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

Google is FUBAR

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Google is FUBAR

#271

Post by joebadmo »

nbm wrote: post #266
joebadmo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's leave the internal disquiet issue aside for now. The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions, I think. Of course you're right that there's always the potential for misuse, and the only way to avoid misuse completely is to never gather data. It's parallel to the argument against big government. It's also parallel to the argument against nuclear power. But in each of these ca…

> Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. Facebook doesn't sell anyone's data. Facebook, like Google, allows advertisers to target advertisements to a particular demographic of users without divulging that user's identity or data. (I work at Facebook.)

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Is there somewhere in the Facbook ToS that I can reference? I tried to find it, but couldn't.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#272

Post by joebadmo »

5l wrote: post #270
joebadmo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's leave the internal disquiet issue aside for now. The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions, I think. Of course you're right that there's always the potential for misuse, and the only way to avoid misuse completely is to never gather data. It's parallel to the argument against big government. It's also parallel to the argument against nuclear power. But in each of these ca…

> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions So far , but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free. > Google makes money by keeping that pri…

> We are paying for this with our privacy.

I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control in the future.

But back to the point of the thread: I don't think data collection is evil in and of itself, and so I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#273

Post by nbm »

joebadmo wrote: post #271
nbm wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google and Facebook both collect a lot of private information about their users. But Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data. Facebook doesn't sell anyone's data. Facebook, like Google, allows advertisers to target advertisements to a particular demographic of users without divulging that user's identity or data. (I work at Facebook.)

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Is there somewhere in the Facbook ToS that I can reference? I tried to find it, but couldn't.

You can read more about how ads work in non-legalese at:

    https://www.facebook.com/about/ads/
In non-legalese, how Facebook uses information it receives on users:

    https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info#howweuse
The actual data use policy:

    https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy
The path to these last two - click "Privacy" at the bottom of a Facebook page.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#274

Post by 5l »

joebadmo wrote: post #272
5l wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions So far , but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free. > Google makes money by keeping that pri…

> We are paying for this with our privacy. I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me. Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control…

> it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

To heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would give up privacy to obtain moderately more relevant search results, deserve neither privacy nor relevant search results.

Privacy is freedom, knowledge is power, convenience is safety.

> Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion

It might well be, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for in the meantime. I don't believe human society is evolved enough to handle a complete loss of privacy quite yet.

> Credit card companies [...] [sell our] data with absolutely no compunctions

You've just reinforced my earlier point. This is precisely why we don't want Google to profit from our personal data. I want Google to stay on my side.

> I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil

I didn't. But as I said earlier, if they allow themselves to enter into a situation where they're either forced to do "evil" or can't tell if what they're doing is "evil" or not, they are not adhering to the spirit of their motto.

However I think at this point we should call it a day and agree to disagree as we're starting to go around in circles. I did very much enjoy the discussion though and it gave me much food for thought.

I'll leave you with this:

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. [...] Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people. (Bruce Schneier)

...and the last word, if you want it!

Re: Google is FUBAR

#275

Post by joebadmo »

5l wrote: post #274
joebadmo wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are paying for this with our privacy. I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me. Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control…

> it seems like a pretty fair deal to me. To heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would give up privacy to obtain moderately more relevant search results, deserve neither privacy nor relevant search results. Privacy is freedom, knowledge is power, convenience is safety. > Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion It might well be, but that doesn't mean it's not…

Fair enough. And to be perfectly honest, I do go back and forth and the issue of privacy. It's certainly a complex and important issue, and I'm glad that there are reasonable people on both sides of it.

On a meta-level, I find that while I'm rarely swayed in the course of an argument, I often internalize some part of the opposing argument and at some later point find myself with a more nuanced, if not completely different position.

So, thanks again for the great discussion! I also enjoyed it quite a lot, and it definitely gave me plenty to think about. It's always a pleasure to have an intellectually honest discussion, and for all the lamentations about declining quality of discourse on HN, I find myself having plenty of great ones like this.

My name's Joe, and you should let me know if you're ever in Portland, Oregon so we can get some coffee or something!

Re: Google is FUBAR

#276

Post by klheyman »

jcrites wrote: post #217
mvgoogler wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just show me the most relevant links" Here's the rub - for a given query there is no such thing as the list of link that are "most relevant". Different people will have (potentially widely) divergent opinions on what the most relevant set of links are for the exact same query . The goal Google web-search [1] is to show you the links from the whole web that are most relevant to you . Knowing more about you allows a s…

Here is a concrete example. A few days ago I visited Google and, rather tentatively, typed in the word "ring". I was expecting to get garbage pages about wedding rings, or something like that. As its #1 result, Google sent me where I had wanted to go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) By knowing my interests lie in computer science, technology, and mathematics, Google was able to return this for me as t…

But your own example implies that you could've achieved the same results by simply using the "and" operator: ring AND mathematics. No reason to give up privacy.

I'm actually surprised that your friends didn't get the Wikipedia entry on "ring" among their top results. When I ran the search on both Google and Bing, it came up second.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#277

Post by dnlhoust »

potatolicious wrote: post #236
yanw wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the toggle to turn off the social stuff then.

I still think it's very poor design that the toggle is: 1 - Completely unlabeled, nor is the icon indicative/clear. 2 - Not sticky . It will turn itself back on, even though this is neither implied nor stated in the UI. 3 - The only way to actually turn it off is to dig into your search settings - what percentage of your users actually know that exists, much less think about looking there?

I'd argue that a user looking to configure the settings of their search, are likely to think about looking in the search settings.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#278

Post by pmiller2 »

jcrites wrote: post #217
mvgoogler wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just show me the most relevant links" Here's the rub - for a given query there is no such thing as the list of link that are "most relevant". Different people will have (potentially widely) divergent opinions on what the most relevant set of links are for the exact same query . The goal Google web-search [1] is to show you the links from the whole web that are most relevant to you . Knowing more about you allows a s…

Here is a concrete example. A few days ago I visited Google and, rather tentatively, typed in the word "ring". I was expecting to get garbage pages about wedding rings, or something like that. As its #1 result, Google sent me where I had wanted to go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) By knowing my interests lie in computer science, technology, and mathematics, Google was able to return this for me as t…

I hate to tell you this, but you'd get that as the first result even if you weren't logged in.
Post reply on HN