Google Fights Back • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fights Back

#301

Post by rangersanger » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #197

joefkelley wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so you trust them to store the email, and parse it for something like spam detection, but not for some smarter feature? What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place? Sounds like you shouldn't be using Gmail at all tbh.

You trust snail mail carriers not to read your mail. The digital equivalent of the envelope is encryption - the carrier is allowed to see the outside but not the inside. The function of encryption is lack of comprehension - the carrier still knows the exact encrypted bytes of your mail, but cannot comprehend it. We generally accept that this is already a useful proxy for privacy. Imagine a mail protocol that somehow…

My mail carrier can't read my mail because I'm in the US and there are laws against it. There are certainly mail carriers in the world that can and do read mail.

The answer here is privacy laws and auditability.

Re: Google Fights Back

#302

Post by bduerst » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

fjp wrote: post #279

djakjxnanjak wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does the phone company, right? This seems like something everybody should know before they send a text message.

which is why you use iMessage whenever possible

Doesn't matter if you're a Chinese user on an iPhone:

>Fast forward to today: China Telecom, a government owned telco, is taking over the iCloud data from Guizhou-Cloud Big Data. This essentially means that a state-owned firm now has access to all the iCloud data China-based users store, such as photos, notes, emails, and text messages.

https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...

Re: Google Fights Back

#303

Post by xvector » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #272

throwayEngineer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple is less evil than Google? Remember that Apple has been cracked by the FBI, has proprietary connectors, and charges more than anyone. I couldn't disagree more. Apple is horrible to customers and developers.

Apple got a ton of flak for adopting USB-C way before anyone else, which is the opposite of proprietary. I also don't see how "being cracked by the FBI" makes one evil, in fact I think resisting the FBI in the first place makes them good.

Why are people downvoting your comment here? You are 100% correct. Apple also made significant contributions to the development of USB-C and have the best implementation of USB-C with Thunderbolt 3 in their products bar none.

Yes, the iPhone still ships with Lightning connectors. But Lightning was revolutionary in a world full of phenomenally shitty Micro-USB connectors. It's really not a big deal, and Apple will move to USB-C for sure eventually.

Re: Google Fights Back

#304

Post by aerique » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #208

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #70

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…

> But my next phone will be an iPhone. I ordered a new old-stock Nexus 5X to run KDE Plasma on. Fuck both Google and Apple. I hope the Purism and Pinephone actually get released as well so we have more real Linux options. I hate we live in a world with totally non-standard mobile hardware. Back in the day you could wipe Windows and run Linux on nearly anything. Maybe you would only get VESA graphics or text, but it w…

I don't understand why no one mentions SailfishOS. It's an alternative that is available right now.

Sure, it's not up to the level of Android and iOS in most respects, but it takes effort to get something like this going. Also from the users. Like Linux 20 years ago.

Developing for it is not a nightmare either.

And it's running Linux so there's advantages as well.

I used it as my daily driver years ago and I've been using it as my daily driver again since six months or so.

Re: Google Fights Back

#305

Post by paavoova » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

Daniel_sk wrote: post #181

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Many Android users also lament the lack of a visible filesystem but that's a huge plus in my eyes That's awful in my eyes. What's more is my inability to browse that file system without a third party application when i want to simply move files to my computer. The only reason I'm even contemplating the move to iOS, is b/c I have a android based, digital audio player that has 2 SDcard slots that I keep disconnected f…

Android Q is adding scoped storage and it's more or less the end of a visible file system. Even the existing file manager apps will have trouble to show files without special permissions.

Key word is "permissions", right? Meaning apps that don't wish to scare users with permissions will adopt the new API, but existing filesystem access should continue to function. Otherwise this would be crippling to some users and apps and I doubt it would go over well.

Re: Google Fights Back

#306

Post by mkl » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #135

Nextgrid wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal action requires you to be able to prove they still hold the data. If they only use it for something where other factors affect the outcome (ad targeting, etc) they can still keep your data forever while hiding behind plausible deniability the other factors provide them (from outside, there’s no way to prove that a particular ad was served to you because of your data instead of another factor they use as input f…

> from outside, there’s no way to prove that a particular ad was served to you because of your data instead of another factor they use as input for the algorithm Create an account, use it to excessively look for tea pots until you predominantly get ads for tea pots. Store the cookie[0] that encodes your user id. Delete the account. After the advertised account retention period, try the cookie again in an otherwise sq…

If you're coming from the same device or IP address/range, that's enough of a link.

An anecdote: I stayed with relatives for a few days one time, and my two-year-old niece really liked one particular music video on YouTube, so it got played on their TV box 3-4 times during my visit. Not on my laptop, but I used said laptop on their wifi (not logged into Google products, as I never am). When I got home, YouTube highly recommended that video to me after I watched an unrelated video, when there was no other reason to recommend it (I didn't know the artist, almost never watch music videos, and it wasn't anything all that popular).

Re: Google Fights Back

#307

Post by groovybits » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

britch wrote: post #253

groovybits wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. 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 mal…

> the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any. You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do. As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that…

I look at it this way: What is your threat model?

What do you stand to lose if:

* Google shuts down tomorrow?

* Google turns into a malicious conspirator tomorrow?

* Google's databases are compromised by a separate malicious party tomorrow?

Each of these can have different outcomes for your data. Do you wish to mitigate, avoid, or accept that risk?

Likewise, what do you stand to gain from using Google services? AKA, do you get substance out of their services in exchange for the information you're giving them?

Everyone can have different answers to these questions. If you choose not to use Google services, more power to you. I simply encourage everyone to think about their threat model critically, and make an educated decision - rather than hopping on a bandwagon.

Re: Google Fights Back

#308

Post by mordymoop » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

I wonder if someone can explain to me why I should be upset about Google collecting my data. I would pay money for Google to continue collecting my data and improving its predictive model of my behavior, in order to better address my needs as they arise. They're getting better and better at this over time. It has improved my quality of life.

Re: Google Fights Back

#309

Post by archey1 » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

If only this technology could actually educate people, instead of being used as a crutch. This is what Google wants, to have you so dependent on their technology that living life without them is nearly impossible without them.

Re: Google Fights Back

#310

Post by bduerst » Wed, May 08, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

harryf wrote: post #103

TulliusCicero wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are you suggesting here? What's the fundamental problem that Google is managing instead of fixing, once and for all?

Discovery. From a technical point of view search doesn’t have to be centralized. Economics and the nature of markets may say different though

Any decentralized information system will suffer tragedy of the commons as bad actors exploit it's usefulness (imagine the SEO garbage), or have the vacuum of power filled by a few centralized players.

Before you say, "Bitcoin did it!", just look at the block size debacle or the fact that it's mostly controlled by a handful of Chinese miners.