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

Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#121

Post by junon »

caymanjim wrote: post #85
hashberry wrote: post #27

I have a personal gmail and a work gmail (G Suite), each using my full name, but both run in separate browsers using the same IP address. I always wonder if Google keeps a "master record" of people and all their associations, if not for security or to work with law enforcement.

Facebook does this to build shadow profiles of everyone, even if they are not Facebook users. I'm sure Google does similar things. They certainly could.

The thing is, doing this is actually quite trivial. Graph databases are used in large part for this very usecase.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#122

Post by shock »

> “We strongly dispute these claims and we will defend ourselves vigorously against them,” Castaneda said in an email.

I've seen this _exact_ phrasing so many times in responses to lawsuits that I'm now starting to wonder if future lawyers receive this template as a graduation fair well package.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#123

Post by judge2020 »

shock wrote: post #122

> “We strongly dispute these claims and we will defend ourselves vigorously against them,” Castaneda said in an email. I've seen this _exact_ phrasing so many times in responses to lawsuits that I'm now starting to wonder if future lawyers receive this template as a graduation fair well package.

Saying anything else would hurt their case.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#124

Post by StrangeDoctor »

thinkloop wrote: post #116
metroholografix wrote: post #102

Getting some semblance of control over my browsing habits and enabling the implementation of multiple-proxy-based browsing strategies is one reason why I wrote chrome-private.sh [1]. I go through hundreds of disposable browsing profiles every day. [1] https://github.com/atomontage/chrome-private

Interesting. Why disable gpu? > Disables 3D APIs / WebGL, GPU acceleration by default while allowing them to be re-enabled through command-line switches.

Not OP,

WebGL is a fast path to direct hardware execution and kernel space execution.

It’s difficult to patch when things go wrong often requiring driver or kernel coordination.

There might be issues with cross site memory leaking, but I’ve only seen white papers on how this might be an issue.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#125

Post by tsimionescu »

up2you wrote: post #118
tsimionescu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your skepticism of the suit, I think that that line may be seen as misleading. Google Analytics is NOT a website I visit, in general. Still, despite the Incognito mode, GA may well track me across the internet. Personally, I always took Incognito/In-Private browsing to be just a "delete cookies and history on exit" mode. But the way it is presented may suggest to many people that it is significantly mor…

Saying that "Google Analytics is NOT the website I visit" is the same as saying "React is NOT the UI I'm using" or "Stripe is NOT the store I'm buying from". Modern day websites use readily available modules to build out functionality. Just because those modules were originally built by someone else doesn't mean that it's not part of the website you visit. Full disclosure: I work at Google.

I am aware of this as a developer. But as a regular user, when I am told that visiting HackerNews in incognito mode won't prevent HackerNews from tracking me doesn't tell me that it won't prevent Google and Facebook and who knows how many others too.

Basically, this is one of the key ideas behind the GDPR: that I should have a legally-enforced expectation that when I'm agreeing to share my data with X, I'm not implicitly agreeing to also share it with Y and Z; and that it is X's responsibility to see to this.

So sure, X is free to use GA, but as a User I shouldn't have the expectation that Google knows I've visited X's sight.

And comparing GA to React is really disingenuous, especially in this context. One is an active monitoring solution that hoovers up data and sends it to a 3rd party, the other is a static library that is entirely run in my own browser, or sometimes on the origin server as well.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#126

Post by jlbnjmn »

up2you wrote: post #118
tsimionescu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share your skepticism of the suit, I think that that line may be seen as misleading. Google Analytics is NOT a website I visit, in general. Still, despite the Incognito mode, GA may well track me across the internet. Personally, I always took Incognito/In-Private browsing to be just a "delete cookies and history on exit" mode. But the way it is presented may suggest to many people that it is significantly mor…

Saying that "Google Analytics is NOT the website I visit" is the same as saying "React is NOT the UI I'm using" or "Stripe is NOT the store I'm buying from". Modern day websites use readily available modules to build out functionality. Just because those modules were originally built by someone else doesn't mean that it's not part of the website you visit. Full disclosure: I work at Google.

> Saying that "Google Analytics is NOT the website I visit" is the same as saying "React is NOT the UI I'm using"

Uh, no.

Using a web framework is very different from using a third party data collection tool that gives the third party access to the data.

Unless the React devs are also tracking user behavior on third party sites. But that would be a separate lawsuit.

Full disclosure: I buy ads from Google.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#127

Post by wegs »

shock wrote: post #122

> “We strongly dispute these claims and we will defend ourselves vigorously against them,” Castaneda said in an email. I've seen this _exact_ phrasing so many times in responses to lawsuits that I'm now starting to wonder if future lawyers receive this template as a graduation fair well package.

Lawyers generally copy each other. There is standard text which has gone through hundreds or thousands of litigations and hasn't done harm, and that's almost always used going forward.

A lot of oddball conventions, such as THE USE OF ALL-CAPS in specific places, which have no reason to be legally meaningful, but are always done.

Some of them do turn out to be important. Standard clauses build up over time.

I think plaintiffs are right in this case. Google is openly breaking a number of laws, including CFAA. This constitutes unauthorized access. CFAA is a broken law with an overly-broad definition of unauthorized access, which the tech industry abuses all the time. It will be nice to see them get abused back. Perhaps they'll have incentive to fix it.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#128

Post by bryan_w »

shadowgovt wrote: post #100
coronadisaster wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while they do warn you, it is about time that they implement a real incognito mode, maybe using Tor by default... The current incognito only protects your privacy from other people that are using the same computer which is not really that helpful since you could just create another user to achieve basically the same (if your disk is encrypted)

Why should they? Tor is already there.

Heck Tor even has a browser bundle to make it easy. At some point people have to be responsible for their own computing decisions

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#129

Post by jlbnjmn »

joshuamorton wrote: post #80
_0w8t wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google runs both Chrome and Analytics. And they do not warn explicitly that other Google products may store the history even in the private mode. Which some may interpret that Google lies when claiming about their private mode. So the case may have merit in theory.

Quoting my chrome incognito screen: > Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit Your employer or school Your internet service provider

Interestingly absent is Google.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#130

Post by jlbnjmn »

TrowthePlow wrote: post #33
MattGaiser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using private browsing mode is a very clear indication the the user does not want to give them that permission. How? Incognito is meant to keep your history clear from other people who use the computer. It explicitly does nothing about websites tracking your activity.

Right, it says so in no uncertain terms, right on the page when you open Chrome's Incognito window: >Your activity might still be visible to: > - Websites you visit > - Your employer or school > - Your internet service provider

No uncertain terms?
Post reply on HN