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

Don't Trust Google (2002)

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#31

Post by nick_riviera »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #30
nick_riviera wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually yes it does know I stopped at both of those location. 1. The BP garage has a wireless AP with a known SSID to them. Location services uses this, the cell network and the GPS to build an accurate location. There are no other wireless networks at that location. I was at this location for around 10 minutes. Google location history shows this location on the mark. 2. They know that I was at the Pizza hut because…

You didn't explain how they knew about the PH/BP, which makes people assume it was due to location data (like your first example). However, as for comment #1, Google doesn't use the SSIDs to determine locations on mobile, they use the [MAC Addresses]( http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/... ). They do have a database that also includes SSIDs for these MAC addresses, but there could be a dozen…

I purposely avoided explaining it to demonstrate a point: the average user doesn't know this or understand it. They understand the outcome only.

Sorry, you are 100% correct with the SSID vs MAC. If I'm in my car with the handset externally powered, does it use course location or does it use all three sources because on KitKat on my Moto G, it gives me the option to use all three at cost of battery life?

I disagree with your assessment of the location ability. It's definitely better than you explain it. I can go through at least 100 previous data points in my history and it's spot on each time.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#32

Post by pooper »

renlo wrote: post #5
TeMPOraL wrote: post #2

And 14 years later there still "is no evidence or even reason to suspect that Google is not being an honest broker. The searches give good results, the rankings seem fair, the service remains free, and we haven’t heard of anyone being arrested for running a dodgy query." So while the author is right about potential dangers mentioned in the penultimate paragraph, it's been more than a decade and those fears haven't re…

Uhmmm, nearly everything he described became a reality. Personalized search results, mass data gathering, filtering / censorship of results, the growth of Google to megalithic proportions ('next Microsoft'), etc.

> filtering / censorship of results

Could you please elaborate on this one?

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#33

Post by dkarapetyan »

This is incredibly prescient but then again Harry S. Truman said a long time ago "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know". It seems that all corporations travel the same historically beaten path.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#34

Post by fiatjaf »

kephra wrote: post #25

> I have one idea for how to do that, through a network of peer-to-peer search engines, and I hope to post it soon. This was 2002 ... Is there any follow up posting on it? I'm actively developing a censor free distributed search engine, with the abilities to parse the layout of a page into fields like author, title, date, abstract, article, pictures. The system is able to login into sites, hide itself as a normal bro…

Well, I wanna hear about it, but I don't know if I can contribute with something right now (maybe I can, after I hear about it, but I don't think so), so I'm not going to ask, I don't wanna bother you, I just look forward for reading more about it someday somewhere.

(In fact, I really miss a place where we can post drafts of ideas we're working on, or just thinking about, to get others' feedback on them.)

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#36

Post by ejr »

pooper wrote: post #32
renlo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhmmm, nearly everything he described became a reality. Personalized search results, mass data gathering, filtering / censorship of results, the growth of Google to megalithic proportions ('next Microsoft'), etc.

> filtering / censorship of results Could you please elaborate on this one?

Censorshop by Google : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

In addition to "Right to be forgotten" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#37

Post by ics »

pooper wrote: post #32
renlo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhmmm, nearly everything he described became a reality. Personalized search results, mass data gathering, filtering / censorship of results, the growth of Google to megalithic proportions ('next Microsoft'), etc.

> filtering / censorship of results Could you please elaborate on this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#38

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #2

And 14 years later there still "is no evidence or even reason to suspect that Google is not being an honest broker. The searches give good results, the rankings seem fair, the service remains free, and we haven’t heard of anyone being arrested for running a dodgy query." So while the author is right about potential dangers mentioned in the penultimate paragraph, it's been more than a decade and those fears haven't re…

[deleted]

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#39

Post by jmillikin »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21
stock_toaster wrote: post #18

Something like 5 out of the first 16 comments on this post were all from accounts (1 each) created under 1 hour ago. Weird.

It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibratio…

  > Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your
  > calibration scores and that translates into real money.
Based on the successful career progressions of several well-known troublemakers at Google, I believe this statement is not currently accurate (if it ever was).

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#40

Post by threeseed »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #22
nick_riviera wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps not yet but they have amassed all the data the author describes and much more. For example, I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps. I stopped at Pizza Hut. Google knows that. I stopped at a BP garage. Google knows that. I searched for houses in an area in the UK via right move. Google knows that because the embedded map knows my Google cookie... And so forth...…

Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.

I am really confused here. Why would Google Maps not use GPS at its highest resolution ?
Post reply on HN