Meanwhile, people getting in trouble due to information they voluntarily shared is extremely common.

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

#58

Post by lostmsu »

ramraj07 wrote: post #48
mark_l_watson wrote: post #28

Way back when, I had two Android phones and really liked them. I switched to Apple phone, tablet, and watch because of privacy. The title is a little strange, almost like saying you don’t need those luxury Apple devices to get privacy, but that is wrong. For the mass market, I think Apple is the company that is least bad on privacy. I use some Google services like GSuite, Play Books, and Play Movies heavily but I cri…

I made the Android - Apple jump for the same reason four years back. Indeed I was so happy with Apple's privacy features and their business model in general. I did miss the tight integration of Google Maps and mail but felt justified for the privacy gains. Then their growth started to slow so they jacked their prices to ten Benjamins, when really good Android phones cost half that. I really had to evaluate how much I…

> I did miss the tight integration of Google Maps and mail but felt justified for the privacy gains

Hm, if you are still using GMail and GMaps (and possibly also Google Search), what privacy did you gain?

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

#59

Post by AnthonyMouse »

orcthwy012 wrote: post #50
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Until the legislation is written by the industry and doesn't rein them in one bit but imposes large compliance burdens on smaller competitors and further entrenches the incumbents. The actual solution isn't corporations or governments, it's people being…

What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean? Right now, people are in control and they choose to use software that is convenient for them, which happens to upload their data to the cloud. How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this? It's also unclear whether in practice people being in control over their devices better protects the users - back when that was the case, malware was…

> What does "people being in control of their own stuff" even mean?

It means that Facebook et al don't have it to begin with.

> How do you force people to use software that doesn't do this?

Why do you have to force people to do anything? That conclusion requires some major cognitive dissonance.

There are two options here. One is that people are rational in not caring, and in that case there is no problem and nothing needs to be changed, so what are you complaining about? But let's suppose that's not it.

Then it's that privacy is important and people should care about it but they don't understand, in which case you don't have to force them to do anything, all you need is for them to learn what is happening and why they should care about it. It requires information, not regulations.

You can't regulate a fox in a henhouse, you can only teach the farmers why fences are important before they learn it for themselves.

> It's also unclear whether in practice people being in control over their devices better protects the users - back when that was the case, malware was a bigger problem than it is now.

We need to give all our data to Facebook because malware? How does that prevent malware at all? What is Facebook's server going to do that your phone couldn't do for itself?

"But malware" it seems is the new "but terrorism" or "think of the children" as a generic excuse for every authoritarian policy in the book.

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

#60

Post by david_frier »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #28

Way back when, I had two Android phones and really liked them. I switched to Apple phone, tablet, and watch because of privacy. The title is a little strange, almost like saying you don’t need those luxury Apple devices to get privacy, but that is wrong. For the mass market, I think Apple is the company that is least bad on privacy. I use some Google services like GSuite, Play Books, and Play Movies heavily but I cri…

If you cringe a little you're really almost-acknowledging that you haven't /really/ done anything for your privacy. Maybe using Apple products is a bit of g33k virtue-signaling?
Post reply on HN