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

Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#51

Post by amelius »

jonny_eh wrote: post #46
theptip wrote: post #44

> This means Google may have turned over such critical information as unique mobile phone IDs, IP addresses, location information and details about users’ interests and online activity Can someone help me to understand this? I thought Google kept this kind of user-preference (interests/activity) data to itself, and used that as the sauce powering its ad auctions. If you run a site, GA will give you IP, location, etc.…

> Google allowed RuTarget, a Russian company that helps brands and agencies buy digital ads, to access and store data about people browsing websites and apps in Ukraine and other parts of the world In other words, they collected data via websites and apps, just like any other JS or native ad library does. This wasn't data that Google collected, then handed over. It's a misleading headline IMO.

Imagine a Russian agent starting an ad campaign targeted at Ukrainian people who are interested in weapon systems. But... the actual ads are about an innocent thing, like cat food. An Ukrainian clicks the cat food ad, is directed to the Russian agent's fake cat food shop, places an order and fills in their address.

How is Google not leaking information here?

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#52

Post by freeflight »

thereddaikon wrote: post #43
apstls wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accurate reporting of Russia's cyber activities is not propaganda.

If its done by the government or a government owned body it is by definition. That being said, Propublica is neither a government nor is it a government owned news agency. So its not propaganda.

Tho that's quite the overly specific, and dated, definition of "propaganda".

Public relations is a way more apt term for what's going on in modern times [0], and in the "cyber" manifestation of that field, private parties are recognized as the main contributors, and actors, for a number of nation states [1]

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/17/influencers-ukraini...

[1] https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cef7e8d9-27bf-4ea5-9fd6-85...

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#53

Post by barrbid8 »

BrainVirus wrote: post #18

The sad thing about news like this is that most people only pay attention at all because they've been bombarded with anti-Russian propaganda, not because this showcases Google's awful anti-privacy practices. Despite years of warnings, examples and analysis of where this can lead, the only thing that matters in the end is some emotional trigger word that makes the public think they are dealing with an "outgroup". The…

Reporting negatively on the Iraq war or blackwater or Facebook isn’t “anti American propaganda”.

Just because you are anti establishment doesn’t mean you should instinctively support the Russian establishment which is incidentally many times more horrific and out of control than the people you claim are spreading “propaganda”. (I’m guessing NGOs, charities like amnesty international or anyone who reports on the war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Russian government).

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#54

Post by freeflight »

amelius wrote: post #51
jonny_eh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google allowed RuTarget, a Russian company that helps brands and agencies buy digital ads, to access and store data about people browsing websites and apps in Ukraine and other parts of the world In other words, they collected data via websites and apps, just like any other JS or native ad library does. This wasn't data that Google collected, then handed over. It's a misleading headline IMO.

Imagine a Russian agent starting an ad campaign targeted at Ukrainian people who are interested in weapon systems. But... the actual ads are about an innocent thing, like cat food. An Ukrainian clicks the cat food ad, is directed to the Russian agent's fake cat food shop, places an order and fills in their address. How is Google not leaking information here?

The whole "Google is not selling your data" excuse never held up to practical reality, it was always only a semantics argument along the lines of "They sell it, but not directly!".

This whole case exemplifies that very much, but it only garners attention due to who did it, Russia, not due to why and how this is actually possible.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#55

Post by barrbid8 »

j0ba wrote: post #33
1shooner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>some emotional trigger word that makes the public think they are dealing with an "outgroup". What specifically are you referring to?

Isn't it obvious? Russia

So if I write an article about say the North Korean government stealing money, or murdering, I’m using an emotional trigger word and an “out group”?

Have you ever watched Russian domestic tv, which is incidentally 100% controlled by the government? You’d find a new appreciation for emotional triggers and out groups!

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#56

Post by dbtc »

freeflight wrote: post #52
thereddaikon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its done by the government or a government owned body it is by definition. That being said, Propublica is neither a government nor is it a government owned news agency. So its not propaganda.

Tho that's quite the overly specific, and dated, definition of "propaganda". Public relations is a way more apt term for what's going on in modern times [0], and in the "cyber" manifestation of that field, private parties are recognized as the main contributors, and actors, for a number of nation states [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/17/influencers-ukraini... [1] https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cef7e…

The creation of the term "Public Relations" is an example of skillful propaganda.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#58

Post by [deleted] »

artificial wrote: post #50
apstls wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accurate reporting of Russia's cyber activities is not propaganda.

According to Mr Bernays who wrote the book Propaganda. The best kind of propaganda is true. It’s not only propaganda when it’s nefarious or pernicious. Effective military cyber capability is an excellent example.

[deleted]

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#59

Post by yunohn »

theptip wrote: post #44

> This means Google may have turned over such critical information as unique mobile phone IDs, IP addresses, location information and details about users’ interests and online activity Can someone help me to understand this? I thought Google kept this kind of user-preference (interests/activity) data to itself, and used that as the sauce powering its ad auctions. If you run a site, GA will give you IP, location, etc.…

> you run a site, GA will give you IP, location, etc. for inbound traffic, but I didn't think they would give you data on other users.

This is not “provided” by Google. It’s normal web server traffic data, collected by Google Analytics instead of your own scripting.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#60

Post by dummy_physicist »

barrbid8 wrote: post #53
BrainVirus wrote: post #18

The sad thing about news like this is that most people only pay attention at all because they've been bombarded with anti-Russian propaganda, not because this showcases Google's awful anti-privacy practices. Despite years of warnings, examples and analysis of where this can lead, the only thing that matters in the end is some emotional trigger word that makes the public think they are dealing with an "outgroup". The…

Reporting negatively on the Iraq war or blackwater or Facebook isn’t “anti American propaganda”. Just because you are anti establishment doesn’t mean you should instinctively support the Russian establishment which is incidentally many times more horrific and out of control than the people you claim are spreading “propaganda”. (I’m guessing NGOs, charities like amnesty international or anyone who reports on the war c…

I guess the point of the parent comment is that the real issue is not whether this is a anti American or pro Russia thing, but that Google's privacy practices are bad. Any government/institution doing the same would be bad, but the discussion tends to focus on whoever the public enemy currently is.
Post reply on HN