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

On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

anarchism.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#121

Post by betterunix »

embolism wrote: post #110
betterunix wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if you read the linked paper, there are things Google could do to protect its users' privacy. That paper is about privacy-preserving targeted advertising, which would not give Google anything for the government to subpoena or search while still allowing them to conduct their business. There is no reason Google has to make itself an easy target.

You're making the assumption that that proof-of-concept behavioral tracking solution is anywhere near as effective as what google already does. Google doesn't want the profile to be stored privately in your browser because then they can't use it to target you in other situations.

Which is why I said they should start there. I did not say it was a completed solution. Right now, Google is not even trying to protect their users by any technical means, relying instead on the courts.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#122

Post by embolism »

jkrems wrote: post #117
gnosis wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it does have something to do with it. When you don't pay for a service in money, the company providing that service has to find some other way of generating money. Often they do this by collecting and selling data about you. Now, that doesn't mean that just because you paid for a service they won't do the same thing. But they'll will have more incentive to protect their paying customers than some service wh…

This has nothing to do with privacy and free services. Yes, that is a problem, but it has no connection at all to this case. It's about emails and private chats being given to the government without any limitations. It's about non-US citizens having zero protection or due process when they use US-based cloud services. That's a couple of degrees more severe than "Google is storing personal details about you and may gi…

You can't separate the two. The reason why foreigners are uploading their data to the NSA when they use Google is because of the way Google makes its money and engineers its services.

Compare this to Apple's iMessage or FaceTime - Apple cannot decrypt the contents of the messages, and therefore cannot give the contents to the government.

They designed the service this way because their users pay for the service as part of the cost of the devices they sell so they don't require access to the data for behavioral profiling.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#123

Post by jkrems »

tyrion wrote: post #102

Isn't all "this shit" in violation of the International Bill of Human Rights? "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." -- International Bill of Human Rights, article 12. I also found interesting to read the "CCPR General…

I think the US government showed in the last ten years that they don't care much about those "basic human rights". I'm pretty sure torture, drone killings, locking innocent people away without due process, and silencing dissidents also kind of violates the IBoHR.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#124

Post by embolism »

betterunix wrote: post #121
embolism wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the assumption that that proof-of-concept behavioral tracking solution is anywhere near as effective as what google already does. Google doesn't want the profile to be stored privately in your browser because then they can't use it to target you in other situations.

Which is why I said they should start there. I did not say it was a completed solution. Right now, Google is not even trying to protect their users by any technical means, relying instead on the courts.

I absolutely agree that they aren't even trying, but starting there would reduce the effectiveness of their ad business and hence reduce revenue, so I don't see that happening.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#125

Post by icebraining »

B0Z wrote: post #80
nsomaru wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding (a) --- I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings? If the US insists on waiving the rights of non-citizens, despite the constitution, th…

> I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings? You'll get little argument from most 'Mericans for your statement that these rights are human rights.…

But that's why you have to fight whatever government collects your taxes for those very rights on your own.

Why? It's not the government collecting my taxes that is reading my emails and generally spying on my communications, it's the US'. How does fighting it help me?

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#126

Post by loup-vaillant »

embolism wrote: post #114
burntsushi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just seems like a variation of the argument that you should get out of the way of the bullet instead of demanding that the gunman not shoot you in the first place. I should be able to give whatever data I want to Google without worrying that the government is going to take it from Google in secret.

That is a laudable and idealistic goal, but we don't live in that world. Furthermore Google itself knows more than we do about how easily governments can access the data it accumulates. If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data. Google understands the risks better than its users but chooses to expose them because doing so is align…

Still, you do want to remove that dangerous war zone itself. The problem is, to do that, a few group of people at best needs to stick their neck out for the benefit of everyone else.

The way I see it, the problem is that mass cooperation just isn't going to happen. Incentives and benefits must be found at the individual level (altruism counts as a weak incentive), and drawbacks must be dealt with, starting with the gazillion trivial inconveniences that an otherwise privacy aware citizen would have to put up with.

There's a reason why I don't encrypt my hard drive: my OS doesn't do it by default, and taking the time to set it up is just such a drag.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#127

Post by jmillikin »

embolism wrote: post #112
digitalengineer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not. Google is only doing what it is forced to. I am activly searching for google alternatives. Ghostly app on iphone, ghostly for firefox, duckduck, but a good mail client? With easy encription? Not available...

Google isn't forced to rely on stockpiling personal data as a business model. It could create the exact private service that you are looking for, but it intentionally does not.

  >  It could create the exact private service that you are looking for, but it intentionally does not.
Most of Google's products are "webapp" equivalents to traditional desktop software. It is not possible to create webapps which are private against the webapp's host.

What you are essentially arguing is that Google ought to shut down its current business in favor of writing security-conscious desktop apps. The result would be that users would all jump ship to another provider, and then Google would go out of business and people on HN would be complaining that $NEW_COMPANY doesn't respect user privacy.

If you want to suggest a course of action that will improve user privacy, it must be one that users will actually be willing to support.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#128

Post by markdown »

tptacek wrote: post #108
ef4 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson,1820 I will also note that the data in question was within the United States, where all property, whether owned by foreigners or…

What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?

No post body was provided.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#129

Post by icebraining »

magicalist wrote: post #92
gnosis wrote: post #23

Google is spyware. This has been obvious for a long time. Most other "free" web services aren't much better. It's sad that it's taken so long for people to start realizing and caring about this, but better late than never.

What paid web service based in the US (or in a country with applicable data sharing laws) is going to refuse all search warrants for you? Maybe you were looking for "Most other web services not in Iceland aren't much better"?

Complying with search warrants would not be nearly as problematic if Google didn't capture so much data about its users, or made a bigger effort to prevent itself from reading it (and hence be unable to provide it).

See http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2012-01-19-playing-chicken-w...

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#130

Post by icebraining »

jkn wrote: post #81
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not directly apropos this particular thread, but Google has engineered an email service that is particularly difficult to wiretap. To wit: (a) They're the Internet's foremost adopter and proponent of DHE ciphersuites, which drastically reduce the impact of losing the RSA key that underpins most site's TLS security, and, just as importantly, forces adversaries to actively MITM every connection in order to decrypt…

Am I right that a) applies only to direct communications between the end user and Google's servers? Actually if someone sends an email to my Gmail account using his ISP SMTP server, is the connection between the two SMTP servers likely to be encrypted?

Even if it is encrypted, I doubt it's authenticated.
Post reply on HN