141–150 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google pivoted? When? And from what to what? Still a company that collects and sells consumer data and ads right?
Technically "we do not sell your data" ;) "We just have your data, and sell promises to show you exquisitely targeted ads based on our exhaustive data about you."
I would definitely stop using Google if they actually sold my data. I don’t mind them using it for ad targeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it falls under "freedom to tinker", but having a microSD slot saved my vacation once (well, the pictures of it anyway). We were out at a children's amusement park in the mountains with poor service, so just moving things to the cloud wasn't an option. Deleting apps from my phone to pick up space is of course an option, but also a silly one. Swapping out the microSD card, however, was simple and I just…
I understand (also upvoted). This is why I bought the 256GB versions (although your photo archives might be even bigger). Not sure what I can recommend but in any case I'd probably get a professional camera with 400GB SD card. :D I mean, if you guys like to make long videos during a time outside, why not? I agree Apple's proposition has cracks by the way. Not arguing that. As for W10 Mobile, yep -- I sold my Lumia 15…
As for photos, I wouldn't say I take hundreds of gigabytes. The point is I don't want to have an anxiety attack over running out of space where I have low coverage. I can get a 512 GB microSD card for $100 and smaller capacities for much less. That let's me have my apps, offline music, offline maps, photos, 1080p videos, and so on. But, thanks for the suggestions nonetheless.
> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.” This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But…
Unfortunately, even with (a), (b), and (c). I doubt if a general solution exists, as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19861630.
Google owns my soul. Their boxes know when I sleep, when I wake, how much I exercise, what I listen to, my innermost thoughts, my chats with loved ones, what I watched on Netflix last night, what my company does, the flu I have at the moment, what the hypochondriac in me looks up in the middle of the night, what I buy, whom I call, what I spend money on, where I spend it... I nominally pay for these services, but I s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is already not Google. The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore. The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state. I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ug…
I fully switched from Android to iOS when iPhone X came out in November 2017. I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated. I could achieve almost everything I wanted on my iPhone -- it just took a bit of time to find the proper apps. Later Apple added the Shortcuts which is a very solid automation app. Many Android users also lament the lack of a visib…
I've never really wanted to tinker much with my smartphone. I want it to do a handful of simple tasks (calls, texts, maps, music, light web browsing), and otherwise get out of the way.
Similarly, I switched to Mac OS X awhile back after years on Linux and BSD, because I realized that I would never want to tinker with (the source code of) my web browser or word processor, and there was a whole tinker-friendly Unix system sitting right next door. Pace, Stallman, but I don't need the freedom to tinker everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand (also upvoted). This is why I bought the 256GB versions (although your photo archives might be even bigger). Not sure what I can recommend but in any case I'd probably get a professional camera with 400GB SD card. :D I mean, if you guys like to make long videos during a time outside, why not? I agree Apple's proposition has cracks by the way. Not arguing that. As for W10 Mobile, yep -- I sold my Lumia 15…
I finally gave in and moved back to Android. My wife wanted my Lumia 950 XL and she loves it. She's not going to be pleased when she needs to move to something else. That dedicated camera button is an incredibly nice feature. As for photos, I wouldn't say I take hundreds of gigabytes. The point is I don't want to have an anxiety attack over running out of space where I have low coverage. I can get a 512 GB microSD ca…
Use what serves you best. I recognise that your scenario isn't well-served by Apple. Of course you'll switch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not changing policy means escalating fines (those 4% of global revenue maximum are nothing to sneeze at, and so far compliance was the cheaper route) but also, at some point, the inability to operate in the EU. Even if a company only does the bare minimum required under GDPR, total deletion of data on request is part of that.
But these more severe measures are either 5-10 years away, or never going to happen at all (the latter part is my assumption, not claiming it as a fact). IMO the corporate board of directors will coast on the situation for as long as possible and only then will we see some changes, don't you agree?
There are a few cases already with fines around 2.8% of revenue, and those fines don't mean the DPA will go away. The expectation is that these fines are paid _and_ the reason for the fine is resolved.
Turnover in the 2.8% case (Taxa 4x35 in Denmark) was from Fall 2018 (start of investigation) to March 2019 (when the DPA reported the incident to the police and "recommended" that fine). Sadly the only follow-ups on the case that I could find are behind paywalls (so I can't read them), but apparently the DPA isn't done with them yet.
It's all a matter of exercising pressure, and it seems that the authorities are willing to do that.
I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns. I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me. Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.
Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that our data is their business model.
I get it: our online privacy is important. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to remain truly anonymous on the Internet, and this is mostly thanks to Google. However, the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any.
I believe we live in an age of online convenience, and not just for the average user. Google generally makes security-conscious products, especially with Chrome. Heuristics has proven to become very effective in combating online malicious behavior. By establishing our identities with Google, Google can generally say "we are who we say we are" with a degree of confidence, without us having to do much of anything. This is generally bad from a privacy stand-point, but can be good from a security stand-point.
Overall, I think Google has done good things for the Internet. But good things sometimes come at a cost, and sometimes third party companies want that cost paid in a way we do not agree with. I think Google is doing all they can to make that point clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to make the wrong information inaccessible.
Yeah. What else do you think search ranking does? Do you want an unsorted list of all websites that contain your keywords?
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
If Google's possession of all this data makes many new good things possible, then sharing this data broadly and freely with others would make even more good things possible. Would Google share the data with other corporations so that they, too, can innovate and serve the consumer even better? I mean, if I buy into the notion of Google's benevolence, I should buy into that notion for other corporations, shouldn't I?
This feels like bait, but I'll answer anyway. No. You should decide whether to give your personal data to organizations on a case by case basis, depending on whether you trust the organization in question, and the value proposition they offer in exchange for your data. If a company is able to share your data with whomever they want, you don't have that choice anymore. Which is why something like GDPR would be good to…