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

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#61

Post by Chronic29 »

ntakasaki wrote: post #17
ukimoo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you're aware that this collection of yours pertains to complaints of interested parties, and that if you'd bothered with any follow-through on these topics you'd have encountered a very different picture. But seeing as you had a cherry picked list of the harshest (and incomplete) reportings at the ready, augmented with you're own slanted commentary my guess is that a "full picture" isn't what you're aiming f…

>if you'd bothered with any follow-through on these topics you'd have encountered a very different picture Why don't you expound on that very different picture instead of such a hand wavy kneejerk dismissal without any reasoning or references?

This. People are so quick to defend Google without backing up their claims. Yes, we know Google is "cool" but we don't need fanboism here on HN.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#62

Post by e12e »

scoot wrote: post #29
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…

Besides which, consumer GPS has a resolution down to 3M, 95th percentile - not 100M [1]. [1] http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standar...

I don't agree with gp's dismissal, but the point about gps and coarse location was that continuously updating gps (for full 3m resolution) would be too taxing on the batteries -- not that gps resolution was poor.

Don't think that applies if parent was using google maps to navigate, though -- how useful would navigation be without correct and updated position? Not to mention wi-fi location, correlation with plus posts/check-ins etc...

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#63

Post by e12e »

comrade1 wrote: post #4
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…

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's been more than a few people arrested in-part based on their google queries, some of them wrongly and some of them rightly so.

I believe at least that "internet history" has been featured in legal proceedings (arrests/trials) -- I'm not sure if there have been warrants issued based on getting search history from google. I'd love to hear more, if anyone has a reference either way.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

comrade1 wrote: post #4
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…

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's been more than a few people arrested in-part based on their google queries, some of them wrongly and some of them rightly so.

[deleted]

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#65

Post by dublinben »

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?

See any given DMCA takedown request for Google to filter search results. There's more than 1.5m to look through.

https://chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#66

Post by dublinben »

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…

Have you seen YaCy? It's a distributed search engine project that's been running for several years. You can start using it to search and crawl right now.

http://yacy.net/en/

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#67

Post by ChuckMcM »

pmiller2 wrote: post #27
ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wow. Did you actually see first hand anyone who was punished by Google for things said outside the workplace? And did this extend to topics other than Google?

What motivation could you imagine I would have in order to ruin someone's day? Ask Laszlo.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#68

Post by pwnna »

IvyMike wrote: post #58
mynameisvlad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have an android phone you may want to check out your location history: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0 Certainly far better than 100 meters in my case.

This is by far one of the creepiest things I've seen.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#69

Post by MertsA »

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…

The way Google gets your approximate location is not as simple as just sending Google a list of visible access points and figuring out where the Google Maps car was when it saw that access point, it also passes along the signal strength of every access point and because the Street View car is recording signal strength and GPS location for every measurement as it's driving by it allows for a much finer resolution than just a binary "can I see this access point".

Basically, even though there was a dozen access points visible, that increases accuracy, not decreases. Like if your phone reported that it's got the same signal strength for BP and PH it will estimate that you are in between them with other access points helping to conclude that you aren't off to the side otherwise the signal strength to xyz access point would be higher.

In other words, Just sending a list of access points and signal strengths to Google gives them a rather accurate guess as to where you are in the world, much greater than just 100+ meters.

Also, Android can also figure out when you are in a car moving at highway speeds thanks to the accelerometer and is quite accurate at telling when you're walking, jogging, biking, or driving. Enable Google Now on your phone and it will send you a summary of how many miles of what activity you've done in the last month with rather surprising accuracy for me personally.

Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)

#70

Post by x0x0 »

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…

and weirdly enough google services that compete with eg yelp are almost always at the top! sure couldn't be them using their near-monopoly in search to juice their other businesses, could it?
Post reply on HN