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

Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

sparktoro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 312 posts

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#101

Post by smegger001 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #43
ec109685 wrote: post #8

If anyone is surprised about chrome sending urls to Google, you can turn the “feature” off by unchecking “Make searches and browsing better” in the sync section of Google chrome settings. Creepy.

Or, and hear me out, you never use Chrome again, in any platform.. like ever ever again.

I only have chrome installed for a couple of work related sites that don't display correctly on firefox. I dont get to choose not use the work related site and MS edge likely isn't any safer and also is not available on my choice of operating system

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#104

Post by specialist »

BrenBarn wrote: post #28
danpalmer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal (not work related opinion): This basically can’t happen with things like DMA and GDPR. DMA in particular means you can’t share data across “products” without explicit consent. So you could for example collect websites that don’t work for the purposes of improving Chrome, but not then share that with the Ads/Search orgs for personalisation or targeting, as far as I understand the legislation. Personal opinion…

The thing is that preventing "sharing" isn't sufficient. People who are concerned about privacy don't want any such data collected or stored in the first place, ever. The implicit "sharing" of my data with Google (or whatever company) is a problem in itself. Regardless of how "seriously" Google (or whatever company) takes it, for a lot of the data I don't want them to ever have it in the first place.

Yes and:

Require opt-in by default. In all cases.

All PII data at rest must be encrypted at the field level. Like how passwords should be stored. aka Translucent Database techniques. Not just in transit. Not just encrypting the whole database. But encrypt the actual fields within a database.

Constitutional privacy means personal sovereignty over oneself. (A superset of the folk definition of keeping secrets.) Meaning any and all data about me is owned by me. Any one using my data for any purpose has to pay me. (See opt-in by default above.)

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#105

Post by cpeterso »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #93
metadigm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as they add the ability to configure shortcuts, I'd more than happy to. After several years of requests, we're finally seeing some movement on their end.

Shortcuts? Like bookmarks?

Or search engine keywords in the address bar? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from-address...

Or adding “top site” shortcuts on the Firefox New Tab page? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customize-items-on-fire...

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#106

Post by SSLy »

smegger001 wrote: post #101
HenryBemis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out, you never use Chrome again, in any platform.. like ever ever again.

I only have chrome installed for a couple of work related sites that don't display correctly on firefox. I dont get to choose not use the work related site and MS edge likely isn't any safer and also is not available on my choice of operating system

you could use ungoogled-chromium, brave, vivaldi

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#107

Post by dontdoxxme »

theolivenbaum wrote: post #2

Seems like a lot of it came from them inadvertently posting some internal API to GitHub: https://github.com/googleapis/elixir-google-api/commit/078b4...

And it's Apache licensed, which grants a patent license. Some of the comments refer to specific aspects of how page rank is calculated. Pagerank itself is past patent protection but I wonder if this also accidentally might grant licenses to other patents.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#109

Post by lupire »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #78
iamacyborg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a dupe, the ipullrank.com article goes into much more depth than the one from sparktoro.

It's not worth the effort. The parent commenter is a bot, its comment history is nothing but spamming submissions with "[dupe]": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisArchitect

Useful information is not spam.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#110

Post by komali2 »

BrenBarn wrote: post #84
danpalmer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. In fact it's sufficiently reasonable that I believe GDPR allows this to be opt-out, something I broadly agree with. I do think opt-outs should be availab…

> assuming good faith all round But why would anyone assume that? I think the position of many privacy advocates is that we're long past the point where it's reasonable to assume Google is acting in good faith in the best interests of its users. (Again, to be fair, this is true of more companies than just Google.)

Assuming good faith from a corporation is absurd.

Corporations measure success by one metric and one metric alone: shareholder value. Under our current system, a corporation that doesn't increase shareholder value is considered a bad company. Such a company is punished.

If Google can increase shareholder value by violating user privacy, and the consequences of getting caught won't reduce shareholder value too much, it's a bad company if it doesn't violate user privacy.

Of course there are mechanisms that slow this down, like laws and employees trying to follow laws, employee ethics, old guard culture, etc, but all will be defeated one by one for shareholder value.

Post reply on HN