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

Google Fights Back

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 475 posts

Re: Google Fights Back

#241

Post by eunoia »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #186
orhmeh09 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see Apple having access to keys there. Could you point it out? CTRL+F for “key” came up with 7 results but nothing to suggest Apple holds them and can decrypt. Apologies.

There's a section about half way down that lists all end-to-end encrypted data (keychain, health, payment data, ...). By implication, all other data is not end-to-end encrypted. That includes iCloud drive, photos, calendar, contacts and mail.

Are we reading the same support article? https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202303

Specifically listed as encrypted in transit and on server:

- iCloud Drive

- Photos

- Calendar

- Contacts

Only mail is not according to this support article.

Edit: I see the omission now. These things are not listed under the end-to-end section.

Re: Google Fights Back

#242

Post by hu3 »

reaperducer wrote: post #27
hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well taken, but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019? >Who the fuck owns MySpace now? It's all deleted. https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18271023/myspace-music-vi...

100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019? Epidemiologists? Researchers? Academics? Governments trying to model future disease response based on historical trends? Just off the top of my head.

In this case I say let them have it.

Re: Google Fights Back

#243

Post by gowld »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #118
Dig1t wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It _is_ encrypted, Apple cannot see it. The parent comment is mistaken

I'm afraid you are mistaken: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202303

Reading that article, the confusion is easy to explain and looks intentional.

It reads "For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information" and then immediate shows a giant table of data that is NOT end-to-end encrypted, but not labelled as such -- it's only inferrable by its omissions from the next section of the document.

Re: Google Fights Back

#244

Post by esoterica »

afiori wrote: post #185
joefkelley wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so you trust them to store the email, and parse it for something like spam detection, but not for some smarter feature? What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place? Sounds like you shouldn't be using Gmail at all tbh.

> What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place? That they use millions of computing-dollars to extract this information and store it. Supposedly spam detection does not need to understand the numbers in your bank emails. Supposedly it needs mostly information about you previous contacts and spammy patterns from the rest of the internet. Th…

Computers cannot “understand” anything. You are inappropriately anthropomorphizing an algorithm. There is no epistemological difference between spam filtering and credit card statement parsing. Either way it’s just a cpu pushing around ones and zeroes.

Re: Google Fights Back

#245

Post by gowld »

metamet wrote: post #198
everdev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's all deleted. They deleted 12 years of music uploads, not everything. Username, email, bio, friends, etc. still exists somewhere, but who owns it? What do they intend to do with it?

> What do they intend to do with it? Reveal my Top 8 when I run for congress?

Hope your Top-8 doesn't include someone who becomes a persona non grata (or religion non grata, or race non grata...) in the future.

Re: Google Fights Back

#247

Post by AndrewKemendo »

I think people misinterpret Google's vision as neutral:

"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"

They want to make Laplace's Demon real in the form of their publicly traded company. That's a breathtaking vision statement.

They explicitly want to collect every piece of information on everything that happens worldwide, and then influence how that information is used. "Useful" is in the eye of the beholder and is the wonderful escape command that lets them do anything they want.

If that doesn't inspire/terrify you then it should.

Re: Google Fights Back

#248

Post by martinlaz »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #70
areoform wrote: post #7

Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I s…

Google is already not Google. The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore. The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state. I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ug…

> Google collects so much absurd amount of data - that all the Proton-mail, DuckduckGo, Wire/Signal, Firefox (loaded with adblocking and tracking plugins) apps in the world can't keep you totally from it as long as you're on Android. You disable things, you opt out of stuff and it just keeps on collecting anyways.

There must be some kind of way outta here.

How about carving out a Google-free chunk of the web, and then only visiting sites for which you're somehow certain there's zero Google in them (no Google Analytics, no DoubleClick, no fonts, none of the other junk they use to track you). Otherwise you'd be slapped in the face by a dire warning akin to those for the expired SSL certificates.

Would that be crazy?

Re: Google Fights Back

#249

Post by PaulHoule »

This article is uncritical.

In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product.

I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.

Post reply on HN