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

Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

bradfrost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 399 posts

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#331

Post by abiox »

stinos wrote: post #277
throwanem wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it serves the common good No, it serves Google.

First I was like "no, it does serve the common good". But on second thought: replay to 30 years ago, and there weren't really problems. Word-of-mouth combined with places closing because they were just too bad too survive worked fine. So maybe the common good doesn't need serving the Google way.. Possible real benefit is you can get super-detailed reviews from many different people. But I'm not sure there really is a…

these days, i wonder if the dynamics of 'word of mouth' is still operationally the same. the internet is isolating and alienating in it's own way, so i'm uncertain how well the 'old ways' (circa all of ~20 years ago) still function.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#332

Post by duskwuff »

adregan wrote: post #159
FreakyT wrote: post #87

This issue reminds me of a key permission iOS gives control over while Android (even post-Nougat) doesn't: The distinction between allowing an app to use location while the app is open versus anytime . Android makes no distinction between these two states, which opens up the ability for many apps (not just Google's) to enable automatic stalking mode. Take Yelp, for example. I do want it to be able to access my locati…

Yes! And the newest version of iOS grants you the ability to say "while using the app" for any app rather than just the apps where the developer gave the user that option.

And if an iOS app does request access to the user's location while in the background, it's required to have a specific explanation of why it needs that:

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge...

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#334

Post by ucaetano »

roma1n wrote: post #263
ucaetano wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not all users use the same services in the same way, so that would actually lead to a mass breakdown in the services. That's not how companies price services. Not by very, very, very far. There are many pricing strategies designed to make heavy users pay more and light users pay less, or rich users pay more and poor users pay less. Ideally, a company would charge a different price from every single user, and…

Precisely! Offering this as an option (a simple option, not a new business model in itself) would tap into a user base that uses ad blockers already anyway. So yeah, that would establish a sort of ceiling and communicate some information to competitors, but not much more. Anyway I'm convinced there's a solid rationale for not doing it, but I'm not sure what it is.

> Anyway I'm convinced there's a solid rationale for not doing it, but I'm not sure what it is.

That's usually my mindset.

I mostly see companies as very rational actors, and assume that different options usually have been looked into and discarded in a rational way. Therefore, whenever a company is doing something that doesn't make sense from my POV, I usually think (unless there's clear evidence against it) that there are solid reasons for that.

Sadly, most people (here on HN included) seem to act in a "I'm really smart, and if others are not doing what I think they should be doing is only because they are stupid, not because I don't have the full context from my armchair".

It's one of the aspects of game theory that I like the most: you have to force yourself to consider other agents rational and intelligent actors who will (in the context or corporations) chase profits just as you would.

That's why I trust companies far more than people or the government: I can always trust them to chase profits.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#335

Post by geofft »

rhizome wrote: post #322
geofft wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They registered with the nearest cell towers, and ask them to watch signal strength so they can make handover work. This is coarse location information (since the company that runs the cell towers knows where their own cell towers, and uses your current tower registration to figure out which cell tower to send a call to), and can be made a little more fine-grained if you use signal strength from the various towers an…

And that's fine, but none of this addresses the assertion that cellphones can't work without GPS tracking.

No such assertion was made.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#336

Post by abiox »

i don't mind google's data collection. the ergonomics of user-interaction can be a bit annoying.

that said, assuming we're safe and private because we turn stuff off, or opt out of things, just seems silly. the nsa (or whichever agency) just invokes 'something something national security' and they can track you just the same, and google (or your carrier, or various other intermediaries) can't even tell you about it.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#337

Post by saulrh »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #320
saulrh wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, that's how I feel about literally everything about myself. There is something wrong with my entire body. I do only use it because I have no better choice. To quote Eliezer Yudkowsky, "I'm sure Einstein was very smart for a human. I'm sure a General Systems Vehicle would think that was very cute of him." Like I said, I'm all aboard the transhumanism train. On the other hand, you're right that most peo…

I'm sorry, I didn't notice until you clarified that you suffer from actual memory issues; I assumed you were just using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. With the context clear, I see why you would want to refer to those tools as prostheses, given that they lift you to (and hopefully above) the "normal" values. And as you say, they indeed perform both augmentative and assistive functions.

Not a problem. You didn't dismiss it as "easily distracted" or try to condemn me for some kind of moral failure, which puts you ahead of quite a few of the users in this thread.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#338

Post by dingdongding »

singularity2001 wrote: post #327
singularity2001 wrote: post #316

This creep factor was the main reason why I got another IPhone. As a developer I'd much prefer an Android (hating the Apple Store but thats another story), however as a user Android was a total no-go.

I was even daring enough to install the superb Google keyboard on the iPhone but only because they explicitly repeatedly say that they do not send my data home. if they ever do Google is dead! Speaking of: Why does Siri (mother of all bitches) thinks she needs my GPS in order to tell me the weather??

Otherwise how the hell does Siri find out your accurate location to tell you weather. your IP address?

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#339

Post by scott_karana »

ehsankia wrote: post #177
pdelbarba wrote: post #17

Disregarding the privacy issues, I find this to also be insanely annoying. I want notifications to be important. Not a bunch of spam that ultimately equates to advertising.

How is notification spam a "privacy issue"? Can we call this by what it is, a "notification issue"? Yes, you can turn it off, but by default, it's slightly too aggressive. If it could be a bit less spammy, I'm sure people wouldn't get frustrated and turn it off entirely.

The notifications directly rely on private information.

Re: Google, You Creepy Sonofabitch

#340

Post by sosilkj »

saulrh wrote: post #42

I'm going to be completely honest here: If these things were behind a configuration option and defaulted to off, I'd have gone into my phone and turned that option on. I want to leave reviews for restaurants as I'm walking out of them - it serves the common good and doing it immediately is better for memory. I want to remember to download offline maps when I'm about to go somewhere where I won't have coverage. My mem…

This is pure corporate propaganda.
Post reply on HN