> GoogleApi.ContentWarehouse.V1.Model.AppsPeopleOzExternalMergedpeopleapiAboutMeExtendedDataPhotosCompareDataDiffData Java, is that you?!
Missing the ‘ManagerAgentUtil’ at the end.
Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
41–50 of 312 posts
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#42If anyone is surprised about chrome sending urls to Google, you can turn the “feature” off by unchecking “Make searches and browsing better” in the sync section of Google chrome settings. Creepy.
Imagine thinking you can escape your abuser by living in their house and asking them politely to stop.
[deleted]
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#43If anyone is surprised about chrome sending urls to Google, you can turn the “feature” off by unchecking “Make searches and browsing better” in the sync section of Google chrome settings. Creepy.
Or, and hear me out, you never use Chrome again, in any platform.. like ever ever again.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#44Where is the link to the document?
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#45Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that preventing "sharing" isn't sufficient. People who are concerned about privacy don't want any such data collected or stored in the first place, ever. The implicit "sharing" of my data with Google (or whatever company) is a problem in itself. Regardless of how "seriously" Google (or whatever company) takes it, for a lot of the data I don't want them to ever have it in the first place.
This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. In fact it's sufficiently reasonable that I believe GDPR allows this to be opt-out, something I broadly agree with. I do think opt-outs should be availab…
[deleted]
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#47> Prior to the email and call, I had neither met nor heard of the person who emailed me about this leak. They asked that their identity remain veiled And yet the journalist included a screenshot with one of the weakest blurs I've ever seen... Why would you not excise the person's video portion completely? What good does it serve to have it included in the story? Even if that portion is faked, why would you offer pote…
The author is Rand Fishkin, who's not a journalist. He's the founder of SparkToro and Moz, both companies that provide tooling and analytics for SEO.
I haven't looked deeply into Fishkin's companies, but I wouldn't expect either to be on the user's side when it comes to privacy. Both companies seem to monetize clickstream data and personal information from users who probably didn't give informed consent.
If the source was trying to get this information to a responsible journalist who cares about privacy, I have no idea why they'd approach a company (not even a news organization) who seems to fund the erosion of user privacy.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's stopping you? I use both browsers and I see no reason why someone would pick Chrome over Firefox at this point in time.
(Some) sites don't work on Firefox. Sure it isn't frequent, but it is frequent enough that once a day or so I have to open chrome to do something.
Once a day? That’s huge. What sites? (I use Firefox daily for about the last year and haven’t had this kind of issue)
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#49TL;DR Google lies about how its search algorithm works.
Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents
#50> My anonymous source claimed that way back in 2005, Google wanted the full clickstream of billions of Internet users, and with Chrome, they’ve now got it. The API documents suggest Google calculates several types of metrics that can be called using Chrome views related to both individual pages and entire domains. What answer do the engineers at google working on this have for this violation of privacy?
Personal (not work related opinion): This basically can’t happen with things like DMA and GDPR. DMA in particular means you can’t share data across “products” without explicit consent. So you could for example collect websites that don’t work for the purposes of improving Chrome, but not then share that with the Ads/Search orgs for personalisation or targeting, as far as I understand the legislation. Personal opinion…
> This basically can’t happen with things like DMA and GDPR
I'm sorry but this is just wishful thinking. It might be what the spirit of the DMA & GDPR want but definitely not the reality thanks to inadequate or outright non-existent enforcement.
There are businesses out there whose entire business model and revenue stream are based on violating the GDPR. Not some kind of internal conspiracy or rogue employee, but the entire company is doing it in the open and the result of its doings (targeted ads or spam) are visible out there in the open for all to see.
Facebook, credit bureaus, data brokers, "consent management platforms", etc. All these companies' business models are big, obvious breaches of the GDPR. Yet, they are... still alive and kicking?
There is no chance that a concealed GDPR breach (whether intentional or accidental) will get addressed when the biggest intentional breaches are still allowed to continue out there in the open.
I suspect something very similar is going to happen with the DMA - Apple is already acting in bad faith but have yet to see any consequences.