Personally I do think Google is not perfect but I never liked things such as Scroogled.
using a service like scroogle might help to avoid local/targeted search results (which I don't like most of the time)
Don't Trust Google (2002)
41–50 of 87 posts
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually yes it does know I stopped at both of those location. 1. The BP garage has a wireless AP with a known SSID to them. Location services uses this, the cell network and the GPS to build an accurate location. There are no other wireless networks at that location. I was at this location for around 10 minutes. Google location history shows this location on the mark. 2. They know that I was at the Pizza hut because…
You didn't explain how they knew about the PH/BP, which makes people assume it was due to location data (like your first example). However, as for comment #1, Google doesn't use the SSIDs to determine locations on mobile, they use the [MAC Addresses]( http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/... ). They do have a database that also includes SSIDs for these MAC addresses, but there could be a dozen…
You haven't explained why Google wouldn't know about PH/BP.
In Apple's implementation which I do know well the WiFi triangulation is enabled even at the coarsest resolution. Which is obvious since it is low cost. So if indeed there is one SSID/MAC in the area and it is coming from BP why would Google not know this ?
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#43Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#44Seems like recently these anti-Google posts are being dredged up at a noticeable rate. Is there a reason behind it or is all just ad hoc? For instance I wonder how OP stumbled about the link.
>For instance I wonder how OP stumbled about the link.
The same way I stumble across other pro-Google or anti-Google links.
Regardless it is completely irrelevant.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibratio…
> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. Wow. Did you actually see first hand anyone who was punished by Google for things said outside the workplace? And did this extend to topics other than Google?
I remember some of michaelochurch's comments that mentioned Steve Yegge at Google:
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.
I am really confused here. Why would Google Maps not use GPS at its highest resolution ?
Because in this instance, the argument/discussion is about the phone specifically, not Google Maps. When my phone is on stand-by, like when I'm driving and not using the GPS, the phone will rely on less battery-taxing things like triangulation, Wi-Fi AP's that Google knows (MAC/SSID ?). Google Maps would however use GPS when it is on, not when the user hasn't specifically turned it on.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.
I am really confused here. Why would Google Maps not use GPS at its highest resolution ?
No kidding, any Maps user can see their GPS location being collected when they use Maps. I think mynameisvlad may mean they wouldn't necessarily know if you stopped at a specific place as part of the location data collected when you're not using Maps, because in that case it may not use GPS. But I have a nice phone, battery life isn't really a concern to me, some software on the phone probably knows that too, and I don't trust the word of a random person on HN that the software wouldn't do an opportunistic GPS look up at least every now and then. In any case I want my phone to use GPS whenever it can so that it's as accurate as it can be, that's why I have in my settings GPS always enabled, with high accuracy (uses GPS, wi-fi, and mobile networks) and indeed I have Google Location Reporting on as well which looks up my location throughout the day whether or not I'm using Maps.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps not yet but they have amassed all the data the author describes and much more. For example, I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps. I stopped at Pizza Hut. Google knows that. I stopped at a BP garage. Google knows that. I searched for houses in an area in the UK via right move. Google knows that because the embedded map knows my Google cookie... And so forth...…
Google doesn't specifically know you stopped at Pizza Hut or the BP garage. It uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters. So it would know you stopped somewhere around the Pizza Hut, but not specifically that you went inside. Could have just as easily gone to the Tesco next door.
> [Google] uses coarse location (GPS being too taxing on battery to get constant location updates) which has an accuracy of 100+ meters.
You mean Google Maps -- the app -- doesn't use location data from GPS? I am pretty sure that isn't true.
If you meant Google Maps -- the service -- then the sentence doesn't make much sense, since it doesn't use any location service on the mobile directly. It is just interfacing with the mobile app over a network.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am really confused here. Why would Google Maps not use GPS at its highest resolution ?
Because in this instance, the argument/discussion is about the phone specifically, not Google Maps. When my phone is on stand-by, like when I'm driving and not using the GPS, the phone will rely on less battery-taxing things like triangulation, Wi-Fi AP's that Google knows (MAC/SSID ?). Google Maps would however use GPS when it is on, not when the user hasn't specifically turned it on.
> I just drove half way across the UK. Google knows that because I was using Google maps.
I think you're a little confused.
Re: Don't Trust Google (2002)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhmmm, nearly everything he described became a reality. Personalized search results, mass data gathering, filtering / censorship of results, the growth of Google to megalithic proportions ('next Microsoft'), etc.
> filtering / censorship of results Could you please elaborate on this one?
What is wrong with HN that simple questions with no obvious agenda are getting downvotes? It's becoming impossible to have even a simple conversation here any more.
(sorry, yes, rant ..., and far more deserving of downvotes than the parent)