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

The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#141

Post by yuhong »

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…

My essay on this exact topic: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozi...

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#142

Post by ugh123 »

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…

Sounds like a similar argument to "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

I'm not advocating that either side is wrong in that statement, but just drawing a similarity.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#143

Post by thaumaturgy »

downandout wrote: post #139
thaumaturgy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

>Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware. That's definitely your opinion, and it is one that is not widely held. How do I know this? Because Facebook's usage - despite a deluge of recent headlines headlines that vastly overstated their privacy issues and made it the poster child for extensive tracking technologies - hasn't gone down. So, roughly 2 billion of the…

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it.

Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware".

Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

I guess you can stand steadfastly behind the position that "nobody cares because there are 2 billion users", and ignore the falling metrics for user engagement [3], and the protests (see the picture at the top of [2]), and the senate hearing, and the media coverage, and the millions of Ghostery and Disconnect users who've gone to the trouble of searching for and installing extensions specifically to block tracking, and Firefox's built-in tracking protection. Sure, aside from all that, nobody cares.

But this isn't an issue that's going away yet, no matter how much you want it to.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-...

[2]: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-a...

[3]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings...

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#144

Post by lern_too_spel »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #17
caymanjim wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these things is not like the other. DuckDuckGo and Proton were founded on the basis of protecting privacy and not sharing personal data. The other is part of the cabal.

Exactly. Apple is also one of the participants in the NSA's PRISM [1] domestic surveillance program. Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself, but more tellingly it's also indicative of the NSA's appreciation for the amount and quality of unique and identifiable data that Apple has or can readily obtain on their users. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR…

> Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their customers in and of itself

Why? Apple is legally required to hand over the court ordered data whether or not they participate in the FBI's data integration program. By implementing a proper data integration system, Apple can standardize audits and alerts and make sure the FBI gets only what is required and not somebody else's data by accident as might happen if the data were sent by hand each time.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#145

Post by downandout »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #143
downandout wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware. That's definitely your opinion, and it is one that is not widely held. How do I know this? Because Facebook's usage - despite a deluge of recent headlines headlines that vastly overstated their privacy issues and made it the poster child for extensive tracking technologies - hasn't gone down. So, roughly 2 billion of the…

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware". Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I gues…

As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal," but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible impact.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26% of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel any violation of my privacy either.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-c...

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#146

Post by nkkollaw »

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…

It's like illegal prostitution. If people didn't have sex with prostitutes, there wouldn't be prostitutes.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#147

Post by sayhello »

(Disclaimer: I work at Google, though on unrelated things. Opinions my own, yada, yada)

Worked at a privacy obsessed place before (Mozilla) where I worked on building privacy-preserving ad infrastructure.

I think we've more to fear about the other data brokers (so-called DMP's and their sources of data, e.g. your bank) than Google. At the very least, we have some assurance Google is competent with handling the data.

Google is a big well-known target and definitely poses a central point of failure for our data, but this piece could've been more than a dig at Google and rather, could have explored how private information is handled in the Ad industry in general.

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#148

Post by tibyat »

lallysingh wrote: post #76
kop316 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll copy an earlier post of what I found: On Android, I noted before that when I turned on and off location services, the GPS lock was near instantaneous (i.e. when I turned on location, Google Maps located me with GPS precision immediately. There could be other ways of how this happens, it was noted in another post of mine, but that had still had me a bit suspicious. I replaced Google Play Services with microG rece…

By tracking, do you mean the phone keeping track of its own location, or it sending location data back to Google? Google maintains a database of wifi networks and their locations (I don't know the ways this data is acquired) to help triangulate the position: https://www.quora.com/How-does-android-use-WiFi-to-get-your-...

Google Street View comes with many advantages: https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/

but they probably might just get it from somebody else's database. this one is pretty broad: https://www.wigle.net

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#149

Post by delroth »

russdpale wrote: post #117
delroth wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does providing the source code help with proving trust? You don't know that the service is actually running the source code that was published.

If you're willing to believe that the service matches the published source code, why wouldn't you also be willing to believe that the service matches the published "specifications" (e.g. privacy policy)?

Re: The Many Ways Google Harvests Data

#150

Post by Intermernet »

downandout wrote: post #145
thaumaturgy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware". Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I gues…

As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior…

>I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks

The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.

Post reply on HN