161–170 of 189 posts
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't correlate or combine information from our temporary or permanent logs with any personal information I'd say that depends on what definition of "personal" they're using.
https://policies.google.com/privacy/key-terms#toc-terms-pers... "Personal information This is information which you provide to us which personally identifies you, such as your name, email address or billing information, or other data which can be reasonably linked to such information by Google, such as information we associate with your Google account."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I disagree here pretty strongly, because although I hate tracking, there are perfectly fine technical solutions. Tracking on websites works like this: * the site sends your computer content and code * your computer runs the code, which causes it to send data about you to a whole bunch of third parties * meanwhile, your computer displays the content to you All you have to do is decide not to do step 2. It's your compu…
But what's problematic is that most users are clueless. And that browsers by default send all that data. To prevent that, you must (at least somewhat) know what you're doing, tweak settings, install add-ons, etc.
It'd be cool if browsers protected users' privacy, by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop communicating silently with your servers. Do it. Ask for each and every call to them unless the communication is already confirmed by users. Make all http* communication go trough http proxy which logs all the traffic in clearly visible form and only than make https. Show the data sent, make google play and framework open source. Enable users to see your hidden syncs (oh yeah those with asterisks infront (you DO…
The complaint above was about login screens "knowing" about people's locations. When you log in to a service (eg. Google), the device doesn't "silently" communicate with the servers, you asked it to. It sends a request with credentials, as it should. That request naturally comes with an IP address, which can be mapped to a rough location with no further information by the client.
Just some of the ways Google collects data [1]: Google Search, Google Fiber, Google Recaptcha, Google Translate, Google Adsense, Google Chrome (Safe Browsing checks etc.), Google DNS (8.8.4.4 etc.), Google Mail, Android Integrations, Google GSuite (Sheets, Docs, etc.), Google Drive, Google Analytics, Google AMP, YouTube So on and so forth. Of course, Google keeps most of this data to themselves to improve products an…
> Google Drive With the small drop of faith I have left in Google, I want to believe they don't read my files and use encryption. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
So, your data is uploaded over TLS or similar, gets decrypted on the server and then is re-encrypted before it's stored on hard drives.
So yeah, this does mean that they have access to your data. Since the at-rest-encryption happens on the server, Google has the encryption key for that somewhere and can at any point decrypt your data.
Presumably not everyone at Google gets your data for reading at home, but that's about as much comfort as you should assume.
The NSA, CIA, FBI can also request Google to decrypt your data and hand it over. They could not do the same, if Google used proper end-to-end-encryption.
There is one point to be made for not using E2EE, which is that you can't offer a "Forgot Password?"-link. If the user forgets their password, you can't decrypt their data either. All you can do is wipe their data and let them start anew.
If you use your cloud only for syncing, that's probably not a problem (for example Firefox Sync does exactly that on a scale of millions), but if you use it as a backup or to preserve hard drive space, it can certainly be.
So, you'll have to decide for yourself, if you think being allowed to forget your password is worth the surveillance and lowered security.
If not, use a different service. Spideroak, SeaFile and Mega.nz are a few that do E2EE.
If you do think so, at least use a service that's not at home in a surveillance state and surveillance company...
Just some of the ways Google collects data [1]: Google Search, Google Fiber, Google Recaptcha, Google Translate, Google Adsense, Google Chrome (Safe Browsing checks etc.), Google DNS (8.8.4.4 etc.), Google Mail, Android Integrations, Google GSuite (Sheets, Docs, etc.), Google Drive, Google Analytics, Google AMP, YouTube So on and so forth. Of course, Google keeps most of this data to themselves to improve products an…
Probably more critical here is Chrome Sync. They can and do read your entire browsing history through that.
With Safe Browsing, they at least still promise (in a legally binding way) that they don't store the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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. Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation of privacy. These websites belong to private entities. So it’s more like saying that because you voluntarily walked into my store, it’s ok for me to observe your behavior while yo…
No, it's more like saying that if I phone your store to ask how much some item costs, you think it's OK to come over to my house and peer through all of my windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the first place, your repeated assertion that you are anonymous in the data is wrong. A combination of zip code, date of birth, and gender will uniquely identify 87% of the people in the country [1], and I assure you advertisers have far more detailed information than that. In some cases, they have your DNA. [2] Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on th…
You obviously feel very passionate about this subject, so there is no point in attempting to convincing you to change your opinion, other than to reiterate that it is not a commonly held opinion. I did want to respond directly to one of your points that is dead wrong. With regard to this statement: >Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on their home page, t…
If CA were a "manufactured controversy", I think HN would've cottoned on to that quite a while ago, rather than the various comments (among thousands on the topic now) expressing surprise that people are suddenly paying attention to this:
50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16606924
Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641550
How Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook targeting model really worked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719403
Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first responded in 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16667805
The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16621885 (solid top comment on that thread)
Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721
Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16644067
I'm not, by the way, providing any of these links in my comments to try to change your mind. I realized several comments ago that you've got an entrenched and unmovable opinion that pervasive user tracking on the internet is no big deal. I've been providing these links for anyone else reading who might be interested in the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Facebook sold to an entity with the wrong political affiliation and we still have not passed the stage of one group in denial for why they lost and until they exhaust things to point fingers at it is not coming to an end soon. We all should be highly critical of Apple's stance in China and we should all fear the direction China is going because a great many Western politicians like that direction too and simp…
Because Facebook sold to an entity with the wrong political affiliation Can you clarify what you mean by "sold" here?
Clinton and Obama als bought ads there, but the controversy is primarily about Trump.