[HN Gopher] Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep t... ___________________________________________________________________ Google made it nearly impossible for users to keep their location private Author : CapitalistCartr Score : 501 points Date : 2021-05-29 12:14 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.businessinsider.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.businessinsider.com) | heavyset_go wrote: | You can't even use most of the new Chromecast's features without | enabling Web & App Activity tracking on your Google account. | | Web & App Activity tracking keeps detailed logs of every search | term you use, every time you install or open an app, the sites | you visit, etc. | oblib wrote: | Oddly, when loaded Google News this afternoon and clicked on | "Local News" it showed me news for New York. I live in SW | Missouri. I'm using Firefox with FB Container and Privacy Badger | on a Mac mini (Late 2009). | tomohawk wrote: | the only way to fix this is to make it so that any information | about a person is owned by that person, regardless of who is | storing it or how it was collected. companies should have to pay | rent to the data owners every year. | | the only exception should be information collected by the | government with a court issued warrant. | takker wrote: | Google dropped the "don't be evil" motto in 2015 - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil | JCM9 wrote: | There's a huge privacy battle on the horizon in tech. The initial | scuffles are just the beginning. Google and Facebook's business | models depend deeply on being able to track information that | consumers are increasingly unhappy to share. Both companies | attempts to diversify their dependency on such info for their | revenue have been broadly unsuccessful (Google fiber or a Google | car anyone?). | | Meanwhile the likes of Apple and others are taking a stance of | making it increasingly hard for Google and Facebook to do what | they want to via updates now advertised as "features" that | protect consumers. As these documents highlight Google knows | consumers want this privacy and it scares the $&!& out of them. | Interesting days ahead. | mistrial9 wrote: | as an American skilled in computer science, I am literally | aghast at what the mobile phone has done in barely fifteen | years, degrading decades and in fact centuries of individual | rights mores. | | Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, in East Asia, there was a | completely different series of social evolutions, such that a | large majority of people are not bothered and in fact expect | services tied to identity tied to finance. This conveniently is | expressed by a government issued ID tied to a smart phone | number tied to banking. There are exceptions but not the | majority. This simple formula is repugnant to my US Western | sense of social boundaries. | | Investors are the ones that seem to have no problem with | individuals giving up their privacy, while the people in | question cross the gamut of social condition. | dv_dt wrote: | In a way it seems pragmatic. You say all the boundaries are | being violated, you might as well get something out of it. | Also I'm not sure there's a lot of difference in loss of | privacy and tapping or swiping a credit card. | vageli wrote: | > Also I'm not sure there's a lot of difference in loss of | privacy and tapping or swiping a credit card. | | Well for one thing, at least in my experience, most credit | card transaction data does not include granular information | about the transaction (like the list of groceries you | bought). | dv_dt wrote: | I was ambiguous in my comment, but in my mind I was | thinking about the loss of privacy from newer electronic | transaction standards vs credit cards transactions. I | suspect itemized data is generally not transmitted with | the newer standards but I could be wrong. | amelius wrote: | I would like to know if this is still true. | izacus wrote: | > Well for one thing, at least in my experience, most | credit card transaction data does not include granular | information about the transaction (like the list of | groceries you bought). | | No, that information is collected as part of the "points" | discount card and then sold to advertisers together with | your credit card transation data. | Tarragon wrote: | You don't have to give them the points card. | | Also, I know an engineer that was inside a monstrous | grocery chain many years back. Back then the payment and | loyalty systems were separated by technical measures and | firing level policies. If you used a CC without a points | card they were not able to associate it to any kind of | account. | | Obviously the CC processor could but they didn't get a | list of purchases. | twhb wrote: | If you use the same credit card at walmart.com and in a | physical Walmart store, then your itemized in-store | purchases will show up as orders in your walmart.com | account. This is without providing any other form of ID. | throwawayboise wrote: | But to what benefit? I use a discount card at my local | supermarket. It also saves me anywhere from $0.10 - | $0.40/gallon on gasoline. Beyond getting lower prices, I | don't see any personalized marketing tied to my use of | the card. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | But the supermarkets gather that data, for sure. Several | times I've bought a brand name item, then reverted to | generic, then got offers related to that brand (just | because I was buying based on value). I assume if they | can establish a buying pattern with a few offers then | often that will convert someone to the brand goods. (It's | way easier just to pick the packet that looks like the | one you got before than it is to look for the best | offer). | | One thing about returning to relative wealth is how much | stress it removes from 'weekly' shopping. | ipython wrote: | Using a credit card still has an easily recognizable | physical interaction element that's easy for most people to | understand. "I swipe my card, so my card company and maybe | others know what I bought and where". | | The pervasive passive collection on a mobile phone is | harder to internalize. "I carry a persistent, always on | radio beacon that can record and transmit to arbitrary | third parties all of my actions, searches, continual | location, contacts both electronically and in person, and | is tied directly to my identity (many countries require ID | to obtain a SIM card)" is not how most non tech people | would describe their mobile phone. | dv_dt wrote: | Sorry I was ambiguous in my comment. The smartphone | itself is a different privacy question, but is the | digital transaction interface losing anything more than a | credit card swipe? | deadmutex wrote: | > is not how most non tech people would describe their | mobile phone. | | Yeah, being in tech, I wouldn't describe it like that | either. It seems like so overboard that I would describe | your post as misinformation/FUD. | 0800LUCAS wrote: | > Both companies attempts to diversify their dependency on such | info for their revenue have been broadly unsuccessful (Google | fiber or a Google car anyone?) | | IMO, you're wrong on this one. Things like Google fiber/car are | not ways to diversify Google's revenue. | | They are just more tools in their arsenal to keep collecting | more data on users and improving their ads. | | By offering things like Google fiber, they ensure more people | get online and that's more data they can collect. | | Same with FB. Terragraph and Aquila are/were just ways to get | people online so more data can be collected and fed into "the | machine" | Closi wrote: | I think there are three categories of projects at Google: | | 1) Working out how they can milk even more money out of their | magic cash cow of online advertising by providing more | opportunities to serve ads (YouTube, Gmail, Maps) | | 2) Protecting their magic cash cow (ads) from external | threats, the main threat being a loss of tracking (Chrome, | Android, Fibre, Google Analytics, Ok Google, Maps). _(As an | aside, if you use Chrome and want to avoid this kind of | behaviour, please consider swapping to a truly open source | non-tracking browser)_ | | 3) Trying to find another magic cash cow before the first one | runs out of milk (Eg Google Cloud, YouTube Red) | | Some things will fall into multiple buckets, for example | Google Maps and Gmail offers both an opportunity to further | track users and serve them ads - double whammy! | | I suspect Google Cars are more about category 3, although | have no doubt that they will be mined for data as much as | possible to serve categories 1 & 2. Agree with your point on | fibre - it looks like that is an attempt to own even more of | the tech stack to provide even more methods to track. | croes wrote: | The best part is, that it's not proven that all this tailored | ads really have the desired effect. Especially if many buy | those ads. Most of them are useless because the targeted | customer only choose one to buy from for a wanted product, if | he is choice is based on ads at all. | graphtrader wrote: | This is the real rub to me. | | It would be one thing if you rip off all my data but I am | constantly seeing ads for cool things I would never have | found otherwise and can't wait to buy. Instead the ads are | always shit that I never even consider. | | If things were not tailored I would probably randomly run | across products that are just outside my current taste but at | least spark some interest. | ipaddr wrote: | The one who pays the most is the one who gets the spot. | Tailored to make the most profit and you are part of a | group of people who buy 'x' product. The group might be | males, 20-25 year olds, sailors from Malta. You would | expect ads for sailing equipment or vacations or beer. This | group get's an ads for Corn Flakes instead. Why because | Kellogg want to attract more young males and they may | target a spot like sailing where they will sponser races | and buy as many digital ads in that category as they can. | You seeing cereal ads makes it seem very untargeted but in | reality your data has been highly targetted to give you the | unwanted ad. | trulyme wrote: | This! Customer is served, except the customer is not the | site visitor, it is the advertiser. | cookiengineer wrote: | I think in the future in order to stay private online, there's | no way unless web traffic is decentralized off their servers. | | That is the real power behind a peer-to-peer system in my | opinion: Offloading, and therefore removing the capabilities to | track anything as a single node in the system. | | The only issue is peer-to-peer transport encryption, which can | be solved if done correctly. | | Something like "statistically correct" DNS, or assets, or | contents should've been the norm a long time ago. That's | exactly what I'm striving for with my Tholian Stealth Browser | [1] | | (to clarify: I mean peer-to-peer as a networking concept, | specifically as the opposite concept of a decentralized | blockchain) | | [1] https://github.com/tholian-network/stealth | meltedcapacitor wrote: | If a peer to peer system of interest caught on, I'm sure | google would be glad to run 90% of the nodes (incognito) to | have some view of what's happening therein. | petters wrote: | Google would be able to get a ton of revenue without tracking | users at all. Selling ads based on search keywords would still | work very well | joe_fishfish wrote: | Indeed, that's DuckDuckGo's main monetisation strategy right | now, and it's working very well for them. | ColinHayhurst wrote: | True and for others perhaps. But they still rely on the ad | networks of, and passing data on to Microsoft (DDG, | Ecosia....) or Google (Startpage). | | Apologies for the self-promotion but there is another way: | https://www.mojeek.com/support/ads/ | Vespasian wrote: | Google even managed to incur heavy losses from offering cloud | infrastructure services. A business which usually is a | guaranteed golden goose. | | They are really bad at making money with anything that isn't | advertising. | readams wrote: | Google cloud has huge year over year growth, and does really | well especially in retail sectors. The losses are an | investment. | | Also, not sure where you get that is a guaranteed golden | goose. Most companies that are in this space don't do well. | tomrod wrote: | I'm pretty sure they're doing that to draw folks from AWS and | similar. | ForHackernews wrote: | Yeah, but you'd have to be a fool to go. | | Google has proven over and over again that they don't value | customer support or long term maintenance. They will get | bored and sunset services you depend on, or switch off your | entire business because some employee sent suspicious email | on his gmail. | Spooky23 wrote: | GCP is very different than the consumer services. | ForHackernews wrote: | So they claim. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/gbh7p6/gcp_ | sus... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26252533 | quotemstr wrote: | > Google and Facebook's business models depend deeply on being | able to track information that consumers are increasingly | unhappy to share | | I see no evidence that regular people are particularly unhappy | with sharing their information. While it's true that on the | internet there's a loud privacy activist movement that's grown | over the past few years, I don't think this movement reflects | the true preferences of the silent majority. I think it's a | self-serving moral panic. | | Users benefit from the services that their information funds. | It would be a mistake to incinerate trillions of dollars of | institutional value on the say-so of a few strident and | unrepresentative activist voices. | swader999 wrote: | 75 million in the USA that voted for the Red team saw close | up the stifling censorship and deplatforming. Awareness is | growing but I do agree behavior will be slow to change. | JCM9 wrote: | A key point if the article is that consumer sentiment is | shifting, Google knows it, and isn't happy about that. | croes wrote: | Because most users do not know what consequences their data | can have. The whole business is completely opaque. A few | years ago, it turned out that Apple users were shown higher | prices in online shops just because they had used an Apple | browser. I doubt they were happy about it, but as long as | they didn't know, they had seen no problem in sharing this | information. | anoncake wrote: | > I see no evidence that regular people are particularly | unhappy with sharing their information. | | Then why trick Google and Facebook them into doing that | instead of making it opt-in? | nojito wrote: | >I see no evidence that regular people are particularly | unhappy with sharing their information. | | There's actually a pretty cool graph from Google from the | court docs that says the opposite. | | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2f1tSEWYAAVHGY?format=jpg&name=. | .. | joshuamorton wrote: | That graph didn't have a scale. It could be that 97% of | users disabled the feature, or less than 1%. You just don't | know. | nojito wrote: | If the scale didn't matter, Google would not have called | it a "Problem" | joshuamorton wrote: | I think what it comes down to is that a small number of | people coughs be "a problem", while still not being | evidence that the median regular person or whatever | cares. | clairity wrote: | personal data should be 2-party consent for every data sale | transaction by law, not this 'opted-in by corporate mandate and | backed by regulatory capture and monopolistic power' we have | now. people should be able to negotiate a rate at which they're | willing to allow the corporation to sell their data, including | not allowing it at all ever. | amelius wrote: | Can't we have a smart contract system where every company in | possession of some user data can be asked to provide a | machine-verifiable proof that it legally obtained that | information? | foobiekr wrote: | There is no technical solution to this problem. First | parties can just lie or use dark patterns to gain | permission. | amelius wrote: | Look, if some authority finds your personal information | on some server, and they can't produce your digital | signature on a contract which says that the company can | keep the information from some date to some other date, | then they are in violation. It is simply not possible to | lie about it. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature | clairity wrote: | sure, but it's essentially a social/legal problem, not a | technical one. the onus is on the company holding data to | show the chain of consent, which doesn't require anything | fancy outside a purpose-built database. | amelius wrote: | So how does that work then? How does Google prove that I | clicked that accept-EULA button? Or that I approve of | them keeping track of my information? I never put my | signature anywhere and still there are companies holding | or even trading my information. | | > it's essentially a social/legal problem, not a | technical one | | And ironically, it's the tech companies who are getting | away with it. | clairity wrote: | right, that's the social/legal problem, that consent is | assumed, and i'd argue, coerced. bundling like this is | actually an anti-trust concern, because it's using power | in one market (for instance, search) to exert control in | another (data brokerage), but we've collectively lost | sight of this being a problem. | | but yes, they should be required to get your unambiguous | consent for data sharing separate from any other | transaction, otherwise it shouldn't be considered | consent. | nofunsir wrote: | The Google fiber project was very much a aligned with their | regular business model. | | Google fiber is dead because deep packet inspection is dead. | | The preemptive bad PR around snoopvertising and AT&T trying to | compete made Google go, "oh yeah man ... we totally will not | engage in deep packet inspection. Psh, stupid AT&T, what | creeeps (ok guys shut it down!)" | azalemeth wrote: | One thing I've been meaning to do for a while is try to use a | 'hardcore' AOSP 'de-googled' Android rom, like ParanoidAndroid. | I've no idea how much of a pain in the arse this will be. Heck, | being rooted causes enough unexpected "why do you not work" | moments for me. If anything, I feel Google has got more hostile | to the privacy-conscious user over time. | | The trouble with privacy as a product is that it's _very_ hard | to verify it. Apple has basically said "Trust us, We're Okay" | and smaller fry are even harder to verify. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | now i wonder to what degree apple's public refusal to unlock | a particular phone for the FBI was a publicity stunt... | gruez wrote: | >One thing I've been meaning to do for a while is try to use | a 'hardcore' AOSP 'de-googled' Android rom, like | ParanoidAndroid. | | I used paranoid android in the past and it definitely isn't | privacy focused. The name makes it sound it's privacy focused | but that's about it. | yosamino wrote: | I've never run, willing or knowlingly, an android phone that | has not been de-googlified as my main phone (since my n900 | died in 2012 ... I miss it ). | | For my purposes, that works out well, there are, within | reason, replacements for all the basics. And now that I have | done it for so long, I don't really know how having an | android phone _with_ google works. The niche is big enough | that something like https://microg.org/ exists that | implements some of the core libraries for using google, | without using google code. This enable installing some things | from the playstore if neccessary ( I have not had the need - | but I understand I am in a tiny minority ) - and it made it | possible to install some corona contact tracing apps without | having to rely on the google implementation. | | I am sure though, and I see it around me, that things won't | continue exactly as before just without google, because of | how deeply ingrained tracking everyone and everything all the | time is. | | I don't know how hardcore you wanna get, but you might also | want to take a look here https://e.foundation/ , here | https://lineageos.org and here https://f-droid.org | | There's like - _dozens_ of us | | ...and thank you for reminding me of ParanoidAndroid. I 've | not tried them in a while. | user-the-name wrote: | This kind of stuff is not, in general, possible to verify. | You will always be trusting someone to be doing what they say | they are doing. | | This isn't a bad thing. Society is built on trust. All it | means is that there needs to be consequences for breaking | that trust, to keep everyone honest. | Accacin wrote: | Do it! I switched from iOS to a Google 4a last week, and have | flashed my phone with CalyxOS. I was very tempted by | GrapheneOS, but having microg built into Calyx has meant the | very few apps I want that aren't on fdroid work perfectly | fine for me (so far, these are my banking apps). | | CalyxOS turned out to be about perfect for my use case, and | I've been incredibly happy with it. | | They have a flashing tool, which basically involved me | plugging my phone into my laptop and running a script. Only | thing I really needed to do was follow the prompts. | foobiekr wrote: | Google Fiber was about: | | threatening behavior of the carriers and net neutrality | | obtaining access rights to add fiber when new placement | occurred | | ... not trying to build a viable new business. | | Waymo (and basically all of X) is there to make google look | sexy and to provide an exec playground than actual businesses. | The Waymo team is the most competent team in the space and they | know there is no business there this decade. | bpodgursky wrote: | Amusingly, I've shared my location permanently with a couple | close friends on Google Maps, and Google will not shut up about | it, reminding me every month about it. | | I get aggressive monthly warnings "Are you SURE you want to share | your location with XX,YY,ZZ?". I wish there was a toggle where I | could say "yes, I absolutely positively am OK with the privacy | implications here, because I don't care very much; please forever | stop bothering me." | aforty wrote: | This isn't the point of the article. The point is that you | can't share your data with your friends without sharing that | data with Google the company as well. | joshuamorton wrote: | Going to have to say "duh" here. Short of an e2ee location | sharing app, you have to send your location through an | intermediary for your friend to see it. | dzdt wrote: | It is "duh" that google has access to the information as | they relay it from your phone to another party. But you | could imagine it being like the post office, where in the | US it is a federal offense to read someone's mail en route. | Google could convey the location information with a "sealed | envelope" policy. But they don't. | folmar wrote: | > Short of an e2ee location sharing app | | Delta chat can do it for you. | julianmarq wrote: | I saw some people saying that this makes them want to switch | towards iphones next. | | I'm not gonna lie, I considered it for a moment too, like a year | ago... But apple is now engaging in its own share of dark | patterns and is now collecting data too. There have been multiple | articles on the matter shared _here_ even. | | Thinking that apple is better than google for privacy (or, even | if it is _right now_ , that it will remain so for any reasonable | amount of time) is... overly optimistic, _at best_. | | Unless it chances paths, of course, which I don't see likely. | schmorptron wrote: | Same exact thinking here, plus apple devices being way | expensive for not much gain over cheaper devices + not being | able to install apps not from the app store + fully closed | source OS is keeping me on the android team as well. | Drew_ wrote: | I've considered switching to iPhone many many times mostly just | for iMessage and Facetime. Every time I change my mind after | just a few minutes of considering what switching to iOS | entails. | deadmutex wrote: | Yeah, I am not a huge fan of company lock-in. Apple makes | their money on hardware, so they try really hard to keep | people locked in [1]. | | "c. However, Craig Federighi, Apple's Senior Vice President | of Software Engineering and the executive in charge of iOS, | feared that "iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove | [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android | phones". (PX407, at '122.)" | | Yeah, Apple doesn't really seem very consumer friendly as | people in this thread suggest. | | [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/09/epic-apple-no- | imessage-... | judge2020 wrote: | They're consumer friendly In a different spot than the | competition. It's pick your poison - privacy, or money. | GoofballJones wrote: | The difference is the "terms of service" on these | things...something many, including many here, don't even bother | reading. Apple specifically states they don't collect your | data..which is why when there are times people find out that | they have (like the time they were caught having real people | listen in to Siri requests to see if they were accurate), all | hell broke loose and there are several lawsuits about that very | thing against Apple. | | Google says right up front, right in the open "hey, we're gonna | look over your shoulder at EVERYTHING you do with your phone. | Go ahead and switch off all those placebo buttons on the | "privacy" tabs, but we'll still glean telemetry from you". Ok, | they don't use those exact words, but they do state that's what | they do. But even then, it's not enough for them so they dig | more and more and more. | | Apple gets their feet held to the flames all the time, | especially now that they're leaning into the privacy. Will the | convince anyone here? I doubt it. Everyone here are "experts" | and they're not gonna let Apple fool them! No-sir-re! | heavyset_go wrote: | > _There have been multiple articles on the matter shared here | even._ | | Here are the threads I'm aware of off the top of my head. What | other threads should I look into? | | - _Apple 's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments_[1] | | - _Apple reportedly dropped plan for encrypting backups after | FBI complained (2020)_ [2] | | - _Apple puts more adverts in App Store after ad-tracking ban_ | [3] | | - _Apple to boost ads business as iPhone changes hurt Facebook_ | [4] | | - _Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years | to fully cut ties_ [5] | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207 | | [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27051736 | | [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26901868 | | [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25607386 | GoofballJones wrote: | 1. Thanks..as it shows the article in question was full of | holes, such as the Russians requiring an app be baked in and | not being able to uninstall. This was false. | | 2. This is for iCLOUD backups. Yes, that's a problem. But you | can turn off iCloud backups totally...and then use your | computer to make the backup while tethered and THAT can be | encrypted. If your security conscience, don't use iCloud | back-up. Yes. | | 3. Adverts in the App Store aren't tracking you. They're | adverts in the app store. I forget that when someone these | days sees an ad, their face melts. | | 4. Again, Apple isn't sitting there looking over your | shoulder watching everything you do for the ads. The ads are | for the apps that are "free" and get revenue from the ads in | their apps. Usually pushing people to pay the $1.99 for the | app. Annoying, yes. On the level of Facebook or Google? Not | even close. But keep an eye on this. | | 5. Apple took 3 years to fully cut ties with a supplier using | child labor. Fully cut ties. They are no longer doing | it...but took their sweet time. Again, hold their feet to the | fire over this. | lazyeye wrote: | It used to be "don't be evil". Now its "hide, deny and obsfucate | our evil". | filterfish wrote: | Or put more plainly we're just a bunch of cunts. | sthnblllII wrote: | No, the guy who takes your parking space is a cunt. Google is | evil. | vishnugupta wrote: | I've internalised the adage "Don't listen to what | people/corporations say, watch what they do" and found it very | useful to see through these fancy statements. | | It's especially useful at workplace to observe what people do | and understand the politics. And at a different level observing | how Google was _acting_ more evil by the day made me completely | switch over to the Apple ecosystem. | kaba0 wrote: | Corporations after a certain size become essentially AIs | without moral values maximizing profit. It's funny how some | fear the paper clip AI, when capitalism is exactly that. Any | decision that seems to be in good moral is simply based on | which direction is more profitable, eg, can Company get away | in terms of public image with a non-moral decision, or would | it then away more potential buyer? | koheripbal wrote: | I think a more useful life lesson is that an organization's | motto is not a useful measure of its true internal or external | ethics - regardless of what it says - regardless of the type of | organization. | | A motto is, by definition, marketing. | | Even more generally, I worry about the trend on social media to | value words so much more than actions. | rodgerd wrote: | Values are what you talk about. | | Culture is what you do. | filterfish wrote: | In the early days they did seem to follow that motto so there | was at least some cause to believe them. | bogwog wrote: | Or better yet, that a large corporation and a mega | corporation are two different beasts. | | The latter needs to be regulated. | | I disagree that a motto is just marketing fluff. Especially | in smaller companies, a mission statement can provide | guidance that, in practical terms, acts as a tool for | decision making for every employee in the organization (and | to some extent, partners and clients) | | But once they're large enough where they could collapse the | world economy if the CEO snorts a bad batch one day and | decides to fire everyone, then that type of stuff is | meaningless. | musingsole wrote: | The old company motto was a very effective canary. | [deleted] | alexander_gold wrote: | https://cannablazeweed.net | causality0 wrote: | To this day, if I scroll off screen on Google Maps and then hit | the "center view" button I get nagged to allow Google to use my | phone to wardrive even when wi-fi is turned off. It would be nice | if I could use Google products without audibly wishing violent | misfortune on their executives. | _trampeltier wrote: | At the same time, Google think allways I'm in germany on work, | because our company has just one large internet connection for | all company users from the whole world. And google does not even | let me change the country. | benhurmarcel wrote: | Yes that's annoying. In the past you could use a country's | domain to choose Google's localization but it's not the case | anymore. And their "ncr" (no country redirect) feature doesn't | work anymore. | | It's one of the main reason I've been using Duckduckgo more and | more. | JamesDeepDown wrote: | Googles forced country localization is IMBECILICLY STUPID. | | I am currently in a foreign country. My English OS laptop with | English browser has been logging in to gmail in English for | years, and I ask Google search to show results in English for 5 | years and EVERY TIME it tries to show the local language. Going | to google.com is IGNORED, why?? | | Google engineers are paid $$$$$$$$ of dollars to implement THE | MOST STUPID CODE I HAVE EVER HAD TO DEAL WITH AAAAARGH. | danlugo92 wrote: | Funny, I've been using google since forever in an spanish | speaker country and it always correctly (when logged in) | shows me results in english (I have it set it to english). | notdang wrote: | Same for me, worse, I search for something in English and it | shows me results in the local language. And if you think that | SEO destroyed the English internet, try it in Spanish, there | is literally nothing there, pure FB and Pinterest. | garbagetime wrote: | It this point "used" is clearly a more accurate term than "user". | intellaughs wrote: | About two weeks ago I got an envelope in the mail from Google | saying they were offering to pay $1000 per month to install a | special router into your home that tracked everything regarding | your internet usage. They disclosed everything they'd be tracking | and said all the information recorded would be viewable by | google. They even sent a $1 bill (I guess to prove they were | serious). It was quite strange but really made me realize how | invasive Google is planning to be in the future. | judge2020 wrote: | This could all be solved by breaking 'web & app activity' up into | more granular permissions. | nojito wrote: | Disabling WAA isn't enough. Google is still able to capture | precise location information | | https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2f1EcuWQAQYD8R?format=png | | And "breaking up toggles" was one strategy Google used to get | people to share their location info | [deleted] | ttt0 wrote: | We can also try to break up Google into something more granular | and see if it helps. | ppf wrote: | I'm always amused by calls for the breakup of the "unbearable | monopoly" of Google, when it is itself the epitome of the | Silicon Valley "monopolies need disrupting!" business model. | adamcstephens wrote: | Except SV investors actively avoid competition with the | monopolies. They will try and disrupt for sure, but there's | a dead zone around monopolies. | ppf wrote: | Uber, Lyft, Air BnB, Paypal, etc etc, would beg to | differ. | adamcstephens wrote: | Uber and Lyft tackled local monopolies, sure, but not | national or international ones. They also took a strategy | of actively flaunting and breaking of laws in their | growth. Not sure that's a good form of disruption. | | What monopoly did AirBnB tackle? | | I'm guessing you're suggesting PayPal went after Western | Union? There are plenty of ways to exchange money though. | | Would my point be better if I clarified the monopolies? | Perhaps if we focus on national monopolies? | | What VC money is going to challenge Facebook, Amazon or | Google, or any area close to them? | | https://financialpost.com/technology/inside-the-kill- | zone-bi... | ttt0 wrote: | Got a better idea? I'd like to see them bankrupt and all | their data being wiped, but I'm afraid that's just not | going to happen. Breaking them up is the only option we | realistically have as of right now. | bogwog wrote: | I think we should simply pass laws to make their business | model illegal (at least the evil parts), and let them | sort it out. | | If they go under because they can't adapt, well tough | luck. There will be tons of smart businesses, investors, | and individuals eager to chase all the new opportunities | the death of Google would create. | | And since the evil business models are illegal, the ones | that come next will (probably) not be evil like Google | was. And if they are, more regulations! | ppf wrote: | Exactly which parts of their business model should be | illegal? It's pretty standard Silicon Valley stuff - give | away your product until there is no competition left, | then you can do what you like. | bogwog wrote: | > Exactly which parts of their business model should be | illegal? | | For starters, this part: | | > give away your product until there is no competition | left, then you can do what you like. | | The free market doesn't work without competition, and | that's a blatantly anti-competitive practice. Just | because a lot of SV companies do it, doesn't mean it's | right. | | But really I was referring to their data collection | practices, and doing things like intentionally making it | difficult for users to find privacy controls. No matter | which way you look at it, that's harmful to consumers. | rolph wrote: | the dinosaurs ruled the earth for quite a long time, | while mammals were squelched into a weasel-rodent | protomammal skulking in the dark. after the extinction | level event the mammals emerged from thier bunkers | previously hidden from the purview of the dinosaurs. A | new hope was born, the mammals were relieved of pressure | and wandered the earth, and the day and diversified, then | bought a penthouse in manhattan and took a job as a day | trader investing in a large advertizing corporation,,,, | [dejavoux] | ppf wrote: | Stop buying their product - ie, advertising. | LatteLazy wrote: | I actually thing Google maps (Inc live congestion) is well worth | the loss of privacy. | jeffbee wrote: | Sounds like lots of people are going to have to re-take the "You | Said What!?" training. But seriously why _would_ a product | manager know with certainty how different settings interact? The | only person who really knows would be the authors of the features | that read those settings, and possibly not even them. These | systems are too complex, no intelligent person should claim to | understand them perfectly. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Considering all the dark patterns they've implemented to force | location tracking there's no way management doesn't know about | what the settings are meant to accomplish. | arkades wrote: | Earlier this week there was a post regarding Google and its | utilization of private health information. A number of Googlers | came forward to describe how very seriously Google takes user | privacy and keeping inappropriate data from being shared across | silos. I got the overall impression of Googlers taking the | position of "you guys don't know how seriously we take peoples | privacy." | | If any of those Googlers would please comment on how to square | those statements with the featured article, I'd appreciate it. | nullc wrote: | Sometimes people confuse effort with security. You could build | a fortress with eight foot thick reinforced concrete walls but | it's not secure if you leave the back door open. | | No doubt google puts in heroic efforts to make sure that | nothing that doesn't make them money gets access to your | private data. | | The mere presence of heroic efforts isn't enough. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Health care data is the only thing with regulations in the US. | Everything else is fair game. That is how Google rakes in the | billions. They aren't going to leave money on the table to | satisfy an ethical code. | [deleted] | tolbish wrote: | I wonder how much evil they could actually be getting away | with if they wanted to. Imagine all of the trade secrets and | national security secrets they could easily obtain by | analyzing who is Googling what from where, or who is | accessing their services from where. | [deleted] | jeffbee wrote: | Which specific factual aspect of this story do you believe | contradicts those claims? I'm a Xoogler, not a Googler, but in | my post-Google experience I haven't seen anything that was even | in the same league as Google's privacy controls. In my personal | privacy threat model I think Google scores 10/10. They protect | my data against external attackers, which in my view is the | main problem faced by personal data, and their protections | against insider risk are also excellent. Other places where | I've worked, that you've definitely heard of, have security and | insider risk practices that are a complete f-ing joke. There's | nobody at Google who is "the DBA" who can just covertly access | your data, there's no ad-hoc logs access (every logs access | flows through a proxy that ensures only limited access for pre- | defined purposes), and there are software controls that trigger | privacy incident response (by a 24x7 user privacy incident | response team) whenever an insider attempts to access user data | in excess of their authority. In protocol buffer definitions, | every field has an annotation for whether it contains private, | sensitive, or non-private information so that even in crash | dumps and debug logs those fields are censored before being | printed. I really think Google has a pretty strong privacy | story, compared to virtually every other company (except Apple | and Microsoft) who leave themselves highly exposed to both | outside and insider attacks, software (and even hardware) | supply-chain attacks, accidental leaks, leaks into debug | systems, poor encryption practices, and generally wanton | behavior. | jtrip wrote: | What you suggest shows that individuals within the Google | organisation do not have blatant open access to personal | information. What do you think about the access of personal | information to the organisation Google itself? Today the data | is safe from menial concerns such as a google employee | looking over private information, but what about tomorrow | when whole troughs of such private information are made | available to other organisations, a la Cambridge Analytica | and Facebook, for commercial or other nefarious purposes? | | The article here talks about how google executives | deliberately made privacy settings harder to find because the | people were actually using them. The article also suggests, | through court documents, that google coerced other | manufacturers to do the same. | throwaway3699 wrote: | Xoogler. | | This is almost impossible by design. As mentioned before, | every field on a protobuf is tagged for sensitivity, | meaning right down to the bare disks there is privacy | controls on data. | | Engineers under orders to decrypt & copy data literally | could not, without a delegated authority from senior people | (some will be GDPR officers too), and there would need to | be a staggering level of process failure just to get at the | data for a few users. | | Ultimately you have to decide if you trust Larry & Sergey, | nobody else could make this happen. But insider risk just | isn't going to happen from a company that treats user data | like military treat classified documents. | jeffbee wrote: | I'm suggesting that based on my experience google has | better organizational defenses against individuals or even | groups intentionally or accidentally setting a privacy- | invasive agenda than other organizations with which I have | first-hand experience. | asdff wrote: | The whole issue is google already has a business model | that is a privacy-invasive agenda. The cat you describe | has left the bag years ago. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | How is Google ranking 10/10 on protecting user privacy if | they considered people choosing to shut off their location | tracking as a crisis worthy of pressuring OEMs to make it | harder? | | The thing Googlers and Xooglers alike seem absolutely unable | to grapple with is that Google itself is a major privacy | threat, and we don't want Google itself to have this | information. | | The fox is guarding the henhouse, and all the fox is doing is | telling us it's protecting it from other foxes. | joshuamorton wrote: | Different people have different privacy threat models. Gp | even mentioned as much. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Again, that _you_ want, good for you. But when Google let | people choose, and people choose in a way they didn 't | like, they immediately reversed course, pressured OEMs to | make that user choice harder. | joshuamorton wrote: | That's fine, but your comment makes no sense in response | to someone who explicitly talked about their personal | threat model. Of course they can grasp that other people | have different ones, that's why they scoped the comment | to their own. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Fair, though the comment above his was definitely asking | in a more general sense. | Twisell wrote: | I think it was pretty relevant nonetheless because by | tweaking the UI and UX Google is actively harming their | users abilities to implement the threat model they have | chosen (no matter which one they choose). | joshuamorton wrote: | Whether or not this is true, it's far from the original | question. OP's question (in my reading) presupposes | permission to monitor healthcare data. If you believe the | xoogler and googler responses in this thread, Google's | data stewardship will be superior to that of other people | doing healthcare ERP stuff. So the only question is if | Google can do something without ads tracking, and the | answer is yes. Gmail and Docs and Drive isn't used for | ads purposes (granted gmail used to be, but even then it | was siloed and only used within gmail). It's just a | freemium model. | Drew_ wrote: | I think its pretty straight forward that privacy protection for | Google means protecting the data it has collected from their | users. Not refraining or preventing itself from collecting user | data. Google protects the privacy of your information from | outsiders (and insiders) not from its own apps and services. | That is what's meant when Google says they "take their user's | privacy very seriously". And its obvious that this is true | because this practice is effectively just protecting their | business model. | GoofballJones wrote: | "We take very seriously your privacy and we make sure no one | can see what you do...because THAT'S OUR JOB! Hey, you want | to know what our customers are doing, we're more than willing | to sell you the data and telemetry we collect, but ya gotta | go through us! We take that very seriously." | tzs wrote: | In many large companies with multiple divisions the divisions | operate to a large extent like separate private companies even | if the company as a whole is a public company. | | Is Google like that? If so, then it is easy to square things. | The parts of Google that handle health stuff could have | completely different policies about handling private | information than the parts that deal with smartphones. | sunstone wrote: | I've had a string of Google phones going back to the Nexus 5x | but, for the very reasons laid out in this article, my next phone | will likely be from Apple. That will be my first Apple product. | notsureaboutpg wrote: | I really have to decide if the customizability of my Android | phone is worth losing my location / private data. | | I love Tasker, love automating boring repetitive work and other | tasks out of my day. But is that worth losing all my privacy? | Can't say... | kache_ wrote: | I went through this and then realized that apple hardware is | not meant for people who like to actually do things with their | computers | GoofballJones wrote: | So, all the things I'm actually doing on Apple hardware I'm | not really doing? Hmm...good to know. Thx. | jonny_eh wrote: | > do things with their computers | | Do we mean "do thing _to_ their computers "? | C-x_C-f wrote: | FYI you can install GrapheneOS on a Pixel (3rd to 5th gen) | bogwog wrote: | Just looked that up, and the site describes the project as | | > GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with | Android app compatibility | | What does that mean? Is it a built-from-scratch OS with an | Android compatability layer (like Blackberry 10), or is it | just an indirect way of saying they're based on Android (like | Cyanognemod/Lineage OS)? | eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote: | It's based on the latest Android (AOSP) + privacy/security | improvements. From a UX point of view it's basically a | vanilla Android without any proprietary Google code (which | means no Google Play of course but you can install | F-Droid). The main developer is a security researcher and | many of his improvements have been accepted upstream to | AOSP. | Karsteski wrote: | Or even more friendly, CalyxOS. Works perfectly, easy to | install and _very_ few problems in the 6 months I 've been | using it | kaba0 wrote: | On which reasonably modern/performant phones can one | install them? I did bought an iphone as my latest phone, | because Google-riddled android is ridiculous (even though I | like the ecosystem much better. Iphones can feel like some | embedded software that only allows a few possibilities), | but mainly because I could not find a phone on which | installing some AOSP fork is safe, won't delete important | firmware (I believe quite a few mobiles will delete | proprietary camera firmware) | eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote: | Apple may protect you from Google and Facebook but it won't | protect you from itself. iOS is completely closed and you can't | verify if it respects your privacy. Don't trust Apple. Open | source software is a fundamental requirement for privacy. | GrapheneOS is one of the best alternatives. | kaba0 wrote: | Which phone do you recommend going with it? | commoner wrote: | GrapheneOS supports Google Pixel 2 and later, but only | Google Pixel 3 and later are currently supported by vendor | security updates: | | https://grapheneos.org/releases | | All Google Pixel phones released to date receive vendor | security updates for 3 years after the release date: | https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705 | | A Pixel 4a ($349 new) would cover you until August 2023, | and a Pixel 4a (5G) ($499 new) would cover you until | November 2023 with better performance. The Pixel 5 is not a | particularly good value for the price. Used Pixel 3, 3a, | and 4 devices (along with their XL counterparts) are less | expensive options with vendor support timeframes that | expire sooner. The Pixel 3 and 4 (non-XL) models have poor | battery life, so choose an XL model if you opt for either | of those. | kaba0 wrote: | Thanks! Unfortunately as you note recentish Pixels are | not all that great, at least last time I checked. But | perhaps at the next release I might change back (I really | want to), if it's suitable. But it is a real shame that | other manufacturers make it very hard to replace the OS. | The one other phone family I heard great things about is | the One Plus, but they may also contain firmware that | gets nulled. | howzitallworkeh wrote: | Unfortunately, you will find iOS bad in different ways. | | For example: you cannot install NoScript, or anything like it, | on an iOS browser. You must choose between "all JS on" or "all | JS off", and third-party browsers like Firefox are crippled | because Apple forces all iOS browsers to use their WebKit | engine under the hood. | | The myriad of Safari "content blocker" apps are also pretty | dismal, and often expensive. So ad-blocking is difficult as | well. | | They're better about app tracking, but you might want to keep | an Android phone handy if you enjoy browsing the web. | justbrowsing_ wrote: | Firefox "Focus" browser does the trick for ad-blocking and | erasing history on iOS. No tab support though. | simfoo wrote: | This is what is keeping me from switching. Apple, if anyone | is listening: allow a full Firefox browser on the iphone and | I will switch in a heart beat | tobyhinloopen wrote: | Ad blocking works perfectly fine, wdym? | howzitallworkeh wrote: | I mean that 1Blocker is terrible compared to | uBlock+NoScript, and that's the best content blocker I | could find after spending days researching them. Plus, it | costs $3/mo or $40 for something that barely functions. | | Web browsing in iOS is incredibly frustrating and privacy- | unfriendly compared to Android. I recently bought an iPhone | for the app tracking protection, but the difference between | Safari and Firefox is like night and day. | andrewnicolalde wrote: | Have you had a look at AdGuard Pro? I use it on iOS and I | don't notice any ads on the web, and it's not really | different from using UBlock Origin on Firefox in my | experience. | yccs27 wrote: | Got any recommendations for blocking youtube ads in safari? | reader_mode wrote: | YouTube premium subscription. Seriously - don't want ads | on your services ? Pay for it. | justnotworthit wrote: | https://adguard.com/en/blog/how-to-add-a-shortcut-to- | block-y... | underscore_ku wrote: | get a pinephone if you value freedom and privacy. apple ios is | just as bad as android or microsoft windows | messe wrote: | > get a pinephone if you value freedom and privacy. apple ios | is just as bad as android or microsoft windows | | It's not as black and white as that. Other people will have | different requirements and make different tradeoffs to you. | | The PinePhone is great if you value freedom, privacy, _and | have the time and inclination to make it work for you_. Most | don 't, and an iOS device is a good compromise if you value | privacy over freedom to run your own code. It's not perfect, | but it's better than Android. | kaba0 wrote: | While some people can manage with a pinephone, it is not | "production-ready" at all. I do own one, and I am very very | thankful to all the people involved with it, but it is simply | not comparable to even a low-end android phone, let alone a | high-end one or an iphone. | | It's a hobby project as of yet (as even mentioned on the | website). Hopefully once software matures there will come a | pinephone 2 that will pack a more modern hardware and have | full android app compatibility (there is no way around it, it | is needed) that can be actually used as a daily driver. | user-the-name wrote: | The pinephone is good for privacy only because it is | unpopular. It offers far, far worse security against snooping | by third-party apps than iOS does. | shadowgovt wrote: | How is the app store on pinephone these days? | grishka wrote: | You can use an Android phone without Google services. You don't | even need root or a custom ROM for that -- there's a "disable" | button on the app details page of every Google app, including | GSF. You can complete the initial setup fully offline, too. In | case you do need Google services, but want to have a say about | which and how, there's MicroG, an open-source implementation of | some of the most used ones like GCM (push messaging). | | You can't use an iPhone without Apple services, period. An | Apple ID is a hard requirement to activate an iOS device, it | literally won't let you past that screen without one. Even | after you're done with that, you can only install apps from the | app store, subject to that unfair, opaque approval process. | commoner wrote: | microG (a replacement for Google Play Services) includes a | free and open source network location provider called | UnifiedNlp: | | https://github.com/microg/UnifiedNlp | | UnifiedNlp allows you to choose the backends your Android | device uses to determine the location, without providing any | data to Google. Options include: | | - Mozilla Location Services: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/ | org.microg.nlp.backend.ichna... | | - Apple Location Services: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/or | g.microg.nlp.backend.apple... | | - OpenCellID (offline): | https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.gfd.gsmlocation/ | | - Radiocells.org (optionally offline): | https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.openbmap.unifiedNlp/ | | - Deja Vu (offline cache using Wi-Fi and cellular data): http | s://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.fitchfamily.android.deja... | | The easiest way to use microG is to switch to an Android | distribution that has it preinstalled: | | - CalyxOS (supports Google Pixel 2 and later): | https://calyxos.org | | - LineageOS for microG (supports all devices supported by | LineageOS): https://lineage.microg.org | | - /e/ (some overlap with LineageOS, but also supports | different devices): https://e.foundation | sirius87 wrote: | From using Google servers for internet connectivity checks to NTP | and DNS servers, Android has deep connections to Google's | infrastructure. | | [1] https://e.foundation/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/e-state- | of-d... | QuadrupleA wrote: | Google had a brilliant advertising business with AdWords | originally, where the ads were simply based on the search term | and not a bunch of Orwellian surveillance on the person | searching. | | From the research I've seen, all this privacy-invading crap | doesn't even improve ad performance much - it's small incremental | gains at best. And per this article, those gains are clearly | coming at the expense of user trust and goodwill, something not | reflected in click thru rates and RPM. | | Here's hoping we can get past all this invasive retargeting / | surveillance / privacy-invading crap and get back to | straightforward contextual ads, like car parts ads on a hot rod | website - our world would be better for it, and maybe Google | could restore a little of its rapidly fading goodwill. | j0ba wrote: | https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ | | Maybe they are more than just an ad company? | fvv wrote: | I think that big corp must always grow (in earnings ) or | various manager hierarchies start having problem.. sometimes | this need forget to consider ethic , trust , monopoly , roots , | ... | nwellnhof wrote: | > From the research I've seen, all this privacy-invading crap | doesn't even improve ad performance much | | Which research? From my experience, personalized ads perform | ~50% better than non-personalized ads. This would also explain | why Google and Facebook are fighting tooth and nail to keep | their tracking infrastructure. | EastSmith wrote: | DuckDuckGo have said that they make less money, because they | use only the search term not other data/tracking. | | But they still make money. | dheera wrote: | Big companies have "fiduciary duty" to do the thing that | gets them the most money within legal bounds, and not the | ethically right thing. | | As in, they have a _duty_ to breach ethics for profit as | long as it 's legal. | | Stupid concept which I wish we could abolish but that's the | way the economy is currently setup. | mattkrause wrote: | This thread has some discussion and case references | regarding what companies are "obligated" to do for | shareholders. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 | | It's not much, and there's certainly room for considering | ethics. In fact, you can do nearly anything that isn't | actively repurposing part of the business for the | directors' own use. For example, one of the landmark | cases affirmed the Chicago Cubs' right to leave tons of | money on the table because their president believed that | baseball was a "day-time sport" and wouldn't install | lights for night games. | distances wrote: | As the others have already said, you're completely | incorrect here. No such duty, it's an urban myth through | and through. | mdoms wrote: | This is a widely believed myth. There is no corporate law | requiring public corporations to maximize profits. Simply | untrue. | fennecfoxen wrote: | That's not what a fiduciary duty is. The fiduciary duty | is for a broker dealer to act in your best interests | rather than rip you off. | | A company's management has a duty to shareholders to work | on behalf of the shareholders and not on behalf of their | own well being. That usually means profit because that's | what most shareholders own the company for, not for | charity. But there is no particular duty to maximize it | at all costs. Damage to reputation and legal risk and the | like are real concerns. | | If anything, it's the self-interested managers violating | their duty who cut the most corners and burn goodwill, in | the name of hitting short term goals and chasing their | bonus. | xmprt wrote: | As an example, if shareholders invest in your company | despite saying you will never show targeted ads then they | can't sue you for not showing targeted ads to increase | profits. | trulyme wrote: | This is a huge oversimplification. Short term gains of | breaching ethics might result in middle- and longterm | reduced profit, regulatory action or opportunity for | other players to eat their lunch. Businesses can follow | ethics if they decide to, even when breaking them results | in more immediate profits. | nojito wrote: | Location targeting isn't effective. | | https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.2019.118. | .. | | Google are fighting tooth and nail to protect the illusion | that their ads work. | londons_explore wrote: | Location data is _very_ important for search. | | Try turning on a VPN from another country, opening an | incognito window and doing a google search for 'pizza'. | | See how the results are nearly useless...? A bunch of | delivery services that don't deliver in your country, who | want payment in a currency you don't have, and all written | in a language you don't speak. | | Location at the local level matters less, but even so it | makes some search results substantially more useful. That | is a benefit that other search providers (who don't have | strong control of the browser/platform) will not have. It | makes the moat bigger. | codyb wrote: | Couldn't just search for "pizza in Brooklyn" then? It's | not that onerous. | QuadrupleA wrote: | Here's one study - 1st link is a ZdNet summary about it, and | 2nd is a direct link to the paper: | | https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-research-shows- | personalize... | | https://weis2019.econinfosec.org/wp- | content/uploads/sites/6/... | nwellnhof wrote: | It depends a lot on the content. If you're targeting a | lucrative niche, contextual ads can be effective. But for | the majority of (mostly low-quality) content, it's hard to | find well-matched ads. The study you cited is based on "a | rich dataset of millions of advertising transactions | completed across multiple websites owned by a large media | company". It's probably not that representative. | rodgerd wrote: | I'm glad that your anecdotes trump an actual study. | wumpus wrote: | You shouldn't lump search ads in with display ads -- search | ads are relevant to the search terms, and are much more | valuable than display ads. Search ads get a much smaller lift | from personalization. | coliveira wrote: | My opinion is that the target ads is just a cover, the real | reason they want to track users is to give more data to their | in-house AI system that learns what people do once they reach | certain page. This knowledge (what people will do) is what is | important to them, rather than simply showing certain ads. For | example, if Google knows the profit potential of certain | actions, they will raise the ad cost on that property by the | true value, instead of relying on non-targeted auctions. | nexuist wrote: | If this was true then every single ad campaign would be worth | it then, no? I thought that lots of people try Google or FB | ads with a couple thousand dollars and never recoup operating | costs. If Google knows how much profit a certain page could | bring then they could also tell you exactly what to price | your product at to maximize returns. | kaba0 wrote: | How would it profit Google? | judge2020 wrote: | Note that contextual ads still perform better than personalized | ads on search results, given how you still don't see eg. | Spotify ads on search results for anything other than music. | treeman79 wrote: | Worked in targeted ad tech for b2b. High dollar sales stuff. | | Short version. It works really well. Like absurdly well. | | Massive fear if browsers started limited cookies. As that would | destroy the cash cow. | m463 wrote: | The word advertising itself has been co-opted. It is like | "freedom" or "justice" that is ambiguous and means one thing to | advertisers and another to the public. | | I'm reminded of the vitamin water lawsuit | | _" Coca-Cola criticized the suit as "ridiculous" on the | grounds that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into | thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage"_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Brands#vitaminwater | | The point being that normal people think "advertising" means | showing a picture of a car or cereal, and google thinks | advertising is identifying the individual. | edgyquant wrote: | I really hate that "reasonably think" defense. Yes most | people, including myself, did think that vitamin water was | healthy until reading the nutritional sheet. It's one step | away from selling chocolate as, "good for you bars," and | claiming no reasonable person would think they're good for | you. | paxys wrote: | What research? Multiple companies which use these practices | have grown from zero to trillion+ dollars in market cap, so I | find it hard to believe the narrative that all of it is useless | and ineffective. | nom wrote: | Can someone point me in the right direction regarding the | mentioned research? My feeling is still that google know what | they are doing when it comes to ads. | QuadrupleA wrote: | See the other comments in this thread for a couple studies. | meltedcapacitor wrote: | Or it's the "measure everything" culture having become self- | reinforcing regardless of results or collateral damage. | dexen wrote: | Insightful reasoning. The moat that Google built and maintains | with privacy invasion is a _legal moat_ rather than a business | moat. | | A competing ad service, naturally much smaller at first, would | be hard pressed to replicate[1] even part of Google's privacy- | invasive targeting, due to the costs involved. Even more | importantly, a competing ad service would be nigh unable to | replicate even part of Google's privacy-invasive targeting, due | to the legal protections and regulatory oversight of privacy. | It is much easier for a large, well established business to | "continue as it always did" and get either a nod of | understanding, or at worst a slap on the wrist from the | regulators - than for a newer, smaller player to start doing | anything shady. In the later case, stiff penalties and "making | an example of" can be expected for variety of reasons - the new | player tends to not be well connected in the regulatory | circles, and tends to be less influential on the local economy | either, thus there's little downside for slapping the new | player hard. | | This is yet another case where regulatory framework with | somewhat arbitrary enforcement (relevant fines have wide | ranges; judicial injunctions are optional and discretionary) | entrenches and unfairly protects from competition the existing | large market players. | | -- | | [1] sadly, ability to replicate minute features is key to | provide "bullet-point engineering" and getting sales to casual | buyers who are easily impressed by long feature list - and to | advanced buyers who are trying to squeeze every last bit of | advantage from the service. | chimen wrote: | Even attempting to stay private gets you banned on most services. | toastal wrote: | Ran into this today logging into PayPal (the password-must- | be-8-20-characters payment service) for the first time in a | long time to buy a band t-shirt. After jumping through two | different types of CAPTCHAs, now they require you share your | phone number to log in. I contacted support via Twitter saying | they have my email if they want to verify a login because I'm | not comfortable with SIM jacking nor how data-mining is cross- | referencing phone numbers (I can set up U2F or TOTP after | initial verification). They said call them... which is still | giving out your phone. I tried to use a Google Voice number, | but I got an error about these types of numbers being blocked. | To get a non-useless level of support, you must log in so it's | either give up your data or no service for you. You shouldn't | be required to give out your number to most online services. | | I just feel bad for the indie band I couldn't support. | rolph wrote: | find thier [indie band] email and touch heads on how to mail | them a fiver | Taek wrote: | This is one of the use cases for cryptocurrency. | Decentralization means there is no company in the middle that | can force you to give up your data. | toastal wrote: | In this case, Bandcamp, which I generally like, doesn't yet | support crypto. I think it's also a lot to ask a small band | to pick anything other than PayPal for international | payment. | ttt0 wrote: | Setting up a Monero wallet or whatever shouldn't be that | hard. | mormegil wrote: | Could you call them with Calling Line Identification | Restriction? (I. e. caller ID blocking) There is usually a | prefix you can dial to suppress your ID. But the exact prefix | depends on your location, I think. | abawany wrote: | I believe such restrictions are defeated/not available for | toll free lines. | toast0 wrote: | Caller ID blocking only affects the consumer level feature, | not Automatic Number Identification which was historically | available with PBX lines and toll free numbers, but might | be available to more people these days. | sthnblllII wrote: | Stuff like paypal exist so that powerful people can shut you | out of the economy if you challenge their power. They | complain about money laundering while the CIA is the biggest | money launderer in the world and no one goes to jail when | Deutsche bank launders Jeffery Epstein's payments. But | operating a Bitcoin mixer is a federal offense. They are | scared. | [deleted] | swader999 wrote: | Just imagine lock downs augmented with geo fenced official | national wallets with cash no longer accepted anywhere. | dlsa wrote: | This cant be just location either. Anything you'd think of as | private. I wonder what the privacy implications of using | something like DDG on an android phone is like. I'm fairly sure | google are quite desperately keen to grab any and all data from | anything visited using the DDG app. I don't see any way to stop | Google from doing it either. | anticristi wrote: | I hate to repeat it, but the US really needs its GDPR. | nojito wrote: | It's even worse than the headline implies. | | You couldn't prevent location tracking unless you disabled the | numerous switches in settings and turned off WiFi as well. | | The real damning allegation is that location data collected from | google maps/apps and non-google apps was siphoned to all other | google products through something that is redacted in the court | docs. | | >"So there is no way to give a third party app your location and | not Google? That doesn't sound like something we would want on | the front page of the NYT | | Additionally this process was deemed so critical to Google's | overall revenues because of something else that was also | redacted. | | https://www.azag.gov/media/interest/updated-redacted-google-... | jeffbee wrote: | OK "siphoned" is an opinion. Apple Maps also provides location | services to other Apple products on its platform. Unless I | disable the switch which is buried at Settings, Privacy, | Location Services, System Services, Significant Locations, | Apple will "allow your iCloud connected devices to learn places | significant to you in order to provide useful location-related | information in Maps, Calendar, Photos, and more." If I try to | disable it, because I use iOS but I don't use any of those | apps, it warns me that "Disabling Significant Locations will | affect many Apple apps and services ... such as Maps, Do Not | Disturb While Driving, CarPlay, Siri, Calendar, and Photos." | I'd like to know how that's different. | nojito wrote: | Sorry I wasn't clear, but it was google maps/apps and non- | google apps. | kyralis wrote: | That data isn't actually shared with Apple. It's used _on | device_ by the client applications for those services. | jeffbee wrote: | OK, but I don't find the distinction as stark as others on | HN seem to. My location data being used by Apple-authored | applications running on my device, none of which I've ever | intentionally used, is not that different to me than my | location data being used on my behalf by Google-written | applications, many of which I personally enjoy, running in | Google data centers. I _like_ that I can see my location | history in Google Maps for web, I also like that I can get | that data as KML from Google Takeout. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Apple collects location data solely to help you. They've | built themselves no financial benefit to collect it, so | they keep it only on the device and discard it as much as | possible, while still providing all the features users | want. If you want a location tracker on iOS, you can | install one, but it's not a condition of using their | mapping product. | | Google has a financial incentive to violate your privacy, | and all of it's products are designed to serve that goal. | So everything that could stay on the device is designed | to collect and send data to Google, for their purposes, | while they tell you it's to benefit you. | | It's a very distinct difference, and the entire design of | their respective ecosystems reflects that. | bozzcl wrote: | As an ex-Android user who switched to an iPhone because | of privacy concerns, I'd still like sources and hopefully | proof for these claims. | | The more I think about it, the more I suspect trusting | another big tech company with my privacy with no material | proof other than their word might have been foolish. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | It can be difficult to vet closed source applications, | but I think this policy describes a truly stark | difference between the two: https://support.apple.com/en- | us/HT212039 | | Whereas every location ping is seen by Google as an | opportunity to attach data to your account, Apple Maps | goes beyond not tying to your account, but regularly | trying to make it difficult for them to tie the activity | to any sort of cohesive profile entirely. | tobyhinloopen wrote: | I always find it funny how articles like this are behind a | "privacy" cookie wall. | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | what about users who don't sign into their android phones with a | google account and don't actively use google apps like maps or | chrome or whatever they have? i suspect they still have your data | but it isn't tied to "you" unless you tell them by linking who | you are so you should be fine? | rantwasp wrote: | so an android phone without the store? intriguing. at that | point you might as well switch to a dumbphone. are dumb phones | still a thing? | 2Gkashmiri wrote: | aurora store is a thing. | bozzcl wrote: | And F-Droid. And there's plenty of sites to download APKs | outside of the Play Store, though I don't know how reliable | they are. | notdang wrote: | There are plenty of other stores to chose from. | | The problem here is that there are some apps that don't work | without Google services, and those are the apps that you need | the most: banking apps, payment apps, Uber, etc. | grammers wrote: | What really devastated me was when I found out that even if you | try to keep yourself private, you'll get exposed by your friends: | Just by tracking that you are regularly close to others, for | example meeting for a camping trip, you suddenly get camping | advertisements - probably because your friends searched for | something or booked the trip via Gmail or whatever. I don't | really know how it works, but it's awfully scary. | mixmastamyk wrote: | They really like to tag and paste your telephone number into | facebook messages as well. _sigh_ | [deleted] | indymike wrote: | I would love to have a control panel that lists who I'm sharing | my location with. Not what apps. What people and companies, | including secondary buyers. With an on/off toggle. And this list | needs to include my cell phone carrier, the OS vendor, the | hardware manufacturer and, perhaps even the government where | there's no warrant. Then extend the model to other things... one | can dream. | max_hammer wrote: | If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the | product being sold. | | Few years back you could easily root your android device and get | custom ROM installed. Now, only solution is use a feature phone | without gps and wifi and have a separate device for connecting to | internet. | | IPhone is also a good alternative but I don't agree with thier | walled garden development philosophy. | | Edit: You pay a separate fee for using Microsoft windows but for | Android thier is no separate fee hence the product reference. | Downvoting won't change the fact. | im3w1l wrote: | Eh? I certainly paid for my phone so I don't see the | applicability of that soundbite here. | whoknowswhat11 wrote: | You paid for Google maps - weird | dividedbyzero wrote: | They paid for a phone advertised to include this service, | so, in a way, yes, they did. | ppf wrote: | In some ways, it sounds like you didn't pay enough, if the | cost is subsidised by data collection and advertising. | MiddleEndian wrote: | Regardless of how much you pay, what is their incentive as | a large organization not to get more money out of you, if | they know they can get away with it? | google234123 wrote: | Apple just charges a lot more upfront for their products. | rightbyte wrote: | > If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're | the product being sold. | | Full price TVs from eg. Samsung comes with ads and spyware | nowadays. I would say the saying has stopped being accurate. | Also, phones are paid for. | leesalminen wrote: | TVs are so cheap now because of ad subsidies. That 42" panel | wouldn't cost $199 if it weren't for ads. | bogwog wrote: | Source? That sounds like bullshit. | rodgerd wrote: | Nonsense. | | The same surveillance capitalism runs on a multi-thousand | dollar OLED panel. | google234123 wrote: | Then it would cost multi-thousand dollars + extra without | the ads in order for the manufactures to maintain their | thin margins. | hobs wrote: | That'd be a good point if there were companies offering the | full price model, but unless you want to buy a commercial | panel and do a bunch of hoop jumping yourself, you | literally cant buy a TV without adware in it. | QasimK wrote: | It would be great if we, the customers, were actually | given a genuine, competitive choice. As you say, right | now you literally don't have a genuine choice. | | There is precedent for this too. Amazon Kindles came | (come?) with two options - one with ads and one without. | The latter cost something like $20 more. That was good! | | Having said that, I bought the one without ads and they | increasingly, with software updates, devoted greater and | greater screen space to the Amazon ebook store. I | consider that to be an ad too (and arguably worse because | of anti-competitiveness reasons). | jjulius wrote: | That's fine, maybe the trade off in increased price is | worth it to some people. | anonymousab wrote: | Or it would be that cheap but ads and spyware just give | them more money for free now. | C-x_C-f wrote: | > I would say the saying has stopped being accurate. | | I wouldn't say so. The saying states that not paying implies | being the product. Your example shows that being the product | does not imply not paying. The two are independent and can be | true at the same time. | testific8 wrote: | I didn't pay for the OS on my pinephone, but for some reason | the vendors decide not to use that as an opportunity to create | a mass surveilance campaign. | est31 wrote: | You are still able to root android phones and install custom | ROMs. Note that even then though, even if you don't have any | gapps installed, it sends your approximate location to google | by querying its AGPS services. | rantwasp wrote: | what bothers me is the normalization of collecting this data in | the first place. | | some people are outraged, but hey if google does it, are you | really surprised when someone else does it? | | I have worked pretty hard to kick google out of my digital life. | it's hard but not impossible. | | what apple is doing with their privacy schtick has probably | raised the alert level to red on the Borg and on the Klingon | ships. There probably is going to be an intense struggle | following with more things like this coming out. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-29 23:00 UTC)