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

New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

forbrukerradet.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 463 posts

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#211

Post by pje »

kache_ wrote: post #6

They constantly berate you to deactivate no tracking preferences on google maps. When you're aware of this fact you start seeing it everywhere, not just on google. For example, on Pinterest they will berate you to sign up using highlighted buttons on land, and the x button is out of the way on the top right corner. This end result is due to product managers/devs looking at conversion rates and optimizing for whatever…

It's almost like we need regulations to counteract what are otherwise inevitable consequences of profit maximization!

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#212

Post by davb »

levesque wrote: post #4

I tried using Google Maps without search history turned on. It's basically a downgraded version. They tied saving locations with the search history, so it won't let you search for friends' contacts, set a home address, etc. Is it on purpose? I don't know, but I find it weird that they would tie some unrelated features together. Why does setting a Home address require search history?

It's even worse than that. The toggle they make you turn on in order to save an address in Maps is "Web and App Activity". This includes your search history, app activity (including third party, non Google apps) and most worryingly your location history.

So in order to have my home address saved in Google Maps, I have to let Google monitor my location 24/7, see how often I use my banking app, and which medical complaints I've been searching recently. This seems pretty excessive and I think it's designed to be so (as the article linked above suggests).

I appreciate the services Google provides but the cost is becoming excessive. A paid option (with everything enabled and no tracking at all) or at least more granular permissions seem like the bare minimum as people become more privacy conscious.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#214

Post by mda »

itronitron wrote: post #80
benschulz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude makes me so off the charts angry, I struggle to put it into words. I think Jews in Germany in the 1920s didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or feel a need to actively hide it.

Schmidt's attitude shows just how much Google thinks it owns the internet. There is so much data out there that people can live in relative anonymity online (95% of bloggers) however Google crawls and indexes so much that many things become quite easy to find. All the tracking and linking and indexing that is done without a person's informed consent makes that person's intentional behavior a warped spotlight back on…

I think he was merely pointing out that All US companies are bound by US laws and when government asks them to dance they would eventually, reluctantly, dance.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#215

Post by StavrosK »

creato wrote: post #201
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous and unreasonable. The setting is unnecessarily restrictive. It's simple: "Do you want us to store your data on our servers?" Answering "no" should mean you store it locally, not that you don't store it at all. If you tell Google not to save your search history on their servers, they just disable it completely, when they could just save it locally. This is nowhere near a product problem. The setti…

> Answering "no" should mean you store it locally, not that you don't store it at all. If you tell Google not to save your search history on their servers, they just disable it completely, when they could just save it locally. I think you are ridiculously underestimating the complexity and issues that would arise with two separate mechanisms for saving the same kind of data, and an option to switch between the two. D…

> Do you download account-saved locations locally when changing to local storage?

No, you delete the data that's on the server. That's the reasonable way to handle a revocation of consent from the user.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#216

Post by bduerst »

colde wrote: post #40
tossaccount123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ A good read on Google and Eric Schmidt's relationship with the State Department and federal government in general "There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast"

I am not sure that is really a trustworthy source at this point. Particularly since it seems to focus a lot on involving Hillary.

Agreed. Wikileaks may have been reputable at some point in the past but they're not trustworthy now. It's not so much the 'focus on Hillary' but their focus on being pro-Russian state. [1]

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has his own show on RT [2], which mean's he's essentially being paid by Russia's state propaganda media [3]. That, along with attacking the Panama papers leak for "going after Putin", and a string of other pro-Russia activity, means Wikileaks is not to be trusted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_Russi...

[2] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-julian-assange-show/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#217

Post by StavrosK »

dzader wrote: post #182
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous and unreasonable. The setting is unnecessarily restrictive. It's simple: "Do you want us to store your data on our servers?" Answering "no" should mean you store it locally, not that you don't store it at all. If you tell Google not to save your search history on their servers, they just disable it completely, when they could just save it locally. This is nowhere near a product problem. The setti…

It's simple: "Do you want us to store your data on our servers?" Why don't you just build your own mapping software then if its all so easy?

Because then I wouldn't get inane comments from random commenters online and my life would be substantially worse.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#218

Post by _underfl0w_ »

dzader wrote: post #197
maxxxxx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Tying setting the home address to search history is pretty sleazy and there is no good explanation for this other than bullying people into turning on tracking. I am really getting tired of companies that want to suck up every piece of data.

Curious why you feel so entitled that you think Google should provide you with their free mapping service and features with nothing in exchange?

Either that or you weren't here for early versions of Google Maps, haven't heard of OsmAnd, Mapbox, OpenStreetMaps, etc. or you just really like calling people 'entitled'.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#219

Post by StavrosK »

stickfigure wrote: post #203
StavrosK wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous and unreasonable. The setting is unnecessarily restrictive. It's simple: "Do you want us to store your data on our servers?" Answering "no" should mean you store it locally, not that you don't store it at all. If you tell Google not to save your search history on their servers, they just disable it completely, when they could just save it locally. This is nowhere near a product problem. The setti…

[flagged]

Do you work at Google on the maps team? Do you know how the maps backend works or what the codebase of the app looks like? Do you have special expertise in the area?

Let me guess: No.

Yet not only are you so certain that it's hard, you're willing assign all sorts of benevolent motives to Google.

Re: New study: Google manipulates users into constant tracking

#220

Post by jstarfish »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #162
aljones wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a very conspicuous signal. I don't know which one of my friends use Amazon Smile. I don't think the dark pattern would work well if Amazon Smile was only social signalling. Seems to me it relies much more upon the fact that actual money is given to charities. Pretty gross of Amazon to add unrelated self serving conditions to such giving.

I think the question is whether we would prefer Amazon Smile to exist as it is or not exist at all. Even if there is a forced advertising aspect, it makes the world better.

That line of thinking is what let Jimmy Savile run amok for decades.
Post reply on HN