The Many Ways Google Harvests Data • Hacker News Board

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#111

Post by a_imho » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

laythea wrote: post #77

Nadya wrote: post #58

44 blocked scripts loading the article - nearly half of which was tracking related. Surely the irony of that isn't lost on people? Google's ability to track users is 99% entirely due to companies like the WSJ using them for tracking users. These companies are just as much to blame, if not more, than Google itself. E: What I mean by that is Google provides the means, but Google couldn't track nearly half of all sites…

The whole tracking thing should be outlawed in my opinion. It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of curtains. In a world where that is clearly not ok, then why is it that this kind of thing (tracking) is deemed ok? What we need is something that does to our online privacy, what curtains did for peoples real…

Cyber stalking is only OK when big companies do it. Preventing it is not a technical problem as you succinctly stated in your first sentence.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#112

Post by soared » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

textmode wrote: post #93

"Recent controversy over Facebook Inc.'s hunger for personal data has surfaced the notion that the online advertising industry could be hazardous to our privacy and well-being. " The NYT can publish stories centering on this notion despite being ??% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business. Would Google (or Facebook) publish similar warnings against the annoyances and harms of online advertisin…

They'd lose massive amounts of revenue and cease to exist. Even with digital advertising most newspapers are dead or barely staying afloat. They all struggled to convert to digital and tracking-based advertising was just one of many life boats they tried to save themselves with.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#113

Post by terminalcommand » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

reacharavindh wrote: post #18

Haven't read the article because it is behind paywall, but it is not that hard to stay away from Google if you really care for it. Search - Use DuckDuckGo or startpage. Use Fastmail or any other email provider that is not Google. Watch Youtube videos without creating an account and clear out cookies regularly. Use Vimeo or some other service to host your videos for private use. Use Google Translate without a Google A…

An easy way to bypass the wsj paywall is to use a facebook redirect.

http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/who...

works as usual. Putting "http://facebook.com/l.php?u=" before the url does the trick.

I've had picked up this technique from a fellow HN user, wanted to share.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#114

Post by thaumaturgy » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #110

chongli wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy. That's not true at all. When I go to the hardware store to buy a box of nails, I don't have any expectation for the owner to begin following me around for the rest of the day (and in perpetuity thereafter). I also don't expect the hardware store owner to get on the phone with the grocery store owner and ask him what groceries a…

Are you suggesting that reading the newspaper at home grants the publisher the right to peer in through my window? No, nor did I even intimate that. That's your property, not mine. That suggestion is as ridiculous as the one I was trying to refute. But when you enter my property - be it virtual or phyiscal - expect to be observed using whatever technologies and vendors I want that are legal (with a few obvious legal…

People that want to move this discussion forward need to stop using analogies for things in the physical world, because the interactions between a website and a browser aren't similar enough to anything physical. Every single time someone resorts to analogy in one of these threads, it immediately and permanently devolves into an argument over the details of the analogy.

Browsers run code delivered by websites. It's generally considered impolite, at least, to provide code that mines cryptocurrency on visitors' machines. Most people wouldn't defend serving up malware, either. So there is well-established precedent for arguing that there are things a website shouldn't do to its visitors.

Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware.

The explosion of ad blockers on users' browsers is a direct result of websites pushing advertising tactics way too far and not putting enough effort into the safety of their visitors. Tracking scripts will be next. Firefox has a lot to gain from pushing browser features intended to make it look like a more privacy-conscious browser than Chrome; there are already extensions like Ghostery and Disconnect, and uBlock Origin blocks a number of other tracking scripts too.

If website developers don't accept some kind of middle ground in this discussion, they'll be relying on their access logs for all of their data before long.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#115

Post by abawany » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #6

lucideer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> controls that I trust. I think this trust might be misplaced. > Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Displaying your location history to you is turned off by default. Google's own recording of your location, for their purposes, cannot be turned off.

> Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. Do you want to turn Location History on? Are you suuuuure you don't want to turn location history on? To use maps effectively you need location history on. Turn on? Location history may affect ____ you wanna turn it on? How about now, location history is a great thing to turn on.... EDIT: for those of you who downmodded this, the point was that if you have loc…

This. The repeated prompts almost seem intent on ensuring that one will click yes inadvertently at some point.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#116

Post by russdpale » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #92

laythea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. If a normal shopper walked into a store and had surveillance on him/her (I don't mean the normal security cameras here - I'm talking about in depth surveillance, the in-person equivalent of a website tracker), I am sure them same stores would go out of business fast. The point here is that they do it just because the snooping is invisible. And that irks me.

You do know that most big stores use automated video analysis nowadays to optimize inventory placement, analyze in-store traffic flow, detect shoplifting, detect slip and falls, etc right? Some have begun using license plate readers at parking lot entrances. Oh and...they are completely within their rights to do it.....being a private business and all. The point is, don't come on my property - physical or virtual - u…

Just because its on your property does give you carte blanche to do anything you want to me. I dont see how this is a reasonable argument.

You cant tracke in your bathroom or changing stalls. You cant listen to my phone calls or ask me intimate personal details about where I have been without explicitly asking me.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#117

Post by russdpale » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

delroth wrote: post #86

dualboot wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just what they collect with a single service. It's the amount of clarity that comes from a linkage with their other collected data sets.

On that same web page: > We don't correlate or combine information from our temporary or permanent logs with any personal information that you have provided Google for other services. Of course, all of that is meaningless if you want to think that Google is lying in its privacy policies. (Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on 8888).

Personally, if they cant prove it, it shouldn't be trusted. And in talking about proving it with the source code. The days of granting benefit of the doubt to these companies should be over. The onus of security should be on the providers proving it, not misplaced trust.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#118

Post by matt_kantor » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #110

chongli wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy. That's not true at all. When I go to the hardware store to buy a box of nails, I don't have any expectation for the owner to begin following me around for the rest of the day (and in perpetuity thereafter). I also don't expect the hardware store owner to get on the phone with the grocery store owner and ask him what groceries a…

Are you suggesting that reading the newspaper at home grants the publisher the right to peer in through my window? No, nor did I even intimate that. That's your property, not mine. That suggestion is as ridiculous as the one I was trying to refute. But when you enter my property - be it virtual or phyiscal - expect to be observed using whatever technologies and vendors I want that are legal (with a few obvious legal…

The various analogies used in this thread lead to contradictory conclusions because they start from different places:

Should browsing the Sears website be more like reading a Sears catalog in your own home, or more like physically walking into a Sears store? It's clearly got some aspects of both.

You can't just assume one is the "right" view and then use that to argue your point, because once you boil it down that's precisely the thing you disagree about.

EDIT: I see thaumaturgy made essentially the same point in a sibling comment.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#119

Post by lallysingh » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

kop316 wrote: post #96

lallysingh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. but does the location leave the device?

That's a great question. I cannot conclusively say that Google Play Services does that, but I cannot think of another reason for why Android would be set up that way. I welcome any alternative conclusions though.

Quite possibly for sensor fusion. E.g., combine with WiFi triangulation, accelerometer deltas from last fix, etc.

Play Services has a lot of stuff in it because it's easy for Google to upgrade it without going through phone vendors or carriers. It was a way to counteract the effects of many phones being on old versions of Android.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#120

Post by oldcynic » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

mcgarnagle wrote: post #85

oldcynic wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're effectively suggesting people take all their business offline again. When I walk into store (a) it's reasonable to assume that store (a) might be observing my behaviour, along with perhaps a sub-contracted security company etc. It's less reasonable to assume that walking into store (a) gets me observed by stores b-z and subcontractor 1-255 which is more like what happens on the web. They don't generally follow…

"Walking into a store can get you observed by stores b-z and subcontractior 1-255" Well what about the new amazon retail store, that records your every move? Also what about stores or shopping malls that contract their security cameras out to other companies? Surely those security companies may be doing all kinds of stuff with people's facial recognition data.

Most of the new data landscape is only adopted reluctantly - no shopper was given a choice in this. The fact that consumers feel powerless, and every medium to large business feels they must grab all the data possible, doesn't make it right.

Amazon's high street store is an easy to avoid aside until a Tesco or Walmart tries it.

I hope that GDPR restricts the extent of "all kinds of stuff" that companies wish to do to cctv security footage. I suspect it won't be nearly enough. The trouble with cctv is the consumer/shopper has effectively no way of knowing thus should be quite strictly regulated.