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

61–70 of 77 posts

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

#61

Post by flukus »

orcthwy012 wrote: post #57
flukus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties.

Even that incredibly low bar isn't cleared. When you visit a random web site you get tracked by google/facebook before you can be aware that this site is sending your information to them, clicking a link does not imply trust or consent.

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

#62

Post by netwanderer3 »

olliej wrote: post #49
nashashmi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There business model is not predicated on tracking people. That's Facebook and Google tried to copy them. Their model is based on data mining. They belive lots of insights are available then. And a better product can be made available then.

What data do you think is being mined exactly?

I think what he meant was that Google's methodology prioritizes in anonymizing their data in the pipeline as to not to link it with any specific individuals, as opposed to Facebook's data which is often directly tied to a person. This makes sense because Google is all about Search so it really depends on keywords popularity where Facebook Ads can target very specific individual groups down to their interests.

If we believed in Eric Schmidt's prediction that future internet is going to be split into two halfs where one is controlled by China and the other by the US, and since China is restricting privacy and increase surveillance then the only sensible direction the U.S should adapt is by embracing the opposite values and promoting digital privacy. Those who place importance on these values will naturally follow their path.

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

#63

Post by vlthr »

netwanderer3 wrote: post #62
olliej wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data do you think is being mined exactly?

I think what he meant was that Google's methodology prioritizes in anonymizing their data in the pipeline as to not to link it with any specific individuals, as opposed to Facebook's data which is often directly tied to a person. This makes sense because Google is all about Search so it really depends on keywords popularity where Facebook Ads can target very specific individual groups down to their interests. If we b…

There is definitely some distinction to be made between Google's and Facebook's approaches to privacy, but data anonymization is a more of a PR technique than a privacy one. It can be done if you accept that you may lose nearly all of the valuable structure in the data, but that is always going to be a hard sell.

Recently there has been a lot of discussion in Sweden (maybe elsewhere too) about anonymized mobile phone location data that is sold online. In that case "data anonymization" usually meant swapping out personal identifiers for some token. If that was the only information you had you'd be more or less fine, but what if you have access to some correlated side-channel information that IS personally linked? In the location data example, just combining with publicly available home address data is enough to de-anonymize nearly every person in the dataset (i.e. where does anonymous token X go every night and leave every morning?).

This problem emerges very quickly as soon as you start linking together multiple pieces of anonymized data (or just sampling the data with high enough resolution). The only real virtue of data anonymization is that it prevents casual snooping by the people that work with the data.

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

#64

Post by dredmorbius »

charlesism wrote: post #5
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.

And why is it that we all trust Google is unhackable? I won't be shocked if someday a torrent turns up with billions of private Gmail messages and user search history records.

Google's been hacked, individually, to major geopolitical significance, and at scale.

John Podesta: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/how-john-podest...

Colin Powell, and others: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/colin-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/email-hacking...

Tibetan activists, broadly: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tibet-activist-s-e-m...

NSA and other surveillance operations claim access to Google, and other online service providers: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants...

There's been no widescale mass comprehensive breach of Google yet, that we are aware of. But that may simply be a matter of luck and time.

Google have said Gmail users should not expect privacy:

People sending email to any of Google's 425 million Gmail users have no "reasonable expectation" that their communications are confidential, the internet giant has said in a court filing.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gm...

And, though I cannot find a link presently, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, Google employees told the Guardian that integrity of Gmail and associated Google accounts (and they are all associated) could not be assured. Probably 2013-2014 timeframe.

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

#65

Post by sonnyblarney »

ignoramous wrote: post #18
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

That's not my point.

These shenanigans are not existential to their business.

MS could quit that instantly and they'd be fine.

As privacy becomes a thing, they are well prepared.

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

#66

Post by sonnyblarney »

dredmorbius wrote: post #64
charlesism wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why is it that we all trust Google is unhackable? I won't be shocked if someday a torrent turns up with billions of private Gmail messages and user search history records.

Google's been hacked, individually, to major geopolitical significance, and at scale. John Podesta: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/how-john-podest... Colin Powell, and others: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/colin-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/email-hacking... Tibetan activists, broadly: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tibet-activist-s-e-m... NSA and ot…

People using social engineering to hack into gmail is not really 'google getting hacked'. That's individuals getting hacked.

And Google allowing the NSA access is not them getting hacked either.

Google reading your mail is not hacking either.

We're talking someone hacking into G and grabbing millions of emails or passwords, I don't think that has happened.

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

#67

Post by sonnyblarney »

snaky wrote: post #7
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.

If the considerable part of consumers would stop using Google Search, Chrome, Android and other Google products due the privacy concerns, that would be a problem for Google - not an existential crisis, but a problem indeed. But we are nowhere near this imaginary scenario.

It would definitely be an 'existential crisis' for G if people stopped using Search, Chrome and Android.

They'd be out of business pretty quickly.

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

#68

Post by dredmorbius »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #66
dredmorbius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's been hacked, individually, to major geopolitical significance, and at scale. John Podesta: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/how-john-podest... Colin Powell, and others: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/colin-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/email-hacking... Tibetan activists, broadly: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tibet-activist-s-e-m... NSA and ot…

People using social engineering to hack into gmail is not really 'google getting hacked'. That's individuals getting hacked. And Google allowing the NSA access is not them getting hacked either. Google reading your mail is not hacking either. We're talking someone hacking into G and grabbing millions of emails or passwords, I don't think that has happened.

At Google scale, and given the proved consequences, that's really not the case.

There was plenty in, e.g., the Podesta, Powell, and related hacks, to suggest at the least suspicion. The fact that single-password hacking is a keys-to-the-kingdom event is itself a major flaw. And it's not as if phishing is a new attack vector, the concept dates to at least the 1980s.

And also, Google have changed internal proceses in consequence. But a massive blame component absolutely falls squarely on Google.

There were and are mechanisms Google could implement (and to some extent has) to reduce the attack surface further.

Encrypting contents and doing so independently of access is probably the most significant. Google does not do this, and in fairness, no other major player, not even Protonmail, does this, at least not by default. The problem is hard, it intoduces inconveniences. It is not impossible. Lack of the feature has cost Google users, a small but aware and technical cohort, myself included.

(Protonmail's encryption prevents static-storage-on-disk attacks, including subpoena and insider access, but password compromise remains an extant risk. bI no principally use Protonmail.)

Patterns-of-use fingerprinting (which Google does), app-specific passwords for non-Web access (ditto), special attention to politically exposed persons (PEPs), and exceptional internal access and process controls, yes.

But the mass-sweep attack appears still viable through multiple potental vectors, stream, static, and dynamic (programmatic).

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

#69

Post by AstralStorm »

vlthr wrote: post #63
netwanderer3 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what he meant was that Google's methodology prioritizes in anonymizing their data in the pipeline as to not to link it with any specific individuals, as opposed to Facebook's data which is often directly tied to a person. This makes sense because Google is all about Search so it really depends on keywords popularity where Facebook Ads can target very specific individual groups down to their interests. If we b…

There is definitely some distinction to be made between Google's and Facebook's approaches to privacy, but data anonymization is a more of a PR technique than a privacy one. It can be done if you accept that you may lose nearly all of the valuable structure in the data, but that is always going to be a hard sell. Recently there has been a lot of discussion in Sweden (maybe elsewhere too) about anonymized mobile phone…

Essentially it is not anonymized but pseudonymous. No identifier and no timing data would be much closer to anonymous.

True bounded anonymous data is done by aggregation and/or mixing.

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

#70

Post by AstralStorm »

flukus wrote: post #61
orcthwy012 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They choose to use websites and software, whose developers in turn choose to send usage data to third parties. Even that incredibly low bar isn't cleared. When you visit a random web site you get tracked by google/facebook before you can be aware that this site is sending your information to them, clicking a link does not imply trust or consent.

There are even sneakier tricks like pictures incl. Web bugs and typically invisible things such as analytics JavaScript and third party cookies.
Post reply on HN