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

We Need To Talk, Google

f-secure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#171

Post by pdonis »

RexRollman wrote: post #170
pdonis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if the latest version simply isn't something you want? Exactly. Even worse, what if the old version was what you wanted, and now it's gone? For example, Google's book reader on Android. I started using it frequently about 6 months ago. Since then, every UI change they have made has made the experience worse for me. The only reason I still use it is that it does have one big advantage over the other readers I…

I know how you feel. Gmail's interface has become incredibly complicated and every change feels like a step backward. But as much as I don't care for Gmail's current interface, I can't and don't expect Google to support older web interfaces. If I really wanted interface consistency, I would run my own mail client.

If I really wanted interface consistency, I would run my own mail client.

That's what I do; in fact, I run one that's unlikely to change its UI much (KMail from KDE version 3, the Trinity Desktop Environment build).

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#172

Post by humbledrone »

raheemm wrote: post #50
lawdawg wrote: post #10

Get over it people, Google+ is the new account system for all Google products. If you don't like Google having a single account/profile system, or the fact that Google+ profiles include a "social" network product, then you best look for alternatives ASAP.

I moved from chrome to FF and google search to duckduckgo search after prism.

You know that DuckDuckGo is a US company, right? And thus subject to the same exact laws as a company like Google (and the same NSA snooping). It's true that they don't log your search queries, but if the NSA has access to the root CAs they can snoop on you anyway. And what do you think happens if the government subpoenas DuckDuckGo and tells them to log your traffic? They will of course do so. And they have a MUCH smaller legal budget with which to fight such government requests than, say, Google.

DuckDuckGo is a cool company, and I think they have a neat product. But if you're worried about the NSA, then you're kidding yourself if you think DDG is safer than any other search engine. Just use Tor and be done with it.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#173

Post by chronic25 »

habosa wrote: post #154
lazyjones wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get over it people, Google+ is the new account system for all Google products. Maybe Google should finally get over the fact that they've lost this fight and that noone wants to be in a social network whose member numbers are inflated by such desperate moves (which most of us have experienced now and are well aware of).

If you follow Google's strategy, you'll see that they really are not interested in the "stream-view war" with Facebook that everyone seems so intent on their playing. Instead, Google+ is a social backbone that connects all Google products (present and future) and gives you a single Google identity across the internet.

Not everyone wants this identity. Especially with your real name.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#174

Post by kenko »

VikingCoder wrote: post #167
kenko wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The word "I" showed up in both of those sentences. To most users, unifying all of their data adds a lot of value." So you want your every identity online to be tied together? Your usenet posts to alt.sex.hello-kitty, your responses to ads on Craigslist, your interactions with old friends on facebook, your interactions with professional contacts on linkedin (if you use it), your interactions on some neighborhood blog…

So, the only reasonable interpretation of my position is to carry it to the ridiculous extreme? Or do you acknowledge that there's clearly a balance of benefit and pain, and Google is merely slightly to the wrong side of where you'd want them to be?

Your justification for tying everything together, not only a single method of signing on but a single pervasive identity, was just that ... it's a single person using the things. That's not a very good justification. And your example of a Good Thing that comes from it, by way of contesting my claim that youtube and gmail (or g+) are conceptually distinct, used something else entirely, involving email and planes. (And actually I would prefer those things not to be done automatically!)

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#176

Post by jimmaswell »

mbell wrote: post #160
bambax wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find value in these things Well then good for you, and you should be able to merge all your accounts with Google into one; but why should this be almost compulsory? What's more, if there's so much value into this, why does Google have to force its users to do it?

> Well then good for you, and you should be able to merge all your accounts with Google into one; but why should this be almost compulsory? Quite often here on Hacker News we sit around and talk about how removing features or options from an App is often the best thing to do for usability. I think this is true. At the same time every time this comes up with regards to Google or some other large company the response f…

I really hate that attitude. I'm tired of seeing features and options constantly disappearing from the applications I use.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#177

Post by bfwork »

VikingCoder wrote: post #167
kenko wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The word "I" showed up in both of those sentences. To most users, unifying all of their data adds a lot of value." So you want your every identity online to be tied together? Your usenet posts to alt.sex.hello-kitty, your responses to ads on Craigslist, your interactions with old friends on facebook, your interactions with professional contacts on linkedin (if you use it), your interactions on some neighborhood blog…

So, the only reasonable interpretation of my position is to carry it to the ridiculous extreme? Or do you acknowledge that there's clearly a balance of benefit and pain, and Google is merely slightly to the wrong side of where you'd want them to be?

How is that a ridiculous extreme? People have different persona and personal facets in real life that the prefer to keep separate for various reason. That can be as simple as "Work" and "Home" to political views, lifestyle choices etc. The simplest solution online is to use multiple accounts, Google (and others) desperately want you to use only one and do their best to force it. Yes, this way they can provide/extract "value" by being able to collect every thing about you. The flip side is that they have everything about you all linked, personally I view Google et al or the Government doing it just as creepy.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#178

Post by tjmc »

The problem with free services is that you're not entitled to demand anything. The customers of YouTube are advertisers, and you are their potential customer. I'd suggest lobbying up the chain of command.

btw, if you do use an alternative, please know that Vimeo runs like a crippled dog outside of the US. If you believe that the service of customers is important, the quality of the actual video service really should be your first priority right?

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#179

Post by jerf »

dredmorbius wrote: post #161
jerf wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat ironically, I had a Google account already (albeit only lightly used, losing Reader killed ~95% of the utility for me), but when I got my Android phone, it simply refused to link to it. I think perhaps because I didn't have GMail? To be honest the error messages were never that clear to me. So instead of linking in my "real" Google account, I had to create a new one. One I never browse with, one that has no…

That anonymous account knows where you live, who you talk to, where you go, what you read online, ... Linking it to your legal identity isn't hard. Data show that just two ZIP Codes (in the US) can indentify an individual with 95% accuracy: your home and workplace. Makes me want to rightgrade to an uncontracted dumbphone and a custom-ROMed tablet. Not linked to any Google accounts.

Yeah, but that's mostly useful to law enforcement, if they were interested, and for that the mere fact of a cell phone is enough to get everything you mentioned. What Google gets of value out of this account is greatly reduced, especially as I've been buying the ad-free version of the apps. (While in theory Google could get everything you say, I believe that in practice they actually do not, say, forward all of your "Reddit is Fun" actions up to the Great Google Motherserver.)

And no, I did not say eliminated. Just greatly reduced. (Again, the moreso after shuttering Reader, although I must say that while you could learn a lot about me from my blog reading list, its utility for selling me stuff was pretty low.)

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#180

Post by ballard »

yuhong wrote: post #163
ballard wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonimity is a basic human right that one should be free to exercise at any time. Without it, those in power or those crazies out there that have nothing better can easily find something to attack those they don't like. This is not the providence of "something to hide" but that people should be secure with certainty against all forms of intrusion that lacks probable cause. Anonymity is difficult for naïve people to u…

Agreed, but there is something wrong if people have to use it all the time.

The world is the world.

Because there are so many other people out there that might be up to no good, so many laws (US commercial code, anyone) that an individual will create so much digital dirt over their lifetime, it becomes very easy to attack anyone that does not just keep most things private as a best practice. It's nearly impossible to know which digital bits will be at some point in the future X years taken out of context for political, employment, romantic, legal or other purposes.

"Three Felonies a Day" https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...

Post reply on HN