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

Dear Googles: Stop asking

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 261 posts

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#121

Post by anaphor »

rjd wrote: post #98
anaphor wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And lastly, if someone steals your phone, with your a mail client on it, it is way easier for identity theft to occur, not harder. How exactly is this true? I encrypt my phone's hard disk and I encrypt all of my SMS communications (locally) with https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri... It's no harder than if someone steals your laptop. The same measures you would use on a laptop (FDE, TLS) ar…

Because a common tactic kids are using ATM is a simple snatch and grab, right out of peoples hands. Heaps easier than taking a laptop as you might be standing in a crowd, they can approach you with speed, shunt you off balance and are gone. Phone doesn't lock while they run with it as they are touching the screen, they get away from the user and disable the security features. You are compromised, phone is compromised…

I try to minimize how much I hold my phone in my hands in public for this reason sure (It also makes you a more viable target for muggers if you look distracted by your phone). You can also set TextSecure to automatically wipe your passphrase from memory when you're done reading/writing texts. I should probably also be using APG ( https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=APG&fdid=org... ) to encrypt other stuff for the same reason.

I don't doubt that this is a real threat for sure, but there are measures you can take to prevent it from happening.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#122

Post by sbuk »

css771 wrote: post #87
kordless wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing I get from Google+ needs any confirmation of my real identity. Now we're getting to the nut of the real argument.

I think the problem comes from the fact of treating Google+ like any other social network like Facebook. Google+ is supposed to be an identity layer for all of Google. The fact that they have status update posting, etc is secondary. Google would like to assign a face, name and phone number to every Google account. And why is that? For various reasons. A face and a name is very valuable for targeted ads. And a phone n…

If that's the case, why not be up front about it?

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#123

Post by Silhouette »

leoc wrote: post #117
MayanAstronaut wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Google is now a mega-corp, comprised of thousands competing for finite success outcomes (raises & promos). It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles.…

By all accounts the consolidation and Plusification of Google's services is being driven from the top, by Larry Page specifically.

That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan.

In the spirit of Google: +1 for people and +2 for companies now actively moving away from almost all Google properties because they're becoming so unpleasant and/or unproductive to use. I know they're all about being data driven and running empirical tests: that's why the {expletive deleted} page moves around every time I come back and visit something, which is probably the single most annoying thing they've been lately. The very fact that they're running so many tests is materially reducing the value of their services to us.

Ironically, our exodus started with abandoning our business G+ pages, because they have generated so little interest that they aren't even worth a few minutes now and then to update them any more. It appears that literally no-one we care about is actually using Google+.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#124

Post by yuhong »

leoc wrote: post #117
MayanAstronaut wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Google is now a mega-corp, comprised of thousands competing for finite success outcomes (raises & promos). It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles.…

By all accounts the consolidation and Plusification of Google's services is being driven from the top, by Larry Page specifically.

It is unfortunate that this did not get the attention it deserves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6420546

Original link: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/20/sex_a...

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#125

Post by davidgerard »

greenyoda wrote: post #119
davidgerard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're wrong there. I remember using the web back then. Search sucked before Google. Altavista was a bit better than what came before it, but Google really was the first search engine that was any bloody good at all . The PageRank algorithm basically cracked the search problem. Making money actually came years later. Google used the method of "get a zillion users and we'll figure out money later."

If I remember correctly, AltaVista had a pretty sophisticated advanced search mode where you could string together search terms with Boolean operators (and/or/not). And I'm sure that AltaVista had some kind of metric of "site quality" before PageRank came along. For example, you could judge how "important" a site is by how often people click on a search result to go there, or how big they are (number of URLs from tha…

I vaguely recall something like a Boolean search functionality on AV, yeah. I think HotBot had one too, though they were using some other sucky algorithmic innovation that didn't actually crack the search problem.

I don't think SEO really started happening until Google outlined the basic idea of PageRank - until there was something to plausibly target. At which point 1999-2000 were the years of hideous link farms. I sure remember those.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#126

Post by true_religion »

AsmMAn wrote: post #104
true_religion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Yahoo does the same thing now adays. And facebook also will opportunistically ask for phone verification when its scrubbing system thinks you might be creating a 'fake' account.

I don't use any Yahoo device anymore (not because spy, I ended up with Yahoo much before) but what are Yahoo doing with user's data?

No idea, but Yahoo has tried about 3 times to create a social network but it always dies in its infancy.

Likely they'll try again for #4.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#127

Post by brownbat »

supergauntlet wrote: post #33
waterlesscloud wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For general video use, nothing beats YouTube. It's interesting, though. In Hollywood, Vimeo seems to be the default choice for professional work. Up and coming directors have their short films and reels up there. And there are some password-protected videos top pros use for work on very big name films. It's weird how markets segment like that.

It's because Vimeo decided fairly early on that they weren't going to be YouTube. They remove stuff like gameplay videos, which means no lets plays, but that also means no low quality lets plays. Thus if you find a link to a video on Vimeo there's a good chance there's some semblance of quality. Especially if it's a gaming video, because they do allow machinimas. They fostered that artsy niche and in the process beca…

I'm surprised the uploaded video services haven't fragmented as much as news aggregation.

There are a dozen news + comments that all have a slightly different threshold for what stays on the site, determined by the tastes of the community.

Why haven't more video sites emerged with a similar ethos?

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#128

Post by Silhouette »

zaraflan wrote: post #51
buro9 wrote: post #34

Does Google believe that if they just push a little harder and finish the job, that somehow the people so alienated will be won over? Or is the pursuit of profit far more important than the perception of the brand overall? Right now, and for the last year, the brand is being severely tarnished in all of the networks I have, tech and real-life. I don't see them winning on any front. A Pyrrhic victory.

Never forget that you are not the customer, you are the product.

We would be the customer, if they hadn't messed up their advertising management systems so much that we've given up trying to make them work. I don't do our on-line marketing, but I think we're up to something like 4x actual spend that they're offering in credit as they beg us to start advertising with them now.

Even Facebook's ad buy system is better than Google's current one, and being worse than Facebook's ad buy system is an achievement that I always assumed would require years of practice and a lot of natural talent.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#129

Post by bobbydavid »

joicew wrote: post #79
joyeuse6701 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

three two three 90 five four two 59

(323) 905 - 4259 ? Or do you believe when you give your phone number to Google, it's obfuscated, not indexed or searchable, and not permanently associated with you for their current or future use? Next step - has anyone confirmed your identity yet?

I was unpleasantly surprised to see your post deliberately undoing the GP's attempt to obfuscate his number. Is your goal to bully GP into supporting privacy?

It doesn't matter the technical details of whether the number is easier to search, it's the intent I find disturbing about this.

Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking

#130

Post by pessimizer »

davidgerard wrote: post #106
greenyoda wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does not get the credit for making the Internet searchable; there were some pretty decent search engines, like AltaVista, before Google came along. Google made an incremental improvement in search algorithms and figured out how to make search very profitable.

I think you're wrong there. I remember using the web back then. Search sucked before Google. Altavista was a bit better than what came before it, but Google really was the first search engine that was any bloody good at all . The PageRank algorithm basically cracked the search problem. Making money actually came years later. Google used the method of "get a zillion users and we'll figure out money later."

>Google really was the first search engine that was any bloody good at all.

This is not even vaguely true. Google's algorithm was a bit better, their page was cleaner, and they weren't trying to push you into other services or wall you into any weirdness.

If google had pulled the shit they pull now back then, I never would have switched to it. I switched to google because they convinced me that their simple, honest strategy was based on some sort of a company value rather than just a strategy of leaving profit on the table until they could drive all competition out of business and ask for your firstborn. Corporate values? That's what I get for believing in science fiction.

Post reply on HN