Google Fights Back(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Google Fights Back
https://stratechery.com/2019/google-fights-back/
474 comments
Google is already not Google.
The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore.
The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state.
I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ugh ugh.
I have applications that does E2E for contacts and calendars that I'll have to find an iOS solution for.
I loathe the notch.
But my next phone will be an iPhone.
Google collects so much absurd amount of data - that all the Proton-mail, DuckduckGo, Wire/Signal, Firefox (loaded with adblocking and tracking plugins) apps in the world can't keep you totally from it as long as you're on Android. You disable things, you opt out of stuff and it just keeps on collecting anyways.
And i don't believe for a second the data they're allowing you to "autodelete" genuinely gets deleted. It just gets removed from your view.
The "Don't Be Evil" corporation that valued open source rather than open-washing, that valued openstandards over "oops, we didn't mean to break that for you!" isn't here anymore.
The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state.
I despise Apple. Especially on mobile. No SDCards, no headphone jack, walled garden app stores. Ugh ugh ugh.
I have applications that does E2E for contacts and calendars that I'll have to find an iOS solution for.
I loathe the notch.
But my next phone will be an iPhone.
Google collects so much absurd amount of data - that all the Proton-mail, DuckduckGo, Wire/Signal, Firefox (loaded with adblocking and tracking plugins) apps in the world can't keep you totally from it as long as you're on Android. You disable things, you opt out of stuff and it just keeps on collecting anyways.
And i don't believe for a second the data they're allowing you to "autodelete" genuinely gets deleted. It just gets removed from your view.
I fully switched from Android to iOS when iPhone X came out in November 2017.
I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated. I could achieve almost everything I wanted on my iPhone -- it just took a bit of time to find the proper apps. Later Apple added the Shortcuts which is a very solid automation app.
Many Android users also lament the lack of a visible filesystem but that's a huge plus in my eyes. What are Android apps doing with that? You guessed it, scan your internal storage and SD card and upload them feck knows where (and this has been proven by many advanced Android users). iOS' sandboxing is not a bug. It's a feature which I appreciate a lot.
I'll not shy away from the fact: there are areas that I miss from Android. For example, I could have inspected WiFi strength signal with an Android phone and I cannot with a non-jailbroken iPhone.
Again though, as a guy who used Android phones for 4.5 years before switching to an iPhone, I found that the uncomfortable feeling of switching to an entirely new (and supposedly more "locked down") ecosystem is mostly an illusion created by our brain's unwillingness to endure big changes. You get over it very quickly. Don't trust your brain on these matters, it floods you with non-truisms to avoid cognitive shock.
P.S. I too loathe the notch. So after 15 months with the iPhone X I switched to iPhone 8 Plus. Easily the best phone on the planet to this day (plus a bigger screen and a slightly bigger battery). Now I dread the day the device will no longer be sold.
I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated. I could achieve almost everything I wanted on my iPhone -- it just took a bit of time to find the proper apps. Later Apple added the Shortcuts which is a very solid automation app.
Many Android users also lament the lack of a visible filesystem but that's a huge plus in my eyes. What are Android apps doing with that? You guessed it, scan your internal storage and SD card and upload them feck knows where (and this has been proven by many advanced Android users). iOS' sandboxing is not a bug. It's a feature which I appreciate a lot.
I'll not shy away from the fact: there are areas that I miss from Android. For example, I could have inspected WiFi strength signal with an Android phone and I cannot with a non-jailbroken iPhone.
Again though, as a guy who used Android phones for 4.5 years before switching to an iPhone, I found that the uncomfortable feeling of switching to an entirely new (and supposedly more "locked down") ecosystem is mostly an illusion created by our brain's unwillingness to endure big changes. You get over it very quickly. Don't trust your brain on these matters, it floods you with non-truisms to avoid cognitive shock.
P.S. I too loathe the notch. So after 15 months with the iPhone X I switched to iPhone 8 Plus. Easily the best phone on the planet to this day (plus a bigger screen and a slightly bigger battery). Now I dread the day the device will no longer be sold.
I don't know if it falls under "freedom to tinker", but having a microSD slot saved my vacation once (well, the pictures of it anyway). We were out at a children's amusement park in the mountains with poor service, so just moving things to the cloud wasn't an option. Deleting apps from my phone to pick up space is of course an option, but also a silly one. Swapping out the microSD card, however, was simple and I just got back to taking pictures and videos.
I went iPhone -> Android -> Windows -> Android. I'd really like to get back to an iPhone for privacy reasons, but the storage situation really doesn't work for my family. Traditionally, it's been a low capacity entry model and then ~$100 to upgrade to each new tier, paying Apple's wildly inflated markup. The pricing is also way out of line with our budget. I was really hoping for a new SE model for my wife.
I'm fairly happy with my Galaxy S9+ now, but I really miss a lot about Windows 10 Mobile. I'll never forgive Google for doing everything in its power to make sure another mobile platform didn't become viable.
I went iPhone -> Android -> Windows -> Android. I'd really like to get back to an iPhone for privacy reasons, but the storage situation really doesn't work for my family. Traditionally, it's been a low capacity entry model and then ~$100 to upgrade to each new tier, paying Apple's wildly inflated markup. The pricing is also way out of line with our budget. I was really hoping for a new SE model for my wife.
I'm fairly happy with my Galaxy S9+ now, but I really miss a lot about Windows 10 Mobile. I'll never forgive Google for doing everything in its power to make sure another mobile platform didn't become viable.
I understand (also upvoted).
This is why I bought the 256GB versions (although your photo archives might be even bigger).
Not sure what I can recommend but in any case I'd probably get a professional camera with 400GB SD card. :D I mean, if you guys like to make long videos during a time outside, why not?
I agree Apple's proposition has cracks by the way. Not arguing that.
As for W10 Mobile, yep -- I sold my Lumia 1520 the summer of 2017 and my heart is still broken. :( This system had so much potential! And I have never found a phone whose form factor and feel to the touch that I like so much as the Lumia 1520 and the Lumia 950 XL.
This is why I bought the 256GB versions (although your photo archives might be even bigger).
Not sure what I can recommend but in any case I'd probably get a professional camera with 400GB SD card. :D I mean, if you guys like to make long videos during a time outside, why not?
I agree Apple's proposition has cracks by the way. Not arguing that.
As for W10 Mobile, yep -- I sold my Lumia 1520 the summer of 2017 and my heart is still broken. :( This system had so much potential! And I have never found a phone whose form factor and feel to the touch that I like so much as the Lumia 1520 and the Lumia 950 XL.
I finally gave in and moved back to Android. My wife wanted my Lumia 950 XL and she loves it. She's not going to be pleased when she needs to move to something else. That dedicated camera button is an incredibly nice feature.
As for photos, I wouldn't say I take hundreds of gigabytes. The point is I don't want to have an anxiety attack over running out of space where I have low coverage. I can get a 512 GB microSD card for $100 and smaller capacities for much less. That let's me have my apps, offline music, offline maps, photos, 1080p videos, and so on. But, thanks for the suggestions nonetheless.
As for photos, I wouldn't say I take hundreds of gigabytes. The point is I don't want to have an anxiety attack over running out of space where I have low coverage. I can get a 512 GB microSD card for $100 and smaller capacities for much less. That let's me have my apps, offline music, offline maps, photos, 1080p videos, and so on. But, thanks for the suggestions nonetheless.
Well, I am not a religious technological ecosystem zealot and you'll get no hate from me.
Use what serves you best. I recognise that your scenario isn't well-served by Apple. Of course you'll switch.
Use what serves you best. I recognise that your scenario isn't well-served by Apple. Of course you'll switch.
Same boat here. I'm not with Android because I think the OS is better or because I hate privacy. It's a matter of cost (I think I paid $650 net for my S9+) and lack of hardware options.
I'm preaching to the choir, but it sucks that the only two viable options these days require such huge trade-offs. And that the premium for privacy is so much greater than what typical Android hardware costs.
I'm glad you've been able to find a trade-off that works for you. I'm hoping something changes in this duopoly system we have.
I'm preaching to the choir, but it sucks that the only two viable options these days require such huge trade-offs. And that the premium for privacy is so much greater than what typical Android hardware costs.
I'm glad you've been able to find a trade-off that works for you. I'm hoping something changes in this duopoly system we have.
Cost is rarely a concern unless you are barely making ends meet. iPhone's cost per year is actually lower than most Android flagships, if you factor in how quicker are the Android phones to start breaking down and/or lose their system software update window. So IMO Apple has the upper hand in terms of amortised cost (albeit not by much if you look at the insane prices of the iPhone XS/Max).
I completely agree we shouldn't have to make the big trade-offs between the duopoly. But truth be told, if Microsoft failed to gain ground as a third smartphone vendor, what hope does anybody else have? They were sabotaged by Google at every turn and let's face it, if your mobile OS cannot have YouTube that means at least 80% of the smartphone populace will write you off as useless. If not 95% even.
I also haven't found the perfect setup yet. Pondering investing heavily in a 10Gbps router + 10Gbps switch + NAS with 25TB as a start. I have loads of videos and can't pay iCloud for them. So things are still shaping up.
Overall though, I am really happy with my choice. Serves me well in 98% of the time.
Thank you for the kind words. Right back at you. :)
I completely agree we shouldn't have to make the big trade-offs between the duopoly. But truth be told, if Microsoft failed to gain ground as a third smartphone vendor, what hope does anybody else have? They were sabotaged by Google at every turn and let's face it, if your mobile OS cannot have YouTube that means at least 80% of the smartphone populace will write you off as useless. If not 95% even.
I also haven't found the perfect setup yet. Pondering investing heavily in a 10Gbps router + 10Gbps switch + NAS with 25TB as a start. I have loads of videos and can't pay iCloud for them. So things are still shaping up.
Overall though, I am really happy with my choice. Serves me well in 98% of the time.
Thank you for the kind words. Right back at you. :)
>Cost is rarely a concern unless you are barely making ends meet.
Well then 40% of American households are concerned: https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-house...
I'm a former ios user (9 years, from my 3GS in 2009 to my 6S which I used until 2018) that switched to Android last year mostly out of cost. Apple crossed a threshold I'm unwilling to follow.
Now I have a moto x4 that was just $300 so I'm not terrified to take it running/hiking with me in case I trip or fall or otherwise break/drop/lose the phone. It takes an SD card so I don't have to pay inflated rates for memory during purchase, the one chance you get. And on top of it I'm on a cheaper carrier (not strictly Apple's fault).
Well then 40% of American households are concerned: https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-house...
I'm a former ios user (9 years, from my 3GS in 2009 to my 6S which I used until 2018) that switched to Android last year mostly out of cost. Apple crossed a threshold I'm unwilling to follow.
Now I have a moto x4 that was just $300 so I'm not terrified to take it running/hiking with me in case I trip or fall or otherwise break/drop/lose the phone. It takes an SD card so I don't have to pay inflated rates for memory during purchase, the one chance you get. And on top of it I'm on a cheaper carrier (not strictly Apple's fault).
I can fully relate to the part of "not being terrified of breaking the phone". That's a peace of mind I didn't have for a long time and I still miss it.
That being said, don't most US households get carrier-financed phones?
That being said, don't most US households get carrier-financed phones?
I’m not sure but most iPhone users i know have Applecare so this is only an issue for those who thinks the price is too high
I think you overestimate how much free capital the average person has. Even in my case, where I could afford an iPhone with max storage (to assuage my previously stated concerns), I'd have a really hard time justifying it. We budget pretty diligently, so we'd have to justify to ourselves why paying a premium to Apple is a better use of our capital than anything else. I came really close to buying an iPhone 8+ about a year back, but the Samsung Galaxy S9+ beat it out hardware-wise and was considerably cheaper.
I'll grant you that Apple providing better software support for their phones was a huge advantage. And their stance on privacy is leagues apart from Google's. So, I could work out the math on that iPhone 8+ and call it roughly breakeven. I typically keep a phone for 3 years, so the per annum cost was roughly the same. But, for that money I likely wasn't going to be happy and that factors in. I just wasn't going to have what I want out of a phone and I'd have to console myself with having an intangible benefit of better privacy. I care about privacy, but trying to be honest with myself, that likely wasn't going to make me feel better about paying $200 extra because Apple doesn't think I need a microSD slot.
My wife has a completely different hang-up. She gets very nervous about carrying around a fragile $800+ device. And she'd lose her mind if she misplaced such an expensive device. Prior to inheriting my Lumia 950 XL, she had a Lumia 640 she loved and only paid $30 for. So, she was never going to be happy with an iPhone 8 either. If Apple had refreshed the SE device, we may very well have made the switch to iOS. But, they want to sit at the high-end of the market -- as is their right -- and so we decided to self-select out.
All of this is a really long-winded way of saying that affordability isn't the only concern when it comes to making a purchase. For all its other faults, the Android ecosystem provides many options to suit people's budgets and comfort zones. And yet again, I have to lament the demise of Windows 10 Mobile because it really offered the best of both worlds there.
I'll grant you that Apple providing better software support for their phones was a huge advantage. And their stance on privacy is leagues apart from Google's. So, I could work out the math on that iPhone 8+ and call it roughly breakeven. I typically keep a phone for 3 years, so the per annum cost was roughly the same. But, for that money I likely wasn't going to be happy and that factors in. I just wasn't going to have what I want out of a phone and I'd have to console myself with having an intangible benefit of better privacy. I care about privacy, but trying to be honest with myself, that likely wasn't going to make me feel better about paying $200 extra because Apple doesn't think I need a microSD slot.
My wife has a completely different hang-up. She gets very nervous about carrying around a fragile $800+ device. And she'd lose her mind if she misplaced such an expensive device. Prior to inheriting my Lumia 950 XL, she had a Lumia 640 she loved and only paid $30 for. So, she was never going to be happy with an iPhone 8 either. If Apple had refreshed the SE device, we may very well have made the switch to iOS. But, they want to sit at the high-end of the market -- as is their right -- and so we decided to self-select out.
All of this is a really long-winded way of saying that affordability isn't the only concern when it comes to making a purchase. For all its other faults, the Android ecosystem provides many options to suit people's budgets and comfort zones. And yet again, I have to lament the demise of Windows 10 Mobile because it really offered the best of both worlds there.
> I think you overestimate how much free capital the average person has.
I most certainly do, but as mentioned in a sibling comment, don't most US households use carrier-financed phones? That's like, $20 - $50 extra a month?
The 3 years usage period is kind of surprising to me because it clashes with my anecdotal evidence somewhat -- I've known 20+ people holding on to iPhones for 5-6 years. But I am pretty sure the median you gave is more accurate so in that case the cost per annum might indeed be equal to Android flagships (or larger).
> paying $200 extra because Apple doesn't think I need a microSD slot.
I now dearly regret not keeping the link but there was a research showing that the SD controller introduces lag in the entire system (in the case of SoCs anyway). However, nowadays that probably can be solved. Likely nobody in Apple tried though. So there's not only Apple not thinking you might need a microSD. There seem to be other factors in the equation. iPhones are known to be fast and Apple doesn't want to risk losing that no matter what -- would be my guess.
> She gets very nervous about carrying around a fragile $800+ device.
As I mentioned in the other sibling comment here, I really miss the days I didn't have to care if I dropped my phone. Sadly I don't think these days are ever coming back. :(
I personally am unwilling to sacrifice privacy and smooth operation (most budget Androids lag like hell) -- because I consume a lot of reading and video and audio material on my phone and replacing light amounts of anxiety (that most of the time I can put under control) with severe annoyances on a daily basis is a bad trade for me.
Of course, we aren't trying to convince each other, I am aware. We're sharing use cases and I am grateful that you oblige.
I most certainly do, but as mentioned in a sibling comment, don't most US households use carrier-financed phones? That's like, $20 - $50 extra a month?
The 3 years usage period is kind of surprising to me because it clashes with my anecdotal evidence somewhat -- I've known 20+ people holding on to iPhones for 5-6 years. But I am pretty sure the median you gave is more accurate so in that case the cost per annum might indeed be equal to Android flagships (or larger).
> paying $200 extra because Apple doesn't think I need a microSD slot.
I now dearly regret not keeping the link but there was a research showing that the SD controller introduces lag in the entire system (in the case of SoCs anyway). However, nowadays that probably can be solved. Likely nobody in Apple tried though. So there's not only Apple not thinking you might need a microSD. There seem to be other factors in the equation. iPhones are known to be fast and Apple doesn't want to risk losing that no matter what -- would be my guess.
> She gets very nervous about carrying around a fragile $800+ device.
As I mentioned in the other sibling comment here, I really miss the days I didn't have to care if I dropped my phone. Sadly I don't think these days are ever coming back. :(
I personally am unwilling to sacrifice privacy and smooth operation (most budget Androids lag like hell) -- because I consume a lot of reading and video and audio material on my phone and replacing light amounts of anxiety (that most of the time I can put under control) with severe annoyances on a daily basis is a bad trade for me.
Of course, we aren't trying to convince each other, I am aware. We're sharing use cases and I am grateful that you oblige.
Thanks. It's been a nice a discussion. I don't often get to engage in this sort of discourse, so it's been a fun thread.
You can easily connect an iPhone to a computer and copy the pics off of it. You don’t need to swap an SD card around
Carrying a laptop around with me everywhere I go is a wildly impractical solution. The situation I mentioned was at an amusement park, while on vacation.
The problem isn't that I'm using the device wrong. The problem is the device isn't fit for purpose.
The problem isn't that I'm using the device wrong. The problem is the device isn't fit for purpose.
large onboard storage is no replacement for being able to swap out cards.
especially in the case of a phone failure to boot.
especially in the case of a phone failure to boot.
I only met techies who cared about continuing to use a phone if they could only boot from their SD card. Regular people don't know about the option.
So consider that this niche feature you find useful is of almost no consequence to anybody.
Additionally, iPhones and Samsung devices have really durable internal storage. Almost always the battery craps out first.
So consider that this niche feature you find useful is of almost no consequence to anybody.
Additionally, iPhones and Samsung devices have really durable internal storage. Almost always the battery craps out first.
It's not about trying to boot off the micro-SD card, it is being able to just pop out the card, and get all the data that was stored on it.
Well sure but most smartphones -- both iPhones and Androids -- do periodic automatic cloud backups.
The ability to do offline salvaging does not seem like such a big selling point to me.
The ability to do offline salvaging does not seem like such a big selling point to me.
I disable cloud updates for privacy reasons and bc backups of that size would cost more money than my own solution
As for offline salvaging, do you realize how many phones have had bugs that resulted in boot problems in the last 10 years?
As for offline salvaging, do you realize how many phones have had bugs that resulted in boot problems in the last 10 years?
I do, but I am not sure what can I do -- Androids are no longer an option for me because Google is way too obvious and they collect everything they can, 24/7. It's too much.
As for privacy, I would disable cloud sync and backups as well. But eventually came to the sad conclusion that I have a lot more going on in my life and I cannot sacrifice even more of my preciously little free time to self-manage all my data -- not to mention this would require a moderate investment in my own NAS / 10Gbps switch / 10Gbps router and end-to-end encrypted backups to 1-2 VPS-es.
I get where you are coming from, I do. But I had to make a choice between an actual life and paranoia. I settled for a "mostly ok" solution and a bit more of a personal life and free time.
If privacy and offline-first own personal data get commoditised, I'll be the first to switch away from cloud (and thus Apple).
As for privacy, I would disable cloud sync and backups as well. But eventually came to the sad conclusion that I have a lot more going on in my life and I cannot sacrifice even more of my preciously little free time to self-manage all my data -- not to mention this would require a moderate investment in my own NAS / 10Gbps switch / 10Gbps router and end-to-end encrypted backups to 1-2 VPS-es.
I get where you are coming from, I do. But I had to make a choice between an actual life and paranoia. I settled for a "mostly ok" solution and a bit more of a personal life and free time.
If privacy and offline-first own personal data get commoditised, I'll be the first to switch away from cloud (and thus Apple).
Some Samsung devices have removable batteries, which if replaced with new ones, can add some more life to it.
I use my DSLR to shoot pictures in RAW and still don't fill ~10GB of space in a full vacation. Granted different people have different needs - but anything over 32GB seems to work fine for me.
I have the OS taking up space, games that now take up 1+ GB, some offline music, and offline maps so I can use the GPS in rural areas. All of that eats up a sizable portion of that 32 GB. Add in photos and 1080p video and it doesn't take long to fill up. If 32 GB works great for you, awesome. But I didn't make my story up :-)
Now my phone has 64 GB based storage and I'm still in the same situation because everything has bloated to fill the available space. microSD is a really cheap and incredibly effective solution to the problem. Certainly much cheaper than buying a new phone so you can get more storage.
Now my phone has 64 GB based storage and I'm still in the same situation because everything has bloated to fill the available space. microSD is a really cheap and incredibly effective solution to the problem. Certainly much cheaper than buying a new phone so you can get more storage.
Not doubting you at all. Also, I recently bought a 128GB iPad and copy my pictures to it - from phone and camera (using the SDCard adapter for iPad). It works great for me. iPads are cheaper and last quite a bit.
Maybe HD video is the major culprit. I imagine that might fill up space pretty quick on a vacation, depending on how someone likes to record.
>Many Android users also lament the lack of a visible filesystem but that's a huge plus in my eyes
That's awful in my eyes. What's more is my inability to browse that file system without a third party application when i want to simply move files to my computer.
The only reason I'm even contemplating the move to iOS, is b/c I have a android based, digital audio player that has 2 SDcard slots that I keep disconnected from Wifi (and it does n't have a 4G connection at all).
If my music was still on my phone, I simply would not move to iOS over this singular issue. You're talking 250-400GB of files, not including my downloads, my pictures, my Keepass databases, my SSH keys, my certs file for my VPN, and files that I don't want the OS to index and put in some general library.
It stills seem ridiculously daunting to let go of. Because I use it extensively. Daily - even without my music on there.
>ou guessed it, scan your internal storage and SD card and upload them feck knows where (and this has been proven by many advanced Android users)
Except only the apps I trust are allowed storage access.
That's awful in my eyes. What's more is my inability to browse that file system without a third party application when i want to simply move files to my computer.
The only reason I'm even contemplating the move to iOS, is b/c I have a android based, digital audio player that has 2 SDcard slots that I keep disconnected from Wifi (and it does n't have a 4G connection at all).
If my music was still on my phone, I simply would not move to iOS over this singular issue. You're talking 250-400GB of files, not including my downloads, my pictures, my Keepass databases, my SSH keys, my certs file for my VPN, and files that I don't want the OS to index and put in some general library.
It stills seem ridiculously daunting to let go of. Because I use it extensively. Daily - even without my music on there.
>ou guessed it, scan your internal storage and SD card and upload them feck knows where (and this has been proven by many advanced Android users)
Except only the apps I trust are allowed storage access.
Android Q is adding scoped storage and it's more or less the end of a visible file system. Even the existing file manager apps will have trouble to show files without special permissions.
Key word is "permissions", right? Meaning apps that don't wish to scare users with permissions will adopt the new API, but existing filesystem access should continue to function. Otherwise this would be crippling to some users and apps and I doubt it would go over well.
That sounds like the right way to do it. I would love a file browser that has no network permissions but special file permissions, and my network capable apps to have no extra file permissions beyond their own needs.
They are crippling it some way I am a heavy user of calibre companion app on Android. A library type app that you use to open books in the readers of your choice. But according to the dev of calibre companion opening the book into a reader of your choice will break
Not judging or criticising but you seem to have arrived at the right time to setup a home VPN with a [ten] gigabit grade router + switch, and put a NAS behind them. (And can then use them anywhere from the outside world as well.)
As mentioned in a sibling comment, Apple's proposition has cracks and that's unequivocally true. Your usage sounds like an outlier case.
In my case, I have tons and TONS of videos (800GB at this point) so I am pondering the home NAS + 10Gbps router + 10Gbps switch setup. And yeah, I can't use Apple's iCloud for my videos.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, Apple's proposition has cracks and that's unequivocally true. Your usage sounds like an outlier case.
In my case, I have tons and TONS of videos (800GB at this point) so I am pondering the home NAS + 10Gbps router + 10Gbps switch setup. And yeah, I can't use Apple's iCloud for my videos.
You can get 10Gbps upstream where you live? And actually afford it? Wow...
That's not the case almost anywhere though. And you won't be able to access your own stuff without internet either. That's would be very annoying for music, imo.
That's not the case almost anywhere though. And you won't be able to access your own stuff without internet either. That's would be very annoying for music, imo.
The far Eastern Europe (Bulgaria where I live, and Romania) has one of the best internet connections in the world. ;)
In my case I am on 1Gbps ingress/egress for ~43 EUR a month and could negotiate a deal for a datacenter level of a link (10Gbps) but I don't want to.
The reason I'll go for 10Gbps router and a 10Gbps switch is because if you put a NAS in your home network then the gigabit speeds will never be achieved again (various reasons, including LAN chatter). And also because I'll buy a 10Gbps-enabled machine and would like to be able to work with the data on my NAS with 1.25GB/s.
In my case I am on 1Gbps ingress/egress for ~43 EUR a month and could negotiate a deal for a datacenter level of a link (10Gbps) but I don't want to.
The reason I'll go for 10Gbps router and a 10Gbps switch is because if you put a NAS in your home network then the gigabit speeds will never be achieved again (various reasons, including LAN chatter). And also because I'll buy a 10Gbps-enabled machine and would like to be able to work with the data on my NAS with 1.25GB/s.
To each their own but this is quite a bit overkill. I’m running a gig connection (with only 40mbps ingress) with a 16TB NAS setup and it serves all my needs. People in this thread are complaining about the Apple premium but then you see people talking about buying multiple thousand USD NAS setups to get around having to use cloud storage.
Eh, both things don't contradict each other. Many are willing to spend money to get away from corporate lock-in and I get that motivation. I want to partially do that myself since all my videos would cost quite a lot in cloud hosting costs (not to mention the snail speeds of backup!).
I agree that my planned setup is an overkill but I am setting myself up for such a tech overkill setup in all my work endeavours because I want to have a peace of mind for about 10 years -- if at all possible.
I don't think any of us will soon need more than 1.25GB/s ingress/egress anytime soon (unless of course our games are rendered on the cloud and streamed directly to our PCs). And since I am sick and tired of eternal tinkering, I want to go for an ultimate endgame, or at least one that can last me some years in the future.
I agree that my planned setup is an overkill but I am setting myself up for such a tech overkill setup in all my work endeavours because I want to have a peace of mind for about 10 years -- if at all possible.
I don't think any of us will soon need more than 1.25GB/s ingress/egress anytime soon (unless of course our games are rendered on the cloud and streamed directly to our PCs). And since I am sick and tired of eternal tinkering, I want to go for an ultimate endgame, or at least one that can last me some years in the future.
What kind of router would you get? 10 gigabit options seems very expensive.
Ubiquiti or Mikrotik. No more than $400 last I checked. Per device though, so router + switch could go up to $800 - $1000.
Quite an investment I admit. But it's long-term. I don't anticipate changing that setup for like 10 years.
Quite an investment I admit. But it's long-term. I don't anticipate changing that setup for like 10 years.
Now you mention it, the only thing I really do with my filesystem on Android is organize my audio collection. What audio player do you have?
Android 9 has a native FS browser.
I agree, I made the switch a few years ago when I couldn't find a single good Android phone that wasn't huge (and yes, I tried the Sony Z3 Compact, it had way too many issues). The iPhone SE had just come out with flagship specs and one of the best cameras on the market, so I made the jump. It was painful for a while but now I'm sure I'd feel the same pain switching back.
My main complaint about iOS is text entry. Both the keyboard and voice input are incredibly bad compared to Android, even compared to Android of 3 years ago. I still struggle to type accurately or voicetype without having to make a ton of corrections. And there are better 3rd party keyboards (including GBoard) but they tend to be slow and awkward due to iOS limitations, plus then you lose voice typing completely which is not acceptable to me. If I could have an iPhone with the native Android keyboard and voice typing I'd be super happy.
My main complaint about iOS is text entry. Both the keyboard and voice input are incredibly bad compared to Android, even compared to Android of 3 years ago. I still struggle to type accurately or voicetype without having to make a ton of corrections. And there are better 3rd party keyboards (including GBoard) but they tend to be slow and awkward due to iOS limitations, plus then you lose voice typing completely which is not acceptable to me. If I could have an iPhone with the native Android keyboard and voice typing I'd be super happy.
Oh I agree on the text input completely. Google's keyboard on Android is like a mind reader when you do swipe/gesture typing. If there's one thing I miss dearly in Android to this day it's exactly that.
iPhone has the Google keyboard in the app store. I use Swype keyboard though.
I know and use it. But it's much less precise than its Android counterpart due to Apple not giving it the exact touch sensor readings. As a result, it's not that good. :(
[deleted]
On iOS, 3rd party keyboards block access to the voice typing function which is a dealbreaker for me. At least on my iPhone SE, it takes so long to switch between a 3rd party keyboard and the iOS keyboard to use voice typing that it's too painful to be worth it.
On iPhone X it is still there.
Does it upload everything you type to Google? "For your convenience" and "to improve our services", of course. It'd be ironic to switch to iPhone for privacy but keylog yourself in the process.
No, it doesn't. Third party keyboards have two levels of access and they come pre-installed with the much more limited one (no access to internet whatsoever, no matter if you're on WiFi or 3G/4G).
Doesn't stop Google's keyboard to periodically pester you to give it full access "to get the full experience" (or something along the lines) but if you don't, it will never get or send a single byte to Google's servers.
Trust me, I researched. I too didn't want the huge irony you mentioned to hit me. And it doesn't.
Doesn't stop Google's keyboard to periodically pester you to give it full access "to get the full experience" (or something along the lines) but if you don't, it will never get or send a single byte to Google's servers.
Trust me, I researched. I too didn't want the huge irony you mentioned to hit me. And it doesn't.
> plus then you lose voice typing completely which is not acceptable to me
I use GBoard on iOS, and on the iPhone XS with iOS12, you can still use the native voice typing while using GBoard
I use GBoard on iOS, and on the iPhone XS with iOS12, you can still use the native voice typing while using GBoard
Android just announced a move away from the traditional visible file system as well.
The best part is the equivalent Android APIs have terrible performance and stability.
Android has been steadily moving away from both being open and supporting power users, with stuff like Doze relying on GCM, nerfing WiFi control, disabling getting BT mac addresses (and not even letting apps ask for permission)
It turns out being able to replace a users lock screen with a full page ad is not a good thing.
The best part is the equivalent Android APIs have terrible performance and stability.
Android has been steadily moving away from both being open and supporting power users, with stuff like Doze relying on GCM, nerfing WiFi control, disabling getting BT mac addresses (and not even letting apps ask for permission)
It turns out being able to replace a users lock screen with a full page ad is not a good thing.
> Many Android users also lament the lack of a visible filesystem but that's a huge plus in my eyes.
iCloud is accessible as a "filesystem" on iOS. It's a decent compromise that doubles as a dropbox replacement
iCloud is accessible as a "filesystem" on iOS. It's a decent compromise that doubles as a dropbox replacement
And the file browser app lets me get just about everything I need to in and out of music production apps. E.g samples and rendered songs.
No need to jailbreak. Just dial 3001#12345# for field mode and enjoy the stats!
Note that HN formatting ate the single asterisk before and after. You'll need to enter them as well.
Do you know how to get the same field test data on an iPad where there is no dialer?
Nice! Had no idea. Thank you.
> I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated.
I've never really wanted to tinker much with my smartphone. I want it to do a handful of simple tasks (calls, texts, maps, music, light web browsing), and otherwise get out of the way.
Similarly, I switched to Mac OS X awhile back after years on Linux and BSD, because I realized that I would never want to tinker with (the source code of) my web browser or word processor, and there was a whole tinker-friendly Unix system sitting right next door. Pace, Stallman, but I don't need the freedom to tinker everywhere.
I've never really wanted to tinker much with my smartphone. I want it to do a handful of simple tasks (calls, texts, maps, music, light web browsing), and otherwise get out of the way.
Similarly, I switched to Mac OS X awhile back after years on Linux and BSD, because I realized that I would never want to tinker with (the source code of) my web browser or word processor, and there was a whole tinker-friendly Unix system sitting right next door. Pace, Stallman, but I don't need the freedom to tinker everywhere.
While I admire people like Richard Stallman and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, IMO they fail to understand that most people simply don't care -- they have a life, job, family and stuff they like to do in their free time and they want technology to enable them and save them time, not get in the way and take their free time.
I used Debian as a main driver for several years and lost patience around 2010. Using a MacBook Pro with an external monitor and working to get an iMac Pro with maxed out settings (~14_000 EUR) to have as a main driver for the next 9-10 years.
Customisation and freedom to tinker with the details is great but only when you need it. Not all the time.
I used Debian as a main driver for several years and lost patience around 2010. Using a MacBook Pro with an external monitor and working to get an iMac Pro with maxed out settings (~14_000 EUR) to have as a main driver for the next 9-10 years.
Customisation and freedom to tinker with the details is great but only when you need it. Not all the time.
They don't fail to understand it. They just realize that if people don't push back, they won't have freedom to tinker even when they need it.
Also, for those believing in free markets: freedom to tinker for you is also the freedom to ask your friend or pay a local professional to tinker on your behalf. It doesn't mean everyone has to be a tinkerer, only that everyone can be. The opposite of that is requiring to go through the official vendor for every little thing you need to tweak.
I don't believe in free markets. I am too much of a realist for that. :)
I ask you what can we realistically do though?
It's very apparent that budget Androids that lag like hell and break down often aren't to the general populace's taste if they have a choice -- in my "poor" country (Bulgaria) people get loans so they can buy the Galaxy S10 or Huawei P30, en masse. Most people I've known in my life buying budget Androids only did so because of money constraints. I only knew 2 people who bought cheap Androids to tinker -- and it was because they loved tinkering with tech more than having sex with their wives, or spending time with their kids, or go jogging.
I already said I am not OK with Apple lobbying against the right to repair.
But I have no recourse as a customer. My iPhone is legitimately saving me time and frustration for a no small amount of leisure and work activities. If it didn't, I'd be using a budget Xiaomi for life. But here we are.
What would you do? Would you sacrifice your free time so you can punish the big evil corporations? And how?
I ask you what can we realistically do though?
It's very apparent that budget Androids that lag like hell and break down often aren't to the general populace's taste if they have a choice -- in my "poor" country (Bulgaria) people get loans so they can buy the Galaxy S10 or Huawei P30, en masse. Most people I've known in my life buying budget Androids only did so because of money constraints. I only knew 2 people who bought cheap Androids to tinker -- and it was because they loved tinkering with tech more than having sex with their wives, or spending time with their kids, or go jogging.
I already said I am not OK with Apple lobbying against the right to repair.
But I have no recourse as a customer. My iPhone is legitimately saving me time and frustration for a no small amount of leisure and work activities. If it didn't, I'd be using a budget Xiaomi for life. But here we are.
What would you do? Would you sacrifice your free time so you can punish the big evil corporations? And how?
Given that all Androids offer you the "freedom to tinker", you can always shell out for the Galaxy instead of iPhone if that's what you care about. I understand either choice on individual level. Myself, I'm on Galaxy S7 now, previously on S4. Before that, I bought a cheap Android phone and learned the hard way that what you save in money, you'll repay back with interest in mental health. The "death from a thousand cuts" isn't worth it, and I recommend everyone around me too to save up for a better phone instead of taking the cheapest one.
If the only Android phones where the cheap, shitty ones, I'd probably be on an iPhone now.
If the only Android phones where the cheap, shitty ones, I'd probably be on an iPhone now.
Seems we are in agreement.
I loved Samsung while I was using Androids but they were starting to lag at the 6-9 months mark, without an exception (I owned 5 of their devices over a course of 4 years). Eventually it pissed me off.
Only Android device I legitimately loved was the Xiaomi Mi 6 (the high-end version with 6GB RAM and 128GB storage). Truthfully a masterpiece!
In the end though, my need for full and easy integration between my mobile devices and laptop (soon a desktop as well) prevailed. I arrived at the conclusion that "tinker at all costs" is not for me. There are plenty of people who do only that, I am passing the torch to them.
I loved Samsung while I was using Androids but they were starting to lag at the 6-9 months mark, without an exception (I owned 5 of their devices over a course of 4 years). Eventually it pissed me off.
Only Android device I legitimately loved was the Xiaomi Mi 6 (the high-end version with 6GB RAM and 128GB storage). Truthfully a masterpiece!
In the end though, my need for full and easy integration between my mobile devices and laptop (soon a desktop as well) prevailed. I arrived at the conclusion that "tinker at all costs" is not for me. There are plenty of people who do only that, I am passing the torch to them.
I had this argument 10-15 years ago, and agree about the potential for lock-in. But even at the time, I realized that I would rather not build Konqueror, Kate, or the Gimp from source, and would never make a significant change. They had become so complex that learning and keeping up with them enough to contribute would be a part-time job.
The current toss-it-over-the-wall-ware model is good enough. Android and Chromium technically "work" without Google, and their code is online. There are multiple Firefox forks. I don't know about OSS programs for Excel spreadsheets and Word docs, but I'm happy to sacrifice some freedom in order to never have to go down that rabbit-hole.
The current toss-it-over-the-wall-ware model is good enough. Android and Chromium technically "work" without Google, and their code is online. There are multiple Firefox forks. I don't know about OSS programs for Excel spreadsheets and Word docs, but I'm happy to sacrifice some freedom in order to never have to go down that rabbit-hole.
Yep. We all have jobs to do and free time to enjoy. I am frankly burned out on tinkering and I am pursuing getting better at my workplace plus work on a few hobby projects every now and then. Beyond that I throw my hands in the air and give up. I have a life. And I like it.
"What if"-s and theoreticals don't help any discussion. It's very evident by now that people en masse don't push back. And there are no signs that this is changing as well.
Instead of being hung up "but if the people just do this...", how about we formulate a new strategy based on the facts observed so far?
Instead of being hung up "but if the people just do this...", how about we formulate a new strategy based on the facts observed so far?
IMHO open source already does that.
Most of the new opensource projects do make ease of use a major point.
You see that in frameworks, nearly every framework has a "Get started in 5 mins" and samples.
But the problem is that the money has to come from somewhere, so either you get sponsored, sell data, raise pricing or die.
Too few people pay for tech stuff, since most of is is free and then we end up in situations like today.
Wish I had your optimism. I used 8 languages in my life actively -- and 3 more as a quick hobby and evaluation of features -- and almost never seen a well-documented AND easy to use library or a framework. Almost every author falls in love with their own idea and convenient abstractions and even if they explain those to somebody else, it still doesn't make sense to a chunk of the programmer users.
Trust me, I'd like some of my ideas to be funded as well. But it doesn't seem to be the world we are living in. :(
Trust me, I'd like some of my ideas to be funded as well. But it doesn't seem to be the world we are living in. :(
Yes same here. I was on ubuntu from 2003-2010 and quit for osx because I didn't have time to tinker and fix basic-level services like audio and display settings. I only recently got ubuntu 16.04 on my desktop (dual boot) and am enjoying it, but I still drive osx on my laptop.
Use https://microg.org/ instead of Google play services
A free-as-in-freedom re-implementation of Google’s proprietary Android user space apps and libraries.
A free-as-in-freedom re-implementation of Google’s proprietary Android user space apps and libraries.
IIRC, there were cases showing this setup to easily break and not have certain apps work (like Google Maps which many people want).
It's cool if you have a weekend's worth of time to burn on such a project and fine-tune everything to your liking. But I don't.
It's cool if you have a weekend's worth of time to burn on such a project and fine-tune everything to your liking. But I don't.
> and supposedly more "locked down") ecosystem
Is it not? Your entire post only argues "It is, but here's why it works for me...". Removing the "freedom to tinker" is taking two steps back from what a computer should be. And smartphones are growing to be the primary computing device for many, so in my mind it's ridiculous to argue them being locked-down a merit. Relying on apps from a walled-garden app store is not a solution even if it works for you or others. Many legitimate apps are banned from the Apple app store entirely, and users cannot install them even if they choose to because iOS prevents installs outside of the app store (unlike Android). I want to run my own code on my own device, freedom to do so is not "hugely overrated".
And as for privacy: what is privacy if its decided for the user and not the other way round? You cannot have true privacy without freedom, you only have Apple's definition of it. Tell Chinese Apple users about privacy, why Apple stores data in China.
And freedom extends to hardware, too. You purchase an iPhone and Apple tells you it's too dangerous for users to fix it themselves, and lobbies against right-to-repair [1]. Do you also consider freedom to repair your own devices overrated?
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19791438
Is it not? Your entire post only argues "It is, but here's why it works for me...". Removing the "freedom to tinker" is taking two steps back from what a computer should be. And smartphones are growing to be the primary computing device for many, so in my mind it's ridiculous to argue them being locked-down a merit. Relying on apps from a walled-garden app store is not a solution even if it works for you or others. Many legitimate apps are banned from the Apple app store entirely, and users cannot install them even if they choose to because iOS prevents installs outside of the app store (unlike Android). I want to run my own code on my own device, freedom to do so is not "hugely overrated".
And as for privacy: what is privacy if its decided for the user and not the other way round? You cannot have true privacy without freedom, you only have Apple's definition of it. Tell Chinese Apple users about privacy, why Apple stores data in China.
And freedom extends to hardware, too. You purchase an iPhone and Apple tells you it's too dangerous for users to fix it themselves, and lobbies against right-to-repair [1]. Do you also consider freedom to repair your own devices overrated?
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19791438
You hijack my rather focused and narrow comment and try and broaden it to a much wider set of problems. Not a respectful discussion technique, partner.
Of course we should have the right to repair. And of course many Apple users aren't okay with everything Apple does -- or you thought we were all mindless worshipping drones? No. We buy Apple because it makes the most sense for our needs. That's all there is to it.
But tell me, what choice is there out there if we want alternatives? No, really. Don't give me theoreticals and "if we could only do X...". We have Android and iOS. Nothing else. Sailfish OS is very niche and not everybody likes Sony's 2-3 devices that the OS supports. W10 Mobile is dead. Google and all Android OEMS actively sabotaged any and all open-source efforts -- mostly the ROM community -- mainly by voiding warranties if you touch a single byte in the bootloader. Even the rootless unlocking techniques are attacked on a regular basis. It's a furious battle and the OEMs won.
So don't tell me Android is much better than iOS because it's very obviously not. Historical factual records show that Google is very keen on the walled garden idea as well -- and I hope you are aware of the Google Play Services situation and that "the vanilla Android" (AOSP) gets less and less useful with each release and that more and more functionality is sucked into the proprietary, closed-source, binary blob that's Google Play Services.
---
Again, what other choice of mobile ecosystems do we have?
Android's supposed increased freedom is periodically strangled away (normal file system is soon going to be a thing of the past, for example). Looks like a pretty classical bait and switch, don't you think?
Oh, and the ability to side-load apps is only useful for the 0.2% of the populace that are tech-savvy users. For everybody else it's a huge security risk.
I understand you're not OK with what Apple does -- trust me, I hate their guts for some of their policies as well. We really don't have a choice nowadays though. Apple just seems like the lesser evil compared to Google.
Of course we should have the right to repair. And of course many Apple users aren't okay with everything Apple does -- or you thought we were all mindless worshipping drones? No. We buy Apple because it makes the most sense for our needs. That's all there is to it.
But tell me, what choice is there out there if we want alternatives? No, really. Don't give me theoreticals and "if we could only do X...". We have Android and iOS. Nothing else. Sailfish OS is very niche and not everybody likes Sony's 2-3 devices that the OS supports. W10 Mobile is dead. Google and all Android OEMS actively sabotaged any and all open-source efforts -- mostly the ROM community -- mainly by voiding warranties if you touch a single byte in the bootloader. Even the rootless unlocking techniques are attacked on a regular basis. It's a furious battle and the OEMs won.
So don't tell me Android is much better than iOS because it's very obviously not. Historical factual records show that Google is very keen on the walled garden idea as well -- and I hope you are aware of the Google Play Services situation and that "the vanilla Android" (AOSP) gets less and less useful with each release and that more and more functionality is sucked into the proprietary, closed-source, binary blob that's Google Play Services.
---
Again, what other choice of mobile ecosystems do we have?
Android's supposed increased freedom is periodically strangled away (normal file system is soon going to be a thing of the past, for example). Looks like a pretty classical bait and switch, don't you think?
Oh, and the ability to side-load apps is only useful for the 0.2% of the populace that are tech-savvy users. For everybody else it's a huge security risk.
I understand you're not OK with what Apple does -- trust me, I hate their guts for some of their policies as well. We really don't have a choice nowadays though. Apple just seems like the lesser evil compared to Google.
I didn't hijack anything, I bring up RtR and privacy in response to the comment chain here saying "choose iOS, choose Apple, choose privacy". I directly address your post.
Now if you aimed your comment to be narrow then why broadly disregard the fact of Apple's ecosystem and related concerns as simply "supposedly" and freedom as "overrated"? There is nothing "supposed" about iOS being locked down, and "just find it on the App store" isn't viable alternative to the freedom Android offers. Neither is the contrast in the two platforms an "illusion" to merely adapt to.
> what choice is there out there if we want alternatives?
What Google does with Android remains a worry for the future, but the current-day choice simply from a matter of freedom and privacy is a LineageOS-supported device, preferably one requiring the least amount of blobs, alongside F-Droid. No Playstore and related frameworks installed. No accounts, no perpetual sign in and tracking, unlike Apple requiring you to be signed in with Apple ID even if you don't use their cloud services or just to install an app. If you must use apps that depend on Play Services, install MicroG and use Yalp. You have near full control of your device, which extends privacy since you can root, install low-level firewalls, and edit system-level files like hosts. Notice that this ecosystem is more Unix-like as opposed to just one big Apple ecosystem. You can decide yourself instead of Apple making choices for you.
With Apple, you only have one vendor, but with Android you have many choices you can make. Headphone jack? Too bad. Since iOS comes with Apple hardware, you have to discuss the two alongside each other. And for me, even ignoring the lock-down of iOS, I refuse to support Apple and vendor lock-in.
> For everybody else it's a huge security risk
Think-of-the-children fallacy. This always ignores the fact you can have the best of both - those none-the-wiser can continue using official means of installation. It also ignores the other side of the coin, developers wishing to offer programs but not interested in dealing with the Apple ecosystem - both them and users are out of luck in that case, and this can happen even if you're already on the app store if Apple decides to take down your app or developer account for whatever reason.
Now if you aimed your comment to be narrow then why broadly disregard the fact of Apple's ecosystem and related concerns as simply "supposedly" and freedom as "overrated"? There is nothing "supposed" about iOS being locked down, and "just find it on the App store" isn't viable alternative to the freedom Android offers. Neither is the contrast in the two platforms an "illusion" to merely adapt to.
> what choice is there out there if we want alternatives?
What Google does with Android remains a worry for the future, but the current-day choice simply from a matter of freedom and privacy is a LineageOS-supported device, preferably one requiring the least amount of blobs, alongside F-Droid. No Playstore and related frameworks installed. No accounts, no perpetual sign in and tracking, unlike Apple requiring you to be signed in with Apple ID even if you don't use their cloud services or just to install an app. If you must use apps that depend on Play Services, install MicroG and use Yalp. You have near full control of your device, which extends privacy since you can root, install low-level firewalls, and edit system-level files like hosts. Notice that this ecosystem is more Unix-like as opposed to just one big Apple ecosystem. You can decide yourself instead of Apple making choices for you.
With Apple, you only have one vendor, but with Android you have many choices you can make. Headphone jack? Too bad. Since iOS comes with Apple hardware, you have to discuss the two alongside each other. And for me, even ignoring the lock-down of iOS, I refuse to support Apple and vendor lock-in.
> For everybody else it's a huge security risk
Think-of-the-children fallacy. This always ignores the fact you can have the best of both - those none-the-wiser can continue using official means of installation. It also ignores the other side of the coin, developers wishing to offer programs but not interested in dealing with the Apple ecosystem - both them and users are out of luck in that case, and this can happen even if you're already on the app store if Apple decides to take down your app or developer account for whatever reason.
> I realised in the next months that the perceived "freedom to tinker" on Android is something hugely overrated. I could achieve almost everything I wanted on my iPhone
There is a counter argument which says that the only reason you can do those things is because the existence of open source Android forced Apple to do it or be uncompetitive with Android's features.
My primary objection to Apple is one of principle: giving up your right to code software that is hostile to the interests of a platform owner is massive loss of freedom. As Stallman put it, "Apple made it cool to go to jail".
There is a counter argument which says that the only reason you can do those things is because the existence of open source Android forced Apple to do it or be uncompetitive with Android's features.
My primary objection to Apple is one of principle: giving up your right to code software that is hostile to the interests of a platform owner is massive loss of freedom. As Stallman put it, "Apple made it cool to go to jail".
> And i don't believe for a second the data they're allowing you to "autodelete" genuinely gets deleted. It just gets removed from your view.
While "deleted" might take a while (eventual consistency FTW), any company with a presence in the EU has a lot to lose if such a scheme (beyond what they declare, eg. "31 days to recover your account") ever sees the light of day.
While "deleted" might take a while (eventual consistency FTW), any company with a presence in the EU has a lot to lose if such a scheme (beyond what they declare, eg. "31 days to recover your account") ever sees the light of day.
You mean the fines that the board of directors writes off as a cost of business and they never change policy due to them? Those fines?
Not changing policy means escalating fines (those 4% of global revenue maximum are nothing to sneeze at, and so far compliance was the cheaper route) but also, at some point, the inability to operate in the EU.
Even if a company only does the bare minimum required under GDPR, total deletion of data on request is part of that.
Even if a company only does the bare minimum required under GDPR, total deletion of data on request is part of that.
But these more severe measures are either 5-10 years away, or never going to happen at all (the latter part is my assumption, not claiming it as a fact).
IMO the corporate board of directors will coast on the situation for as long as possible and only then will we see some changes, don't you agree?
IMO the corporate board of directors will coast on the situation for as long as possible and only then will we see some changes, don't you agree?
> IMO the corporate board of directors will coast on the situation for as long as possible and only then will we see some changes, don't you agree?
There are a few cases already with fines around 2.8% of revenue, and those fines don't mean the DPA will go away. The expectation is that these fines are paid _and_ the reason for the fine is resolved.
Turnover in the 2.8% case (Taxa 4x35 in Denmark) was from Fall 2018 (start of investigation) to March 2019 (when the DPA reported the incident to the police and "recommended" that fine). Sadly the only follow-ups on the case that I could find are behind paywalls (so I can't read them), but apparently the DPA isn't done with them yet.
It's all a matter of exercising pressure, and it seems that the authorities are willing to do that.
There are a few cases already with fines around 2.8% of revenue, and those fines don't mean the DPA will go away. The expectation is that these fines are paid _and_ the reason for the fine is resolved.
Turnover in the 2.8% case (Taxa 4x35 in Denmark) was from Fall 2018 (start of investigation) to March 2019 (when the DPA reported the incident to the police and "recommended" that fine). Sadly the only follow-ups on the case that I could find are behind paywalls (so I can't read them), but apparently the DPA isn't done with them yet.
It's all a matter of exercising pressure, and it seems that the authorities are willing to do that.
True, but I doubt EU courts could take up a case involving non-EU consumers. So, even though Google compiles in Europe, they don't have to afford the same protection to non-EU users.
> involving non-EU consumers
GDPR covers any interaction of people or organizations in the EU.
So non-EU consumers are covered once they're visiting the EU (citizen of a member state or not), and potentially (untested, not spelled out explicitly) when they use a VPN with an endpoint in the EU (because they're then likely talking to data centers under the control of the European subsidiary).
> they don't have to afford the same protection to non-EU users
Given that "EU user" is murky like that, I'm not sure if any company goes through the trouble of differentiating which action happened from inside or outside the EU beyond raw GDPR blocking that refuse service entirely for accesses from within the EU.
GDPR covers any interaction of people or organizations in the EU.
So non-EU consumers are covered once they're visiting the EU (citizen of a member state or not), and potentially (untested, not spelled out explicitly) when they use a VPN with an endpoint in the EU (because they're then likely talking to data centers under the control of the European subsidiary).
> they don't have to afford the same protection to non-EU users
Given that "EU user" is murky like that, I'm not sure if any company goes through the trouble of differentiating which action happened from inside or outside the EU beyond raw GDPR blocking that refuse service entirely for accesses from within the EU.
Legal action requires you to be able to prove they still hold the data.
If they only use it for something where other factors affect the outcome (ad targeting, etc) they can still keep your data forever while hiding behind plausible deniability the other factors provide them (from outside, there’s no way to prove that a particular ad was served to you because of your data instead of another factor they use as input for the algorithm).
If they only use it for something where other factors affect the outcome (ad targeting, etc) they can still keep your data forever while hiding behind plausible deniability the other factors provide them (from outside, there’s no way to prove that a particular ad was served to you because of your data instead of another factor they use as input for the algorithm).
There are a lot of mouths to keep shut on the inside. If anyone responsible for building the fake delete tool spoke out, Google would be in trouble.
If people couldn’t be unethical at scale then Facebook wouldn’t exist at all and yet it does, so I’m sure the same would be possible at Google.
That's different. People can easily be unethical at scale when incentives align. What they almost never can be is coordinated at scale against the individual incentives - whether for good or bad.
Also maintaining that deleted data is an issue, can't just magically move it to your datacenter in the mountains. someone will notice the movement of data even if it's automated. i suspect google just extracts as much data as possible from the photo, maybe trains an algo or two with the metadata and then deletes
> from outside, there’s no way to prove that a particular ad was served to you because of your data instead of another factor they use as input for the algorithm
Create an account, use it to excessively look for tea pots until you predominantly get ads for tea pots. Store the cookie[0] that encodes your user id. Delete the account.
After the advertised account retention period, try the cookie again in an otherwise squeaky clean session that gives random ads without the cookie:
Tea pots? Something survived.
No tea pots? No targetting.
(and yes, the onus to demonstrate your accusation well enough to convince a DPA is on you, IMHO as it should be)
[0] or whatever bits of data are necessary: try to recreate the tea-pot session after a logout without logging in officially to determine what's necessary.
Create an account, use it to excessively look for tea pots until you predominantly get ads for tea pots. Store the cookie[0] that encodes your user id. Delete the account.
After the advertised account retention period, try the cookie again in an otherwise squeaky clean session that gives random ads without the cookie:
Tea pots? Something survived.
No tea pots? No targetting.
(and yes, the onus to demonstrate your accusation well enough to convince a DPA is on you, IMHO as it should be)
[0] or whatever bits of data are necessary: try to recreate the tea-pot session after a logout without logging in officially to determine what's necessary.
I don't believe for a second they keep the data at a company of Google's size. But they don't need to anymore if they just feed your data through some neural network training that outputs a black box filled with weights. They can legally show your data is gone but now their model knows that people with similar browsing history, location, etc have a weak signal for tea cups. You'll get the occasional ad for them if their other networks don't filter out all the history for appearing suspicious. Google can bring in a bunch of experts saying how much data they've processed and no one really knows how the ML algorithm learns, etc.
They've improved their model none the less even if you delete your data after the fact.
They've improved their model none the less even if you delete your data after the fact.
And that is fine by me. Using my behavioral data to train an underfitting model is very different from actually storing my behavioral data. Sure, the word 'underfitting' does the heavy lifting in my previous sentence. But I don't think that overfitting is even feasible at this scale. Google does not train models that just memorize the habits of 3 billion people. Such a model would be useless.
If you're coming from the same device or IP address/range, that's enough of a link.
An anecdote: I stayed with relatives for a few days one time, and my two-year-old niece really liked one particular music video on YouTube, so it got played on their TV box 3-4 times during my visit. Not on my laptop, but I used said laptop on their wifi (not logged into Google products, as I never am). When I got home, YouTube highly recommended that video to me after I watched an unrelated video, when there was no other reason to recommend it (I didn't know the artist, almost never watch music videos, and it wasn't anything all that popular).
An anecdote: I stayed with relatives for a few days one time, and my two-year-old niece really liked one particular music video on YouTube, so it got played on their TV box 3-4 times during my visit. Not on my laptop, but I used said laptop on their wifi (not logged into Google products, as I never am). When I got home, YouTube highly recommended that video to me after I watched an unrelated video, when there was no other reason to recommend it (I didn't know the artist, almost never watch music videos, and it wasn't anything all that popular).
I notice a similar behaviour. I don’t have a Google account and don’t keep cookies, so the only way for them to track me is my IP.
My IP seems to be permanently associated with my YouTube habits. They’re even being sneaky about it, as in they’ll give you a default homepage and generic recommendations first, but watching any video similar to the previous viewing habits will bring back not just videos related to that one, but the entire history they’ve collected over the years (some of the topics I watch are completely separate and would never intersect normally, so the only way for them to both come up in suggestions is from previous viewing history).
I didn’t create an account, didn’t agree to any privacy policies, and am blocking any and all cookies just like they advise in their own privacy policy and yet I am still being tracked.
My IP seems to be permanently associated with my YouTube habits. They’re even being sneaky about it, as in they’ll give you a default homepage and generic recommendations first, but watching any video similar to the previous viewing habits will bring back not just videos related to that one, but the entire history they’ve collected over the years (some of the topics I watch are completely separate and would never intersect normally, so the only way for them to both come up in suggestions is from previous viewing history).
I didn’t create an account, didn’t agree to any privacy policies, and am blocking any and all cookies just like they advise in their own privacy policy and yet I am still being tracked.
Even then I would still fear that data having already been transformed into something else and using word play to disassociate with the original set of data.
edit: I've been subjected to Google's dark patterns for so many years that I doubt I will ever trust this company to be honest with me.
edit: I've been subjected to Google's dark patterns for so many years that I doubt I will ever trust this company to be honest with me.
As someone impacted by the GDPR (AAA Game Studio, and all player stats / multiplayer matches getting impacted), backups are exempted:
"The GDPR is open to interpretation, so we asked an EU Member State supervisory authority (CNIL in France) for clarification. CNIL confirmed that you’ll have one month to answer to a removal request, and that you don’t need to delete a backup set in order to remove an individual from it. Organizations will have to clearly explain to the data subject (using clear and plain language) that his or her personal data has been removed from production systems, but a backup copy may remain, but will expire after a certain amount of time (indicate the retention time in your communication with the data subject). Backups should only be used for restoring a technical environment, and data subject personal data should not be processed again after restore (and deleted again). While this adds some complexity, it allows organizations to have some time to re-engineer their data protection processes." https://blog.quantum.com/backup-administrators-the-1-advice-...
You are absolutely correct that following the intent of the GDPR (we don't have access to the user data once they file the request) is of utmost importance. But the prior poster is correct that the data still exists.
Edit: All opinions my own and not that of my employer, etc. etc.
"The GDPR is open to interpretation, so we asked an EU Member State supervisory authority (CNIL in France) for clarification. CNIL confirmed that you’ll have one month to answer to a removal request, and that you don’t need to delete a backup set in order to remove an individual from it. Organizations will have to clearly explain to the data subject (using clear and plain language) that his or her personal data has been removed from production systems, but a backup copy may remain, but will expire after a certain amount of time (indicate the retention time in your communication with the data subject). Backups should only be used for restoring a technical environment, and data subject personal data should not be processed again after restore (and deleted again). While this adds some complexity, it allows organizations to have some time to re-engineer their data protection processes." https://blog.quantum.com/backup-administrators-the-1-advice-...
You are absolutely correct that following the intent of the GDPR (we don't have access to the user data once they file the request) is of utmost importance. But the prior poster is correct that the data still exists.
Edit: All opinions my own and not that of my employer, etc. etc.
I wonder how they define 'your data'? If I train a neural net to recognize you and predict your behaviors and preferences, are the weights of the network yours, or can I keep them? What if the network covers you and your family? Do I have to retrain my network?
Yes, if the neural net can identify a person, it's covered by the GDPR:
"Personal data which have undergone pseudonymisation, which could be attributed to a natural person by the use of additional information should be considered to be information on an identifiable natural person" (Recital 26).
In which case you need a lawful basis for doing such processing (of which consent is just one possibility). Furthermore, that's considered "profiling" and is subject to extra rules if it can have strong impact on the person's life.
On the other hand, if the data is well mixed with other people's, preventing that recognition, then it has been anonymized, and therefore it's not longer subject to the GDPR (Recital 26). But note that you're still subject to it when you're capturing and using personal data to train that model, even if the model itself is anonymized.
"Personal data which have undergone pseudonymisation, which could be attributed to a natural person by the use of additional information should be considered to be information on an identifiable natural person" (Recital 26).
In which case you need a lawful basis for doing such processing (of which consent is just one possibility). Furthermore, that's considered "profiling" and is subject to extra rules if it can have strong impact on the person's life.
On the other hand, if the data is well mixed with other people's, preventing that recognition, then it has been anonymized, and therefore it's not longer subject to the GDPR (Recital 26). But note that you're still subject to it when you're capturing and using personal data to train that model, even if the model itself is anonymized.
> But my next phone will be an iPhone.
If it pans out, you may want to wait for the Librem 5[1], that's definitely my next phone.
1 - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5
If it pans out, you may want to wait for the Librem 5[1], that's definitely my next phone.
1 - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5
And i don't believe for a second the data they're allowing you to "autodelete" genuinely gets deleted. It just gets removed from your view.
This came many times before and it is incorrect. If you delete your data from google, it is deleted permanently. Deletion of multiple backups takes longer, but eventually it is gone, forever.
Disclaimer: Googler.
This came many times before and it is incorrect. If you delete your data from google, it is deleted permanently. Deletion of multiple backups takes longer, but eventually it is gone, forever.
Disclaimer: Googler.
It's one thing to compare iOS and Android, but if we're gonna talk about actually buying phones, it's worth looking at some other aspects here. Such as being able to unlock the bootloader on some android phones and potentially run an alternate OS on them. Whether it's just LineageOS, which is essentially a better-tasting Android, or something even more different like Sailfish or postmarketOS. I don't believe there is a similar option or community effort around Apple devices.
> But my next phone will be an iPhone.
I ordered a new old-stock Nexus 5X to run KDE Plasma on. Fuck both Google and Apple. I hope the Purism and Pinephone actually get released as well so we have more real Linux options.
I hate we live in a world with totally non-standard mobile hardware. Back in the day you could wipe Windows and run Linux on nearly anything. Maybe you would only get VESA graphics or text, but it would at least boot.
PostmarketOS is trying to make a dent in it, but we still have huge gaps in hardware support.
I ordered a new old-stock Nexus 5X to run KDE Plasma on. Fuck both Google and Apple. I hope the Purism and Pinephone actually get released as well so we have more real Linux options.
I hate we live in a world with totally non-standard mobile hardware. Back in the day you could wipe Windows and run Linux on nearly anything. Maybe you would only get VESA graphics or text, but it would at least boot.
PostmarketOS is trying to make a dent in it, but we still have huge gaps in hardware support.
I don't understand why no one mentions SailfishOS. It's an alternative that is available right now.
Sure, it's not up to the level of Android and iOS in most respects, but it takes effort to get something like this going. Also from the users. Like Linux 20 years ago.
Developing for it is not a nightmare either.
And it's running Linux so there's advantages as well.
I used it as my daily driver years ago and I've been using it as my daily driver again since six months or so.
Sure, it's not up to the level of Android and iOS in most respects, but it takes effort to get something like this going. Also from the users. Like Linux 20 years ago.
Developing for it is not a nightmare either.
And it's running Linux so there's advantages as well.
I used it as my daily driver years ago and I've been using it as my daily driver again since six months or so.
I've looked into Sailfish before. Isn't it closed though? (It might have a Linux kernel, but that doesn't mean the rest is open) and as far as I can tell, it's not (easily) available in US markets.
It's not as open as the Librem phone, I think. What do you mean with "open"?
What I meant to indicate is that it is a viable alternative to iOS and Android, available right now. (Except it's hard to get outside Europe, China, Russia and India apparently. I missed that.)
What I meant to indicate is that it is a viable alternative to iOS and Android, available right now. (Except it's hard to get outside Europe, China, Russia and India apparently. I missed that.)
As a lifelong Android user, I'm pretty close to switching to Apple/iOS because of Google's gross surveillance behavior. I used to have the same qualms about the lack of features or components, but I recently began to see those complaints as pedantic.
> But my next phone will be an iPhone.
I'm seriously considering my next phone to be one I build.
The hardware is available - cheap 4G LTE modules that plug right into a Raspberry Pi Zero exist; that and a cheap touchscreen will get you around 90% of the functionality most of us need, hardware-wise. You won't have a camera, or motion sensors. You will have GPS, voice, data, a screen, storage...
Basically everything you need for most purposes. And adding a camera and an IMU isn't that difficult, either.
The difficult part is - as always - the software. But people out there are building those pieces. Quite a bit can be done using plain-old Raspbian and Python on top, because the cellular module is essentially a virtual serial port device, and everything else has simple drivers or is otherwise easy to interface to.
Where I'll probably start, though, is with the idea of a custom "cyberdeck"; I already have most if not all of the parts, I just need to find the time to do it. It's form factor will be close to what the TRS-80 Model 100 was, though the screen will be...well, different. I'm considering a few options; probably a standard 800x600 HDMI screen along with a secondary 128x64 monochrome serial GLCD.
The ultimate thing about the whole project is independence (well, as independent as I can get - still have to pay some piper - aka T-Mobile - but maybe voip over wifi could be done in the future?) - and customization.
I may not have everything I want in the beginning, but what I want may only be a bit of extra coding, a tad bit of soldering, or likely a bit (or a bunch!) of both. I'm honestly tired of the games Google and pals are playing; kicking them to the curb may be the best thing to do.
I'm seriously considering my next phone to be one I build.
The hardware is available - cheap 4G LTE modules that plug right into a Raspberry Pi Zero exist; that and a cheap touchscreen will get you around 90% of the functionality most of us need, hardware-wise. You won't have a camera, or motion sensors. You will have GPS, voice, data, a screen, storage...
Basically everything you need for most purposes. And adding a camera and an IMU isn't that difficult, either.
The difficult part is - as always - the software. But people out there are building those pieces. Quite a bit can be done using plain-old Raspbian and Python on top, because the cellular module is essentially a virtual serial port device, and everything else has simple drivers or is otherwise easy to interface to.
Where I'll probably start, though, is with the idea of a custom "cyberdeck"; I already have most if not all of the parts, I just need to find the time to do it. It's form factor will be close to what the TRS-80 Model 100 was, though the screen will be...well, different. I'm considering a few options; probably a standard 800x600 HDMI screen along with a secondary 128x64 monochrome serial GLCD.
The ultimate thing about the whole project is independence (well, as independent as I can get - still have to pay some piper - aka T-Mobile - but maybe voip over wifi could be done in the future?) - and customization.
I may not have everything I want in the beginning, but what I want may only be a bit of extra coding, a tad bit of soldering, or likely a bit (or a bunch!) of both. I'm honestly tired of the games Google and pals are playing; kicking them to the curb may be the best thing to do.
You may be interested in the Purism Librem 5 [0].
It's made by people who care about software freedom. It doesn't use the common ARM-based SoCs which require proprietary drivers and will be unusable with modern software in a few years. Everything except the cell modem (on a replaceable M.2 card connected over USB) runs 100% free software. The device as a whole runs Linux with Gnome, and Plasma Mobile + others also developing for it. The company contributes back to the OSS software they use/improve.
It doesn't have the form factor of the TRS-80 Model 100, but basically the deal you get with it is that you pay the price of a decently high end smartphone in exchange for a midrange smartphone which is completely controllable by you, as much as a normal Linux desktop, but still offers a 'pretty good' UI out of the box for normal phone usage.
[0]: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
It's made by people who care about software freedom. It doesn't use the common ARM-based SoCs which require proprietary drivers and will be unusable with modern software in a few years. Everything except the cell modem (on a replaceable M.2 card connected over USB) runs 100% free software. The device as a whole runs Linux with Gnome, and Plasma Mobile + others also developing for it. The company contributes back to the OSS software they use/improve.
It doesn't have the form factor of the TRS-80 Model 100, but basically the deal you get with it is that you pay the price of a decently high end smartphone in exchange for a midrange smartphone which is completely controllable by you, as much as a normal Linux desktop, but still offers a 'pretty good' UI out of the box for normal phone usage.
[0]: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
> It's made by people who care about software freedom.
How do I know that?
The first I saw about Librem was their original laptop that made clearly overstated claims about its openness. (e.g. claiming a device that used intel CPUs would have completely open firmware). After that I paid no further attention to them.
How do I know that?
The first I saw about Librem was their original laptop that made clearly overstated claims about its openness. (e.g. claiming a device that used intel CPUs would have completely open firmware). After that I paid no further attention to them.
A lot has happened:
https://puri.sm/learn/freedom-roadmap/
For instance, all the firmware is completely open. The BIOS can be flashed by the user. What openness do you feel is lacking?
https://puri.sm/learn/freedom-roadmap/
For instance, all the firmware is completely open. The BIOS can be flashed by the user. What openness do you feel is lacking?
> Google collects so much absurd amount of data - that all the Proton-mail, DuckduckGo, Wire/Signal, Firefox (loaded with adblocking and tracking plugins) apps in the world can't keep you totally from it as long as you're on Android. You disable things, you opt out of stuff and it just keeps on collecting anyways.
There must be some kind of way outta here.
How about carving out a Google-free chunk of the web, and then only visiting sites for which you're somehow certain there's zero Google in them (no Google Analytics, no DoubleClick, no fonts, none of the other junk they use to track you). Otherwise you'd be slapped in the face by a dire warning akin to those for the expired SSL certificates.
Would that be crazy?
There must be some kind of way outta here.
How about carving out a Google-free chunk of the web, and then only visiting sites for which you're somehow certain there's zero Google in them (no Google Analytics, no DoubleClick, no fonts, none of the other junk they use to track you). Otherwise you'd be slapped in the face by a dire warning akin to those for the expired SSL certificates.
Would that be crazy?
Not crazy, but you would be excluding 85% of the top 100k sites, including stuff like Github. I'd rather just try to block the Google domains themselves.
Well, that's a good start. It even already includes cool stuff like Hacker News and Wikipedia. From there on, site owners need incentives to enter and remain in the "cool" zone. No idea ATM how/if that can be realized but there seem to be enough bright folks out there wanting it to happen.
> I'd rather just try to block the Google domains themselves.
This works to some extent but falls short of really penalizing the site owner for installing the trackers (of course, they probably lose some revenue but that's not enough).
If sites had a rating reflecting how "tracky" they are, then, given a choice, people who care would tend to pick the less tracky one. Benevolent browsers, search engines, and other tools can enable them to make this choice.
> I'd rather just try to block the Google domains themselves.
This works to some extent but falls short of really penalizing the site owner for installing the trackers (of course, they probably lose some revenue but that's not enough).
If sites had a rating reflecting how "tracky" they are, then, given a choice, people who care would tend to pick the less tracky one. Benevolent browsers, search engines, and other tools can enable them to make this choice.
> The company that bends over backwards, much farther than the law requires, to enable the surveillance state.
This is the key point. Google came of age during the GWB administration, when the folly of trusting government was more clear than it had been for decades, and under Schmidt's leadership Google became a major defense contractor.
It's impossible to know how much unlawful surveillance has already been done thanks to Google's collaboration/complicity.
How can Google earn back some trust? Implement warrant canaries at the google account level, decline to do business with the Pentagon, and come forward and reveal all of the shady and unethical things the firm has done, and simply ask the public for forgiveness.
This is the key point. Google came of age during the GWB administration, when the folly of trusting government was more clear than it had been for decades, and under Schmidt's leadership Google became a major defense contractor.
It's impossible to know how much unlawful surveillance has already been done thanks to Google's collaboration/complicity.
How can Google earn back some trust? Implement warrant canaries at the google account level, decline to do business with the Pentagon, and come forward and reveal all of the shady and unethical things the firm has done, and simply ask the public for forgiveness.
How about the Librem 5?
It still reports your movements to your cell provider. Get rid of cell phones if you're worried about privacy.
That is like saying that 'unless its 100% perfect, I may as well send everything to Google and the ad-verse'
People can't simply get rid of their cell phones. At minimum, I need one for work.
People can't simply get rid of their cell phones. At minimum, I need one for work.
If you care about protecting something, leaving one known-exploited exploitable backdoor open is practically as bad as leaving 100 open. "Closing all known backdoors" is a rational compromise. "Closing more backdoors known others are open" is an irrational feelgood measure.
The problem with Libre5/Purism is apps.
A lot of the secure applications I use have a linux app of some sort (DEB, AppImage, Docker) but I fail to see how any of that is going to work on a phone.
I certainly don't see how a docker container would be good for battery life on a phone either
ProtonMail - for example - on Linux, requires a bridge application in order to talk to a IMAP capable email client.
Etesync requires a bridge in the form of a docker image.
Wire has an AppImage that I'm certain won't work well on a mobile screen. Signal has a DEB for Debian based environments and I doubt that'll play nice on mobile too.
The only real way to do a Libre phone is for me to invest entirely in the Libre ecosystem for mail, chat, VPN, everything.
if you've spent time moving your stuff into more secure and diverse sets of applications and services, and what's more - convincing friends and family to communicate with you over those very things, you'll have to migrate once more in order to use this phone.
I would bet money that Firefox doesn't even work on it in a mobile/phone-mode. You'll have to use their stock browser which will probably be based on Epiphany.
A lot of the secure applications I use have a linux app of some sort (DEB, AppImage, Docker) but I fail to see how any of that is going to work on a phone.
I certainly don't see how a docker container would be good for battery life on a phone either
ProtonMail - for example - on Linux, requires a bridge application in order to talk to a IMAP capable email client.
Etesync requires a bridge in the form of a docker image.
Wire has an AppImage that I'm certain won't work well on a mobile screen. Signal has a DEB for Debian based environments and I doubt that'll play nice on mobile too.
The only real way to do a Libre phone is for me to invest entirely in the Libre ecosystem for mail, chat, VPN, everything.
if you've spent time moving your stuff into more secure and diverse sets of applications and services, and what's more - convincing friends and family to communicate with you over those very things, you'll have to migrate once more in order to use this phone.
I would bet money that Firefox doesn't even work on it in a mobile/phone-mode. You'll have to use their stock browser which will probably be based on Epiphany.
FWIW docker apps are just regular processes with some additional data structures on the kernel side. If the process(es) in the container aren't scheduled on a CPU (e.g., blocked or sleeping), the app isn't taking any more resources than any other process(es).
Frankly, a container-based app model sounds kinda nice!
Frankly, a container-based app model sounds kinda nice!
even if it's good on battery, managing it on a phone sounds awful though.
I'd imagine that it could be wrapped up as well as .apks now, so you just see and manage a single icon representing the 'app'.
So much this. Without a ride share app (and a few others) I just can't see going to Librem 5 as much as I would like to.
For Uber, there's https://m.uber.com, works fine on any browser.
My understanding is that you can run Android apps in Linux, but I've never tried it.
It's a shame the Copperhead OS died.
There are things I would miss on iOS (e.g. widgets, dual sim, sdcard, headphone, more RAM) but for example Backup is is so much better on iOS! I fear that my android breaks at some point and I lose some data because there is no proper way to do full system backup. I have to use as much cloud services as possible and it has always been a big pain for me to upgrade to a newer android device. And I remember how straightforward it was and probably is on iOS.
please dont give money to apple. it gives them the illusion of being a good company.
instead: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ (i know it's not ready, but it's coming) or https://lineageos.org/
instead: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ (i know it's not ready, but it's coming) or https://lineageos.org/
> No SDCards, no headphone jack
> I loathe the notch.
To be fair, each of these either already is or is becoming the norm on Android phones as well (at least, ones at a similar price point iPhones). Several of the top end phones have notches and no headphone jack, and I haven't had an Android phone with an SD card slot for about five years now.
[edits: formatting/typos]
> I loathe the notch.
To be fair, each of these either already is or is becoming the norm on Android phones as well (at least, ones at a similar price point iPhones). Several of the top end phones have notches and no headphone jack, and I haven't had an Android phone with an SD card slot for about five years now.
[edits: formatting/typos]
Every phone I've had, my parents have had and my wife has had (since i support them all) has SDcards. Including phones bought this year. They all have various Samsung models right now.
My DAP has 2 slots. (android based)
And it's a god send when your phone decides to boot loop and you can no longer actually get into your phone.
Oh they say - use their cloud services for the low low price of whatever. F- that.
My DAP has 2 slots. (android based)
And it's a god send when your phone decides to boot loop and you can no longer actually get into your phone.
Oh they say - use their cloud services for the low low price of whatever. F- that.
> Google collects so much absurd amount of data - that all the Proton-mail, DuckduckGo, Wire/Signal, Firefox (loaded with adblocking and tracking plugins) apps in the world can't keep you totally from it as long as you're on Android. You disable things, you opt out of stuff and it just keeps on collecting anyways.
Do you really intend this statement in regards to pure AOSP/LineageOS (ie microg)?
Yes Android will always be a product of a surveillance company, rather than being focused on user-centric security. But I would think that microg should be enough to deprivilege Google's backdoors, and generally avoiding stuff from the Play (Yalp) store should shield you from the bulk of OS-facilitated commercial surveillance. If you have information to the contrary, please share!
Obviously given the choice I'd rather run an OS not designed by a surveillance company, but it's awfully hard to find a pocket-sized computer that can. I look forward to PostmarketOS, but I don't think we're anywhere close there.
Do you really intend this statement in regards to pure AOSP/LineageOS (ie microg)?
Yes Android will always be a product of a surveillance company, rather than being focused on user-centric security. But I would think that microg should be enough to deprivilege Google's backdoors, and generally avoiding stuff from the Play (Yalp) store should shield you from the bulk of OS-facilitated commercial surveillance. If you have information to the contrary, please share!
Obviously given the choice I'd rather run an OS not designed by a surveillance company, but it's awfully hard to find a pocket-sized computer that can. I look forward to PostmarketOS, but I don't think we're anywhere close there.
For me the worst part is that you don't own the pocket-computers (PC/phones) that you buy.... please let me install an OS that I can trust.
there is https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility for ChromeOS devices but on many phones, it is currently not possible to install a 3rd party OS, unless you figure out how to root them yourself... and even then, some of its hardware will probably not be compatible because they don't release drivers
I wish a Librem 4 was available (a lot cheaper then the Librem 5)
there is https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility for ChromeOS devices but on many phones, it is currently not possible to install a 3rd party OS, unless you figure out how to root them yourself... and even then, some of its hardware will probably not be compatible because they don't release drivers
I wish a Librem 4 was available (a lot cheaper then the Librem 5)
I feel exactly the same way as you.
Loathe is a strong word. And I loathe everything about Apple and the iPhone.
But I think I'll get an iPhone next. And it's not even because I hate Google or because I don't like Android. I just believe in voting with my dollars. And Apple at least is masquerading as a company that makes a product and wants to sell that. I like the idea of the transaction. I buy my phone and then I own it; I'm done.
With Google, I buy the phone, and the phone owns me.
Loathe is a strong word. And I loathe everything about Apple and the iPhone.
But I think I'll get an iPhone next. And it's not even because I hate Google or because I don't like Android. I just believe in voting with my dollars. And Apple at least is masquerading as a company that makes a product and wants to sell that. I like the idea of the transaction. I buy my phone and then I own it; I'm done.
With Google, I buy the phone, and the phone owns me.
Rupert Murdoch and criminals own MySpace data.
From Wikipedia:
2013–present: Time Inc. and Meredith Corporation ownership
On February 11, 2016, it was announced that MySpace and its parent company had been bought by Time Inc.[18] Time Inc. was in turn purchased by the Meredith Corporation on January 31, 2018.[20]
In May 2016, the data for almost 360 million MySpace accounts was offered on the "Real Deal" dark market website. The leaked data included email addresses, usernames and weakly encrypted passwords (SHA1 hashes of the first 10 characters of the password converted to lowercase and stored without a cryptographic salt[68]).[69] The exact data breach date is unknown, but analysis of the data suggests it was exposed around eight years before being made public, around mid-2008 to early-2009.[70]
On March 18, 2019, it was revealed that MySpace lost all of their user content from 2016 and earlier in "a server migration gone wrong". It was widely reported that over 50 million songs and 12 years worth of content was permanently lost, and there was no backup.[71]
and there was no backup
and there was no backup
and there was no backup
Wow.
From Wikipedia:
2013–present: Time Inc. and Meredith Corporation ownership
On February 11, 2016, it was announced that MySpace and its parent company had been bought by Time Inc.[18] Time Inc. was in turn purchased by the Meredith Corporation on January 31, 2018.[20]
In May 2016, the data for almost 360 million MySpace accounts was offered on the "Real Deal" dark market website. The leaked data included email addresses, usernames and weakly encrypted passwords (SHA1 hashes of the first 10 characters of the password converted to lowercase and stored without a cryptographic salt[68]).[69] The exact data breach date is unknown, but analysis of the data suggests it was exposed around eight years before being made public, around mid-2008 to early-2009.[70]
On March 18, 2019, it was revealed that MySpace lost all of their user content from 2016 and earlier in "a server migration gone wrong". It was widely reported that over 50 million songs and 12 years worth of content was permanently lost, and there was no backup.[71]
and there was no backup
and there was no backup
and there was no backup
Wow.
I'd like to believe there were backups but the engineers running the show decided to have an accident and let all that data be at peace.
This already happened to me. Around 14 years ago I created a MySpace musician page and apparently I put in my real birthday. It must have been public although I surely didn't intend it to be, and some sort of large data aggregator site picked it up. Later I deleted my MySpace page but the data aggregator still had my info.
The data site had tools to remove your data, but before I knew my data was even there, Google bought the site sometime around 2011 and shut it down, and added the data to their own system.
Today, if you search my full name on Google, it shows an infobox on the side with my real birthday. Google considers birthdays non-private enough that they won't let me remove it. I'm no celebrity but I get that info box because I had a MySpace musician page once over a decade ago.
My birthday now appears nowhere on the internet except that Google search infobox. MySpace, the original aggregator, all gone - but the data lives on.
We don't have a Right To Be Forgotten law where I live but if we ever get one, I know where I'll be going first.
The data site had tools to remove your data, but before I knew my data was even there, Google bought the site sometime around 2011 and shut it down, and added the data to their own system.
Today, if you search my full name on Google, it shows an infobox on the side with my real birthday. Google considers birthdays non-private enough that they won't let me remove it. I'm no celebrity but I get that info box because I had a MySpace musician page once over a decade ago.
My birthday now appears nowhere on the internet except that Google search infobox. MySpace, the original aggregator, all gone - but the data lives on.
We don't have a Right To Be Forgotten law where I live but if we ever get one, I know where I'll be going first.
The blatant disregard for privacy is what bothers me the most.
Like when I started getting push notifications from Android for my credit card payment with my exact balance due, which they could only have gathered by parsing my emails from the bank. It's easy to resolve that by changing the contact info/settings with the bank, but just the fact that engineers at Google thought users would appreciate having their private financial information parsed and stored by Google services is absurd.
It should never have crossed anyone's mind to even do that, let alone advertise it as a feature.
Like when I started getting push notifications from Android for my credit card payment with my exact balance due, which they could only have gathered by parsing my emails from the bank. It's easy to resolve that by changing the contact info/settings with the bank, but just the fact that engineers at Google thought users would appreciate having their private financial information parsed and stored by Google services is absurd.
It should never have crossed anyone's mind to even do that, let alone advertise it as a feature.
Wait, so you trust them to store the email, and parse it for something like spam detection, but not for some smarter feature? What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place? Sounds like you shouldn't be using Gmail at all tbh.
You trust snail mail carriers not to read your mail.
The digital equivalent of the envelope is encryption - the carrier is allowed to see the outside but not the inside. The function of encryption is lack of comprehension - the carrier still knows the exact encrypted bytes of your mail, but cannot comprehend it. We generally accept that this is already a useful proxy for privacy.
Imagine a mail protocol that somehow lets you encrypt everything but the part necessary for spam identification. The carrier is able to apply some algorithm to determine whether it's spam, but no other information. I'll assume everyone thinks this sounds good (though impossible). Because encryption is just lack of comprehension, an algorithm that is only capable of parsing an "is spam" feature from email has the same level of privacy as this hypothetical. But an algorithm that is capable of parsing "your credit card payment is overdue" is able to comprehend something else, which is a different level of privacy.
(Of course, encryption is better than "They're not running anything that can parse this," because it says "Nobody can parse this.")
The digital equivalent of the envelope is encryption - the carrier is allowed to see the outside but not the inside. The function of encryption is lack of comprehension - the carrier still knows the exact encrypted bytes of your mail, but cannot comprehend it. We generally accept that this is already a useful proxy for privacy.
Imagine a mail protocol that somehow lets you encrypt everything but the part necessary for spam identification. The carrier is able to apply some algorithm to determine whether it's spam, but no other information. I'll assume everyone thinks this sounds good (though impossible). Because encryption is just lack of comprehension, an algorithm that is only capable of parsing an "is spam" feature from email has the same level of privacy as this hypothetical. But an algorithm that is capable of parsing "your credit card payment is overdue" is able to comprehend something else, which is a different level of privacy.
(Of course, encryption is better than "They're not running anything that can parse this," because it says "Nobody can parse this.")
My mail carrier can't read my mail because I'm in the US and there are laws against it. There are certainly mail carriers in the world that can and do read mail.
The answer here is privacy laws and auditability.
The answer here is privacy laws and auditability.
That is a philosophically incoherent model of privacy. The singularity notwithstanding, computers cannot “comprehend” anything. Spam filtering and credit statement parsing are no different. It’s all just ones and zeros being shuffled around.
Everything is just bits of energy being shuffled around. There is no value in seeing computers as being unable to comprehend things, when comprehension is little more than maintaining an internal model of some processes. And computers do that.
Plaintext is also an internal model. The bare fact that they have your emails means they already have an “internal model” of your financial statements before any parsing is done.
> What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place?
That they use millions of computing-dollars to extract this information and store it.
Supposedly spam detection does not need to understand the numbers in your bank emails. Supposedly it needs mostly information about you previous contacts and spammy patterns from the rest of the internet.
The point being that you cannot misuse the information you do not have. Google is very good at thinking of a lot of this kind of quality of life functionality, they do not seem to realize how creepy and disconcerting they can be.
That they use millions of computing-dollars to extract this information and store it.
Supposedly spam detection does not need to understand the numbers in your bank emails. Supposedly it needs mostly information about you previous contacts and spammy patterns from the rest of the internet.
The point being that you cannot misuse the information you do not have. Google is very good at thinking of a lot of this kind of quality of life functionality, they do not seem to realize how creepy and disconcerting they can be.
Actually I want to make a slightly different point. The problem is that "intelligent" systems are unpredictable. In the future google could wrongly decide that your business is inconvenient blacklist you from searches. Maybe it got that idea from your name being mentioned in relation to some extreme stuff and unified you with ISIS.
Computers cannot “understand” anything. You are inappropriately anthropomorphizing an algorithm. There is no epistemological difference between spam filtering and credit card statement parsing. Either way it’s just a cpu pushing around ones and zeroes.
Yes there is, whatever information google extract form an email during spam detection need not be associated with your profile. That is not the case for financial data.
> Either way it’s just a cpu pushing around ones and zeroes.
What is even this supposed to mean? also the information "kill on sight" on your profile of a terrorist association is just one bit, do not worry about that. The fact that they are digital does not mean that the data won't affect your life nor that human or machine will take complex decision based on them.
> Either way it’s just a cpu pushing around ones and zeroes.
What is even this supposed to mean? also the information "kill on sight" on your profile of a terrorist association is just one bit, do not worry about that. The fact that they are digital does not mean that the data won't affect your life nor that human or machine will take complex decision based on them.
I think I'm not understanding if you really answered the question you quoted - what specifically is the concern with having that information extracted? Is it just "it feels creepy"?
My point is that they already have the information, so any potential misuse or abuse is possible regardless of what types of parsing they're doing. It might just be inconvenient.
My point is that they already have the information, so any potential misuse or abuse is possible regardless of what types of parsing they're doing. It might just be inconvenient.
One example is holiday photos: I am ok with stranger taking photos with me in the background. I am not ok with someone spending a lot of effort going around collecting all the photo with me in the background trying to build a personal profile on me.
There is also a security issue, I trust google to keep my email secure, I trust less google to keep my profile metadata secure as selling it is its main business model.
There is also a security issue, I trust google to keep my email secure, I trust less google to keep my profile metadata secure as selling it is its main business model.
>What specifically are you concerned about that is a problem with this and not with them having the email in the first place
My issue is that federal law regulates what information my bank can share with 3rd parties and allows me to opt out. The ethical thing to do is at least hold oneself to a similar standard. If I had worked on those projects I would have made it policy to ignore emails from healthcare providers and financial institutions outright, since there is far more harm that can be done than good.
I have no problem with data collection when it's done responsibly. But I get the feeling that most developers/engineers working on these features have warped senses of ethics and don't consider the large scale implication of what they're doing, or if they do they just ignore it. Either way, it's the blatant disregard for privacy that bothers me.
My issue is that federal law regulates what information my bank can share with 3rd parties and allows me to opt out. The ethical thing to do is at least hold oneself to a similar standard. If I had worked on those projects I would have made it policy to ignore emails from healthcare providers and financial institutions outright, since there is far more harm that can be done than good.
I have no problem with data collection when it's done responsibly. But I get the feeling that most developers/engineers working on these features have warped senses of ethics and don't consider the large scale implication of what they're doing, or if they do they just ignore it. Either way, it's the blatant disregard for privacy that bothers me.
But I get the feeling that most developers/engineers working on these features have warped senses of ethics
Nonsense. It's a totally reasonable ethical viewpoint to assume that a user who opts in to their financial institution to send their data to Gmail has opted into Gmail reading that email and trying to provide awesome features on top of it. It's not like Google keeps it a secret when it does this kind of stuff. This is the bread and butter what Google is, and anyone not interested in that kind of thing should choose another email alternative.
Google taking privacy seriously means they treat the data you share with them with respect. In this situation it is you, as a person who does not trust Google, who is apparently not taking privacy seriously when you opt into sending them your financial records.
Do you think customers have absolutely no responsibility over what applications and services they choose to use?
I realize the downvotes will come... But also take the time to let me know what I'm getting wrong.
Nonsense. It's a totally reasonable ethical viewpoint to assume that a user who opts in to their financial institution to send their data to Gmail has opted into Gmail reading that email and trying to provide awesome features on top of it. It's not like Google keeps it a secret when it does this kind of stuff. This is the bread and butter what Google is, and anyone not interested in that kind of thing should choose another email alternative.
Google taking privacy seriously means they treat the data you share with them with respect. In this situation it is you, as a person who does not trust Google, who is apparently not taking privacy seriously when you opt into sending them your financial records.
Do you think customers have absolutely no responsibility over what applications and services they choose to use?
I realize the downvotes will come... But also take the time to let me know what I'm getting wrong.
> push notifications from Android for my credit card payment with my exact balance due
Or "you have been served with a summons to appear at... See transportation options" (beta soon?). When a company has so completely lost sight of what its customers see as creepy that it advertises creepiness as a feature, it has lost its way.
Or "you have been served with a summons to appear at... See transportation options" (beta soon?). When a company has so completely lost sight of what its customers see as creepy that it advertises creepiness as a feature, it has lost its way.
I'm a user. I appreciate it. It's puzzling that you think it's such a deeply unpopular feature. Third party bill reminders isn't a taboo or unexplored territory.
I don't think it's a deeply unpopular feature, I think it's deeply unethical the way it was presented to me as a user. And it's not the reminder that bothers me. It's that I don't trust Google not to share the data they extract from my private communications.
Financial information in particular can be used against you by a number of parties, and it's been used to discriminate against people in the past. When it comes to the collection of that data by scanning private communications, the ethical alarm bells should have been ringing, and the fact they collect that data should be disclosed and be opt-in (or opt-out).
If it's a matter of "if you don't pay for the product you are the product" that's not true - I did pay a lot of money for their product (I own a Pixel device), and if they offered an email product that I could pay for with the solace that it wouldn't be reading my emails, I would.
Financial information in particular can be used against you by a number of parties, and it's been used to discriminate against people in the past. When it comes to the collection of that data by scanning private communications, the ethical alarm bells should have been ringing, and the fact they collect that data should be disclosed and be opt-in (or opt-out).
If it's a matter of "if you don't pay for the product you are the product" that's not true - I did pay a lot of money for their product (I own a Pixel device), and if they offered an email product that I could pay for with the solace that it wouldn't be reading my emails, I would.
> I don't think it's a deeply unpopular feature
And yet
> just the fact that engineers at Google thought users would appreciate having their private financial information parsed and stored by Google services is absurd.
> It should never have crossed anyone's mind to even do that, let alone advertise it as a feature.
That was an awfully quick turnaround from "I can't believe anyone would ever think this would be useful" to "I don't think it's unpopular".
Almost like your initial position was absurd on its face, so once challenged you had to immediately back up to a softer, more defensible one.
And yet
> just the fact that engineers at Google thought users would appreciate having their private financial information parsed and stored by Google services is absurd.
> It should never have crossed anyone's mind to even do that, let alone advertise it as a feature.
That was an awfully quick turnaround from "I can't believe anyone would ever think this would be useful" to "I don't think it's unpopular".
Almost like your initial position was absurd on its face, so once challenged you had to immediately back up to a softer, more defensible one.
Apologies for poorly wording things. My point wasn't on the feature, but the culture that allowed the feature to be created.
That's why I started by saying the disregard for privacy troubles me, and provided an example of a feature that was created out of that disregard, in my opinion.
Maybe I shouldn't have said it's absurd that they would find people liking the feature, but that it's absurd they consider it ethical to scrape private financial information and then present it as a nifty notification, and even more absurd that users don't see an issue with it.
That's why I started by saying the disregard for privacy troubles me, and provided an example of a feature that was created out of that disregard, in my opinion.
Maybe I shouldn't have said it's absurd that they would find people liking the feature, but that it's absurd they consider it ethical to scrape private financial information and then present it as a nifty notification, and even more absurd that users don't see an issue with it.
Even many people who are aware of what's going on, who are having the thing done to them, are fine with it, which is a pretty good argument against, "I can't believe anyone would think this is ethical". Apparently a large portion of the target demographic thinks it is, indeed, ethical.
> even more absurd that users don't see an issue with it
I don't see it as absurd, for the same reasons I've elaborated on elsewhere in the thread: the benefits are concrete and current, while the harms are nebulous/potential/abstract.
> even more absurd that users don't see an issue with it
I don't see it as absurd, for the same reasons I've elaborated on elsewhere in the thread: the benefits are concrete and current, while the harms are nebulous/potential/abstract.
> deeply unethical the way it was presented to me as a user
How was it presented to you in a way that you found deeply unethical? As I understand it shows up as a soft notification on your phone.
How was it presented to you in a way that you found deeply unethical? As I understand it shows up as a soft notification on your phone.
It is unethical, or at the very least, unsettling the way it is presented. I am actually in awe at how many folks - especially HN folks - are ok with this.
Years ago, I looked at my Google dashboard. They knew when i filed for taxes, how much was owed/reimbursed, my medical history. NONE of which I consented to Google using.
Google is constantly eroding the expectation of privacy we have wrt to our emails (and probably other things that are expected to stay private, if you are on android), and this bothers me on a fundamental level. And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore.
I am a mixture of shocked and saddened that the HN crowd (at least so far, hudging from the comments) thinks it is a-OK for this to happen.
Years ago, I looked at my Google dashboard. They knew when i filed for taxes, how much was owed/reimbursed, my medical history. NONE of which I consented to Google using.
Google is constantly eroding the expectation of privacy we have wrt to our emails (and probably other things that are expected to stay private, if you are on android), and this bothers me on a fundamental level. And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore.
I am a mixture of shocked and saddened that the HN crowd (at least so far, hudging from the comments) thinks it is a-OK for this to happen.
> NONE of which I consented to Google using.
And that is where you are wrong. You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. They don't exactly make any secret of the fact that the emails in your account will be data-mined, both for the various assistant features they offer and for their own business purposes, including marketing.
It is not Google's fault that you failed to consider the obvious implications of that consent.
> And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore.
You have plenty of options. There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it.
And that is where you are wrong. You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. They don't exactly make any secret of the fact that the emails in your account will be data-mined, both for the various assistant features they offer and for their own business purposes, including marketing.
It is not Google's fault that you failed to consider the obvious implications of that consent.
> And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore.
You have plenty of options. There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it.
> You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider.
No, I (not the original poster) didn't. I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. At no point was I informed that this type of stuff would start happening. I figured it out by reading a lot of tech news that the average person does not. As such, I've moved away from Gmail, but there are probably millions of people who aren't OK with it, but don't know it's happening.
No, I (not the original poster) didn't. I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. At no point was I informed that this type of stuff would start happening. I figured it out by reading a lot of tech news that the average person does not. As such, I've moved away from Gmail, but there are probably millions of people who aren't OK with it, but don't know it's happening.
> I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about.
Whether or not you realized how the information could be used, you did consent for Google to have that information by choosing them as your email provider. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how email works would realize that the content of any unencrypted email is readily available to the entity which receives and stores the email, along with the sender's email provider and the operators of any services it might pass through prior to final delivery. If anything this is even more obvious with webmail services. The only reason people are upset at Google here is that Google is more up-front than the average free email provider about the extent of the information they have and how it can be used. They didn't have to reveal what they know or provide controls over it or use it to offer services for their users' benefit. Sure, they also use it for advertising—but that was always part of the deal, since long before any of these other features existed. Yet it's these aspects that benefit the user that people seem to complain about the most, because it highlights aspects of the relationship they wouldn't otherwise have bothered to consider.
Whether or not you realized how the information could be used, you did consent for Google to have that information by choosing them as your email provider. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how email works would realize that the content of any unencrypted email is readily available to the entity which receives and stores the email, along with the sender's email provider and the operators of any services it might pass through prior to final delivery. If anything this is even more obvious with webmail services. The only reason people are upset at Google here is that Google is more up-front than the average free email provider about the extent of the information they have and how it can be used. They didn't have to reveal what they know or provide controls over it or use it to offer services for their users' benefit. Sure, they also use it for advertising—but that was always part of the deal, since long before any of these other features existed. Yet it's these aspects that benefit the user that people seem to complain about the most, because it highlights aspects of the relationship they wouldn't otherwise have bothered to consider.
Actually, it was not always part of the deal. Back when i signed up for the service, it was still in private beta. They had a cheesy little counter with how much space you were granted (1GB to start with). Terms of Sevice were an afterthought, and sure as hell there was not a clause to sift through your mail. I remember when they put that clause in their ToS finally a few years later and it was a HUGE deal.
And look where we are now. Not only is it expected (!!) but people are telling us to suck it up, this is how it’s always been (it wasn’t) and it’s our own fault because we didn’t read the ToS. When did this become the norm, and when did it even become acceptable??
And look where we are now. Not only is it expected (!!) but people are telling us to suck it up, this is how it’s always been (it wasn’t) and it’s our own fault because we didn’t read the ToS. When did this become the norm, and when did it even become acceptable??
I signed up with gmail back when it was by invite only, around 2003. So you’re absolutely right.
> There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it.
One more point I’m concerned about is that Google is changing the standard of what is acceptable for an email provider, to read your emails and use them how they see fit. This is something people casually gloss over. Would you be equally as upset if UPS or FedEx looked inside your packages and then bombard you with adverts, or sell the data to someone else?
One more point I’m concerned about is that Google is changing the standard of what is acceptable for an email provider, to read your emails and use them how they see fit. This is something people casually gloss over. Would you be equally as upset if UPS or FedEx looked inside your packages and then bombard you with adverts, or sell the data to someone else?
> Would you be equally as upset if UPS or FedEx looked inside your packages ... ?
Those packages are sealed. Emails are not, unless the content is encrypted, in which case Google wouldn't have access either. UPS and FedEx are welcome to what information they can glean from the outside of the package. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that packages are routinely X-rayed or subjected to other non-invasive scans, either. Certainly packages crossing an international border are frequently opened and searched by Customs, whatever the carrier and sender might prefer.
More to the point, when you send a package with UPS or FedEx that is a paid service carried out under the terms of a pre-agreed contract. The conditions under which a package may be opened, and how any information about the package may be used, are dictated by that contract. Email is a much less formal system relying on anonymous intermediaries; neither the sender nor the recipient is paying for secure end-to-end delivery. Frankly, there is no reason to assume any email is truly private. You have no idea how many distinct parties may have access to it before it's delivered to its final destination. That's true even if you run your own mail server, let alone relying on a free service offered by an advertising company.
One last thing. Do you really think Google is setting precedent here, "changing the standard of what is acceptable"? Businesses offering free email services to the public have always data-mined users' emails for advertising purposes. Google is just more up-front about it, and more inclined to use at least some of that data-mining to provide add-on services of actual value to most users.
Those packages are sealed. Emails are not, unless the content is encrypted, in which case Google wouldn't have access either. UPS and FedEx are welcome to what information they can glean from the outside of the package. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that packages are routinely X-rayed or subjected to other non-invasive scans, either. Certainly packages crossing an international border are frequently opened and searched by Customs, whatever the carrier and sender might prefer.
More to the point, when you send a package with UPS or FedEx that is a paid service carried out under the terms of a pre-agreed contract. The conditions under which a package may be opened, and how any information about the package may be used, are dictated by that contract. Email is a much less formal system relying on anonymous intermediaries; neither the sender nor the recipient is paying for secure end-to-end delivery. Frankly, there is no reason to assume any email is truly private. You have no idea how many distinct parties may have access to it before it's delivered to its final destination. That's true even if you run your own mail server, let alone relying on a free service offered by an advertising company.
One last thing. Do you really think Google is setting precedent here, "changing the standard of what is acceptable"? Businesses offering free email services to the public have always data-mined users' emails for advertising purposes. Google is just more up-front about it, and more inclined to use at least some of that data-mining to provide add-on services of actual value to most users.
Some people appreciate the convenience of an automated valet, and use opsec to have their sensitive conversations on secure channels. It's not any more secure to store all your data on a webmail server that doesn't provide the Assistant stuff -- they can still leak or sell that data.
> but just the fact that engineers at Google thought users would appreciate having their private financial information parsed and stored by Google services is absurd.
Counterpoint: I find this feature super useful. (and I know a lot of other people who do as well).
Counterpoint: I find this feature super useful. (and I know a lot of other people who do as well).
Honestly I love stuff like this. Going into Google Maps and seeing my Airbnb marked out, including dates, or where my train is departing and when, that's dope.
I'm guessing the multiple people telling you they think the feature is useful won't change your mind about "nobody could possibly want this", though.
I'm guessing the multiple people telling you they think the feature is useful won't change your mind about "nobody could possibly want this", though.
> which they could only have gathered by parsing my emails from the bank.
You say it as if it's a revelation or discovery, when Google is very upfront about surfacing relevant information and reminders based on your inbox.
On more than one occasion, this feature has helped me take actions on pending work items like payments, renewals and so on.
You don't want Google to show you ads, fair enough. You don't want Google to surface for you (and only you) useful information that helps you organize your life.
It almost sounds like you just want Google to give you hundreds of dollars of compute, storage and service out of the goodness of their hearts.
I think both you and Google would be better off without each other.
You say it as if it's a revelation or discovery, when Google is very upfront about surfacing relevant information and reminders based on your inbox.
On more than one occasion, this feature has helped me take actions on pending work items like payments, renewals and so on.
You don't want Google to show you ads, fair enough. You don't want Google to surface for you (and only you) useful information that helps you organize your life.
It almost sounds like you just want Google to give you hundreds of dollars of compute, storage and service out of the goodness of their hearts.
I think both you and Google would be better off without each other.
Frankly, I'd reverse the question: why are you surprised that people are surprised? You think everybody has time to read the dozens of pages of legalese in Google's privacy policy, which anyway doesn't actually specify in which ways they abuse one's information?
It also sounds like you need to organise your life a bit better. Google's notorious for their screw-ups and service closures, one day you might miss an important payment because they turned off the feature or you end up on the wrong side of an A/B test.
It also sounds like you need to organise your life a bit better. Google's notorious for their screw-ups and service closures, one day you might miss an important payment because they turned off the feature or you end up on the wrong side of an A/B test.
"why are you surprised that people are surprised?"
It'd be surprising if there wasn't a clear or direct causal path about how Google found that information. For example, imagine that you paid for a hotel room somewhere in Thailand by cash, didn't carry your phone with you at the time, didn't log in to any electronic device, and still Google inferred that you stayed there, THAT would be surprising.
On the other hand, literally parsing out an email (AND even linking to it, you can click on the notifs to take you to the relevant email!!!) and showing you the result doesn't in any sense qualify as surprising.
It'd be surprising if there wasn't a clear or direct causal path about how Google found that information. For example, imagine that you paid for a hotel room somewhere in Thailand by cash, didn't carry your phone with you at the time, didn't log in to any electronic device, and still Google inferred that you stayed there, THAT would be surprising.
On the other hand, literally parsing out an email (AND even linking to it, you can click on the notifs to take you to the relevant email!!!) and showing you the result doesn't in any sense qualify as surprising.
It wouldn't be "surprising" if the mail parsing were done 100% client side, with a 100% certainty that no data is gonna be sent back to the mothership. But since it's done 100% server side I cannot honestly know what they are going to do with that data and knowledge.
>You think everybody has time to read the dozens of pages of legalese in Google's privacy policy, which anyway doesn't actually specify in which ways they abuse one's information?
No, but I do think that everyone who gets a service for free should by default assume they don't have much privacy. That is not a huge burden to assume.
No, but I do think that everyone who gets a service for free should by default assume they don't have much privacy. That is not a huge burden to assume.
It is increasingly difficult to not use one of these "free" email services because of their aggressive blocking of any autonomously operated email servers.
Has Fastmail ever been blocked?
I've used a paid email provider since before Gmail existed. They've not been blocked.
I know there are the occasional posts on HN about Gmail blocking their servers, but I doubt it's anywhere close to the norm.
I've used a paid email provider since before Gmail existed. They've not been blocked.
I know there are the occasional posts on HN about Gmail blocking their servers, but I doubt it's anywhere close to the norm.
Can't we make the same argument about Apple. What happens when apple stops being apple, when they don't have the smart phone dominance and decides to venture back into Ads. Or who owns apple when someone else has to.
I understand why anyone would want ios now but your argument is about the future.
I understand why anyone would want ios now but your argument is about the future.
The point the parent is making is that Apple doesn’t have your data in the first place, therefore if things go south, or they become nefarious, you’ll have to give them your data first.
Umm Multiple apple services collect data on your usage like Google does. They don't use this data for Ads Personalization but they do have the data.
[Citation needed] mate.
Meanwhile take a moment and review Apple's stance on privacy and security before you continue [1] [2] [3].
[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/manage-your-privacy/
[2] https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
[3] https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide....
Meanwhile take a moment and review Apple's stance on privacy and security before you continue [1] [2] [3].
[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/manage-your-privacy/
[2] https://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
[3] https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide....
> Umm Multiple apple services collect data on your usage like Google does. They don't use this data for Ads Personalization but they do have the data.
Provide a source. Apple is pretty transparent in its iCloud security overview[1] and iOS Privacy Whitepaper[2].
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
[2]: https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide....
Provide a source. Apple is pretty transparent in its iCloud security overview[1] and iOS Privacy Whitepaper[2].
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
[2]: https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide....
I'd rather like to have the "source" of iOS/iCloud client and verify if they behave as they claim.
Your point is well taken, but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019?
>Who the fuck owns MySpace now?
It's all deleted. https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18271023/myspace-music-vi...
>Who the fuck owns MySpace now?
It's all deleted. https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/18/18271023/myspace-music-vi...
100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019?
Epidemiologists? Researchers? Academics? Governments trying to model future disease response based on historical trends?
Just off the top of my head.
Epidemiologists? Researchers? Academics? Governments trying to model future disease response based on historical trends?
Just off the top of my head.
In this case I say let them have it.
[deleted]
If it's, say, 10 instead of 100 years and something more serious than a flu, insurance companies or future employers for instance might care?
> but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019
My future health care provider might. Maybe they’ll spike rates by figuring out how often I’m ill using this data.
Maybe I will marry a congressman someday and the sext that I sent today to my BF will be used to blackmail us.
Maybe 30 years from now, people will be able to use my youthful indiscretions as leverage.
Maybe I won’t get certain jobs because of where I’ve been or whom I’ve accidentally been close to in the location data.
Maybe my sleeping habits will lead to higher life insurance rates.
Russia and private actors have already personally targeted millions of people using highly directed ads to move an election using publicly available data. Imagine what they could do with Google’s data. Target congressional aides? Target the POTUS’ mistress (or mister)?
In the hands of a Caesar or a Napoleon that data is the power to reshape the Earth, smite your enemies, eviscerate any obstacles and remake the holder into an invincible demi-god.
My future health care provider might. Maybe they’ll spike rates by figuring out how often I’m ill using this data.
Maybe I will marry a congressman someday and the sext that I sent today to my BF will be used to blackmail us.
Maybe 30 years from now, people will be able to use my youthful indiscretions as leverage.
Maybe I won’t get certain jobs because of where I’ve been or whom I’ve accidentally been close to in the location data.
Maybe my sleeping habits will lead to higher life insurance rates.
Russia and private actors have already personally targeted millions of people using highly directed ads to move an election using publicly available data. Imagine what they could do with Google’s data. Target congressional aides? Target the POTUS’ mistress (or mister)?
In the hands of a Caesar or a Napoleon that data is the power to reshape the Earth, smite your enemies, eviscerate any obstacles and remake the holder into an invincible demi-god.
It's all true, but to protect yourself from all that, you're going to have to keep your data away from Apple as well (i.e no iCloud drive/photos/calendar/mail, etc)
Not running algorithms for ad targeting doesn't make the data any more secure. Only end-to-end encryption does.
Not running algorithms for ad targeting doesn't make the data any more secure. Only end-to-end encryption does.
This has always seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I simply don't store things that need to stay private on other people's machines. If I want to keep it private then I keep it to myself, and that's that. If I put it out into the world, I assume it's out there to be seen, and it doesn't really matter what privacy guarantees people claim to make today because policies may always change tomorrow.
I do make one exception to this, in that I have a long-standing business arrangement with a company that manages my mail and web server, but I am paying them for a specific service which they have been completely reliable about providing, so I feel generally comfortable with that.
I feel badly for people who haven't had the advantage of growing up with all this stuff and are therefore having to learn these lessons the hard way. Lots of painful experiences out there.
I do make one exception to this, in that I have a long-standing business arrangement with a company that manages my mail and web server, but I am paying them for a specific service which they have been completely reliable about providing, so I feel generally comfortable with that.
I feel badly for people who haven't had the advantage of growing up with all this stuff and are therefore having to learn these lessons the hard way. Lots of painful experiences out there.
I have a feeling such privacy-conscious decisions will eventually have consequences, akin to the social-ranking systems from that episode of Black Mirror, or in China[0], where in both instances various forms of punishment are dealt to those not contributing "positive" data to the cloud.
It seems like there aren't very many people who really care about privacy... and they would be easy to single out and punish.
On that note, enjoy your semblance of privacy now... while you still can!
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.de/video-china-train-warns-citiz...
It seems like there aren't very many people who really care about privacy... and they would be easy to single out and punish.
On that note, enjoy your semblance of privacy now... while you still can!
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.de/video-china-train-warns-citiz...
This has always seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I simply don't store things that need to stay private on other people's machines
But what's the definition of "other peoples' machines?"
If you run Windows 10, it's not really your machine. You don't have full control over it, do you? It updates and reboots when Microsoft tells it to, not when you tell it to.
If you use a smartphone, that's not your machine, either. If you can't read and write every byte of storage from the baseband processor to the video chipset, but the company who sold you the phone can, then that means it's their machine, and not yours.
If you use a Linux box or a Mac, I hope you never plug an Ethernet cable into it, because that effectively turns your machine into a dumb terminal on a system that isn't yours, just as the Oracle (Corporation) foretold.
"Keeping it to yourself" gets a little less practical every year, it seems.
But what's the definition of "other peoples' machines?"
If you run Windows 10, it's not really your machine. You don't have full control over it, do you? It updates and reboots when Microsoft tells it to, not when you tell it to.
If you use a smartphone, that's not your machine, either. If you can't read and write every byte of storage from the baseband processor to the video chipset, but the company who sold you the phone can, then that means it's their machine, and not yours.
If you use a Linux box or a Mac, I hope you never plug an Ethernet cable into it, because that effectively turns your machine into a dumb terminal on a system that isn't yours, just as the Oracle (Corporation) foretold.
"Keeping it to yourself" gets a little less practical every year, it seems.
Yeah, it's a challenge, all right. No, I don't use Windows - not at all. I'm aware of the issues with baseband processors, and therefore make very limited use of phones; I know that basically everything I do is, or could be, snooped on. I try to manage the risk of using the phone as a communication device by using Signal, but I understand it's not a panacea. I'm currently using a BlackBerry KeyOne, because I really like the keyboard, and because they actually seem to put some effort into device security. Every little bit helps, eh?
My devices all connect to a wifi router at home that I bought and configured myself, which bridges to my ISP's modem. Has it been hacked...? Well, I hope not. I do the best I can. My laptops have all been ThinkPads running Linux, for years. I love the maintainability, and the fact that I can turn off wifi with a physical switch is a nice bonus. I'd like to try out a Purism laptop someday, if I can ever afford it.
I take comfort in the fact that nobody really cares what I am doing and I am not worth the effort of a focused attack. If I ever got involved in politics or activism, I might manage my risks differently. It is frustrating for me that the world continues to drift further away from the way I'd prefer it to be, in this arena, but my desires are extreme, so I suppose that's to be expected.
My devices all connect to a wifi router at home that I bought and configured myself, which bridges to my ISP's modem. Has it been hacked...? Well, I hope not. I do the best I can. My laptops have all been ThinkPads running Linux, for years. I love the maintainability, and the fact that I can turn off wifi with a physical switch is a nice bonus. I'd like to try out a Purism laptop someday, if I can ever afford it.
I take comfort in the fact that nobody really cares what I am doing and I am not worth the effort of a focused attack. If I ever got involved in politics or activism, I might manage my risks differently. It is frustrating for me that the world continues to drift further away from the way I'd prefer it to be, in this arena, but my desires are extreme, so I suppose that's to be expected.
I thought that stuff was all encrypted, and Apple couldn't see it?
It is encrypted (except email) but Apple has the keys for the stuff I listed: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202303
Also, in China Apple handed over iCloud operations to a government owned company, including the keys.
Also, in China Apple handed over iCloud operations to a government owned company, including the keys.
I don’t see Apple having access to keys there. Could you point it out? CTRL+F for “key” came up with 7 results but nothing to suggest Apple holds them and can decrypt. Apologies.
There's a section about half way down that lists all end-to-end encrypted data (keychain, health, payment data, ...).
By implication, all other data is not end-to-end encrypted. That includes iCloud drive, photos, calendar, contacts and mail.
By implication, all other data is not end-to-end encrypted. That includes iCloud drive, photos, calendar, contacts and mail.
Also one big deal is how Apple handles key distribution. They absolutely could MitM that connection to get access to the user's keychain and the UI doesn't really give the user any feasible way to detect that Apple has added their own key instead of just the key for your other device that Apple doesn't control. It's "end to end encrypted" but if you just handwave away key distribution and leave that up to Apple, what's the point other than a marketing gimmick?
Are we reading the same support article? https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202303
Specifically listed as encrypted in transit and on server:
- iCloud Drive
- Photos
- Calendar
- Contacts
Only mail is not according to this support article.
Edit: I see the omission now. These things are not listed under the end-to-end section.
Specifically listed as encrypted in transit and on server:
- iCloud Drive
- Photos
- Calendar
- Contacts
Only mail is not according to this support article.
Edit: I see the omission now. These things are not listed under the end-to-end section.
Yes, exactly, so that data is encrypted on the server using a key that is in Apple's possession.
It _is_ encrypted, Apple cannot see it. The parent comment is mistaken
I'm afraid you are mistaken: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202303
Reading that article, the confusion is easy to explain and looks intentional.
It reads "For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information" and then immediate shows a giant table of data that is NOT end-to-end encrypted, but not labelled as such -- it's only inferrable by its omissions from the next section of the document.
It reads "For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information" and then immediate shows a giant table of data that is NOT end-to-end encrypted, but not labelled as such -- it's only inferrable by its omissions from the next section of the document.
I agree. It doesn't look like Apple was particularly keen on letting people know that they can actually read most data that people consider private.
>Apple cannot see it.
How can you be sure? End to end encryption is not a guarantee when you're inputting your key into a closed source client to store and retrieve the data.
How can you be sure? End to end encryption is not a guarantee when you're inputting your key into a closed source client to store and retrieve the data.
Especially given that key distribution is totally up to Apple and the end user has no practical way to verify that the key for "My iMac" is really the same key that's actually used by your iMac.
Yea, it's interesting how many comments are flat out wrong
or can't seem to differentiate between what Google does now ...vs what might happen with Apple in the future.
or can't seem to differentiate between what Google does now ...vs what might happen with Apple in the future.
If you think that I am flat out wrong then please provide evidence. In this particular case it is you and Dig1t who are flat out wrong if you claim that Apple cannot see the iCloud data I specifically listed.
Also, I didn't say anything about what Apple might or might not do in the future. I made a distinction between worries about ad targeting and security issues that come with storing data in the cloud without end-to-end encryption.
Also, I didn't say anything about what Apple might or might not do in the future. I made a distinction between worries about ad targeting and security issues that come with storing data in the cloud without end-to-end encryption.
Maybe they'll lower your rates by figuring out how often you're ill. Similarly with life insurance. Or they might not change.
Maybe someone will try to blackmail you and your congressman husband, but both of you will just shrug, because no one cares at all about nudes. Not even you, after a few more decades of information wanting to be free and becoming free and public.
Maybe it's better that you didn't get those jobs and you find something else. With all the extra data out there, maybe there'll be a service that'll match you up with doing something you really want to do that fulfills your soul instead of sucks it.
Why do you suppose that with more information election manipulation will be one-sided in favor of certain manipulators over other manipulators or even suppressors? I'm told FB does a great job suppressing all kinds of data from spreading, I don't imagine they'll get worse at it. We also have all the other manipulators manipulating in exactly the opposite direction as any particular manipulator you want to call out. Seems like a wash.
Your concerns all boil down to big maybes about mildly increased financial burden and people increasing their sensitivity to private info being exposed despite decades of trends implying the opposite. In the hands of a Caesar, this isn't the power to reshape the Earth at all, especially when it's never going to be in the hands of one entity.
Maybe someone will try to blackmail you and your congressman husband, but both of you will just shrug, because no one cares at all about nudes. Not even you, after a few more decades of information wanting to be free and becoming free and public.
Maybe it's better that you didn't get those jobs and you find something else. With all the extra data out there, maybe there'll be a service that'll match you up with doing something you really want to do that fulfills your soul instead of sucks it.
Why do you suppose that with more information election manipulation will be one-sided in favor of certain manipulators over other manipulators or even suppressors? I'm told FB does a great job suppressing all kinds of data from spreading, I don't imagine they'll get worse at it. We also have all the other manipulators manipulating in exactly the opposite direction as any particular manipulator you want to call out. Seems like a wash.
Your concerns all boil down to big maybes about mildly increased financial burden and people increasing their sensitivity to private info being exposed despite decades of trends implying the opposite. In the hands of a Caesar, this isn't the power to reshape the Earth at all, especially when it's never going to be in the hands of one entity.
>this isn't the power to reshape the Earth at all
Then why are there so many tech companies obsessed with "changing the world"?
None of your rebuttal did anything to negate the fact that big data can be and is used as a weapon the likes of which the world has never seen before.
Then why are there so many tech companies obsessed with "changing the world"?
None of your rebuttal did anything to negate the fact that big data can be and is used as a weapon the likes of which the world has never seen before.
These would be big problem, but even worse is that you wouldn't know if they know.
Like getting ghosted after a job interview. You will have _no idea_ what caused the rejection. Or, as to your examples, you will have no idea if and/or why you're getting charged more.
Like getting ghosted after a job interview. You will have _no idea_ what caused the rejection. Or, as to your examples, you will have no idea if and/or why you're getting charged more.
> > but 100 years will anyone care that you had the flu on May 7 2019
> My future health care provider might. Maybe they’ll spike rates by figuring out how often I’m ill using this data.
You seem to be perhaps a little too optimistic about your life expectancy.
> My future health care provider might. Maybe they’ll spike rates by figuring out how often I’m ill using this data.
You seem to be perhaps a little too optimistic about your life expectancy.
A charitable reading would be the coming decades.
If I’m truly lucky, it could be a century. It’s something I try to work for. I have 2X chromosomes, am nominally healthy with CR and replicating the best anti-aging treatments of our time (retinoids for skin, exercise, nicotinamide riboside etc). Barring the unforeseen, my genes and efforts will probably lead to an extremely long healthy life span.
If I’m truly lucky, it could be a century. It’s something I try to work for. I have 2X chromosomes, am nominally healthy with CR and replicating the best anti-aging treatments of our time (retinoids for skin, exercise, nicotinamide riboside etc). Barring the unforeseen, my genes and efforts will probably lead to an extremely long healthy life span.
I wasn’t really making a criticism, just a light-hearted joke. I had to do a double take when I read that part of the response. Best of luck to living past 100, if you do I am sure I will be long gone.
I hope not :(
From your HN comments, it feels like the world would be a poorer and darker place without you in it. People like you make a life worth living and a long one worth striving for. If we all take care of our health (with a little chemical help along the way) maybe we’ll all get to see what’s next together? :)
From your HN comments, it feels like the world would be a poorer and darker place without you in it. People like you make a life worth living and a long one worth striving for. If we all take care of our health (with a little chemical help along the way) maybe we’ll all get to see what’s next together? :)
Thanks for the kind words. My family history a pretty high risk of stroke, heart attacks, cancer, etc. but I would be open to defying the odds, if that’s going to happen.
Modern interventions like nicotinamide riboside and caloric restriction have evidence behind them and work. There are communities dedicated to this. There’s an entire world of people (and quacks) out there who can help along with your doctor. It’s worth a shot.
also a lot of work done by sens organization on age related illness and plans to reverse much of it assuming they get funding.
If you zoom far enough into the future nothing really matters. We still care about now and what happens in our lifetimes. I don’t want to miss out on a great job 10 years from now, or miss insurance coverage at anytime in my future because of Google even if i don’t care how much of this data will be around 100 years from now
> It's all deleted.
They deleted 12 years of music uploads, not everything. Username, email, bio, friends, etc. still exists somewhere, but who owns it? What do they intend to do with it?
They deleted 12 years of music uploads, not everything. Username, email, bio, friends, etc. still exists somewhere, but who owns it? What do they intend to do with it?
You think Apple is less evil than Google?
Remember that Apple has been cracked by the FBI, has proprietary connectors, and charges more than anyone.
I couldn't disagree more. Apple is horrible to customers and developers.
Remember that Apple has been cracked by the FBI, has proprietary connectors, and charges more than anyone.
I couldn't disagree more. Apple is horrible to customers and developers.
Apple got a ton of flak for adopting USB-C way before anyone else, which is the opposite of proprietary.
I also don't see how "being cracked by the FBI" makes one evil, in fact I think resisting the FBI in the first place makes them good.
I also don't see how "being cracked by the FBI" makes one evil, in fact I think resisting the FBI in the first place makes them good.
Why are people downvoting your comment here? You are 100% correct. Apple also made significant contributions to the development of USB-C and have the best implementation of USB-C with Thunderbolt 3 in their products bar none.
Yes, the iPhone still ships with Lightning connectors. But Lightning was revolutionary in a world full of phenomenally shitty Micro-USB connectors. It's really not a big deal, and Apple will move to USB-C for sure eventually.
Yes, the iPhone still ships with Lightning connectors. But Lightning was revolutionary in a world full of phenomenally shitty Micro-USB connectors. It's really not a big deal, and Apple will move to USB-C for sure eventually.
Right completely ignore what Google did for USB-C ? And what one google engineer Benson Leung did for USB-C cables ?
Why the need for such a petulant and childish response? Did I say that Google and Benson didn't contribute to USB-C? No. Neither did I phrase it as if Apple was the only contributor.
So what's with the defensiveness?
So what's with the defensiveness?
You mean the Apple that has designed all their hardware and software to not spy on you?
You mean the Apple that takes IoT security seriously that involves a certification process versus Google who just killed off their Nest ecosystem?
You mean the Apple that stood up to the FBI?
Sure proprietary connectors are on some of their products, but it sounds like you consider USB-C proprietary now? Apple has moved a number of their devices to USB-C and that will probably only go up overtime.
Apple has physical retail presence, which makes purchases, repairs, and other interactions easy for customers.
Apple isn't perfect, but I don't think you're looking at the same Apple everyone else is.
You mean the Apple that takes IoT security seriously that involves a certification process versus Google who just killed off their Nest ecosystem?
You mean the Apple that stood up to the FBI?
Sure proprietary connectors are on some of their products, but it sounds like you consider USB-C proprietary now? Apple has moved a number of their devices to USB-C and that will probably only go up overtime.
Apple has physical retail presence, which makes purchases, repairs, and other interactions easy for customers.
Apple isn't perfect, but I don't think you're looking at the same Apple everyone else is.
So proprietary that I'm charging my Lenovo with an Apple power brick.
I was pretty surprised when I charged by Pixel with an Apple charger and the MacBook power brick. I knew they used USB C but wrongly assumed they'd not work.
[deleted]
Remember that Apple didn't help the FBI in breaking it. Apple stood up to the FBI. The FBI later went to an Israeli firm to crack it.
> "I nominally pay for these services..."
you give them all that valuable personal and private data and then also pay them? why are you so resigned to this? the tradeoff for knowing everything about you gives you what, a few less taps on your phone?
people ignored or minimized it then, but their direction was abundantly clear by 2004 or so: search -> adwords -> adsense -> gmail ---> all-your-data-everywhere (gmail seemed cool at the time until the realization of where all this was going). how is it that so many people are just now waking up to the dangers of google (and facebook, incidentally)?
you give them all that valuable personal and private data and then also pay them? why are you so resigned to this? the tradeoff for knowing everything about you gives you what, a few less taps on your phone?
people ignored or minimized it then, but their direction was abundantly clear by 2004 or so: search -> adwords -> adsense -> gmail ---> all-your-data-everywhere (gmail seemed cool at the time until the realization of where all this was going). how is it that so many people are just now waking up to the dangers of google (and facebook, incidentally)?
If something is convenient for people and saves them time, they are willing to close their eyes about lost privacy. Until it directly bites them of course -- which won't happen to most of us.
It's just how we tick. And a lot of marketing strategies are based on those specifics.
It's just how we tick. And a lot of marketing strategies are based on those specifics.
Is it really that hard to understand? What's the concrete harm so far?
I've been using Google for a couple decades, and I can't really articulate a specific way that I've been harmed. Yes, I realize that there's the potential for harm from a leak or something like that, but it's hardly surprising that the abstract notion of possible harm isn't super compelling to the average user when they're currently getting useful services for "free".
I've been using Google for a couple decades, and I can't really articulate a specific way that I've been harmed. Yes, I realize that there's the potential for harm from a leak or something like that, but it's hardly surprising that the abstract notion of possible harm isn't super compelling to the average user when they're currently getting useful services for "free".
The 'concrete harm' part comes into play when a corporation or nation-state weaponizes this data in order to sell you a product, influence your thoughts on a political matter, or otherwise manipulate you.
If you're of the opinion that this is not problematic on a fabric-of-society level, could you please explain why?
If you're of the opinion that this is not problematic on a fabric-of-society level, could you please explain why?
you're rationalizing, i.e., looking the other way to avoid cognitive dissonance. but part of why we have such big brains is to anticipate the future, not simply accept events as they occur. what might the future you say? should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet?
it's important to expose this kind of mis-rationalization, especially when tiny individual harms accumulate otherwise silently to become population-level dangers (e.g., measles).
it's important to expose this kind of mis-rationalization, especially when tiny individual harms accumulate otherwise silently to become population-level dangers (e.g., measles).
This word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
> should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet?
No, but it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying.
> should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet?
No, but it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying.
> "...using personal data to sell ads..."
again with the misdirection. look the other way if you like, but you're letting google choose the information you access and believe (even with ads). if you don't understand the power therein, maybe you should study more of your namesake.
again with the misdirection. look the other way if you like, but you're letting google choose the information you access and believe (even with ads). if you don't understand the power therein, maybe you should study more of your namesake.
It's not misdirection, nor is it looking the other way; I simply don't have a problem with it. You seem to have a bit of trouble with language there.
There's no current concrete harm, and the potential for serious harm just looks unlikely to occur.
There's no current concrete harm, and the potential for serious harm just looks unlikely to occur.
>it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying
No need for imagination, simply read history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
No need for imagination, simply read history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
That's a fair point, but it falls flat with me personally the same way arguments about gun control and the potential to use guns in revolutions against autocratic regimes fall flat with me: it just seems incredibly unlikely in this day and age, at least in developed countries.
Like, the US once rounded up Japanese people and put them in camps. Using your same reasoning, one could argue that the government collecting any data on race/ethnicity anywhere -- like, say, on the census -- is a slippery slope to interning racial minorities again. And yet, almost nobody really cares in practice, because almost nobody thinks there's a realistic chance of that happening again.
Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?
Like, the US once rounded up Japanese people and put them in camps. Using your same reasoning, one could argue that the government collecting any data on race/ethnicity anywhere -- like, say, on the census -- is a slippery slope to interning racial minorities again. And yet, almost nobody really cares in practice, because almost nobody thinks there's a realistic chance of that happening again.
Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?
>it just seems incredibly unlikely in this day and age, at least in developed countries.
This opinion wouldn't be quite as naive if there was some magical boundary that keeps digital information solely in the hands of benevolent rulers in developed countries, but there's not.
>Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?
That's somewhat like how some gun rights advocates say it's futile to ban guns because you can just kill people with knives, so why don't we ban knives too?
We're talking about virtually total information awareness which is far more powerful, problematic, and discriminate than knowledge of superficial attributes such as race and gender.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
This opinion wouldn't be quite as naive if there was some magical boundary that keeps digital information solely in the hands of benevolent rulers in developed countries, but there's not.
>Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?
That's somewhat like how some gun rights advocates say it's futile to ban guns because you can just kill people with knives, so why don't we ban knives too?
We're talking about virtually total information awareness which is far more powerful, problematic, and discriminate than knowledge of superficial attributes such as race and gender.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
To be fair, none of that involved selling ads.
It involved the mass collection of personal information (what Google does in order to sell ads), which was then weaponized and used for purposes other than originally implied
You could say the same thing about the US census, and yet hardly anybody seems to object to it, despite the government having interned a whole race of people in its history.
Indeed, the contract we sign is not “do I trust Google,” it is “do I trust Google in perpetuity.”
I can think of many, many outcomes wherein Google’s collected data is more valuable for uses other than “helpful”.
I can think of many, many outcomes wherein Google’s collected data is more valuable for uses other than “helpful”.
Well, as of right now, you can choose to delete your data, so it's not necessarily perpetual.
Of course, absent something like GDPR, it's possible in the future Google could change their minds about that.
Of course, absent something like GDPR, it's possible in the future Google could change their minds about that.
Curious. What do you think happens when Apple goes under?
Isn't that the whole argument? If Apple goes under, they can't sell off data they didn't collect?
I'm comfortable with what Google knows about me, and I'm very willing to give them all this information for the technology and convenience they provide. Apple's AI isn't competitive at this time.
I love Google. I bought an Oppo phone. But all my data goes through their app - even when i switch off their SMS feature that data still goes through their app and i guess they intercept it and send it to a dial home server. And I'd rather my data goes to Google. So when I can afford a Google Pixel - gonna buy one
But anyone who thinks he's wrong - Remember into whose hands Java fell.
But anyone who thinks he's wrong - Remember into whose hands Java fell.
Sun was a colossal screw up, though. IBM is still around, making billions. As is Microsoft.
Google will probably bury me.
Google will probably bury me.
Speaking of MySpace, I noticed in yesterday's keynote that Google controlled the end-to-end (E2E) user experience for their demos to work flawlessly.
The value proposition to Developers was not very clear, but I imagine a few bad 3rd party apps could severely harm the E2E Google experience.
The value proposition to Developers was not very clear, but I imagine a few bad 3rd party apps could severely harm the E2E Google experience.
Existential crises aside, I would really prefer to have a phone that I can program as directly and extensively as a raspberry pi.
"Google is already not Google."
The minute their CEO went all-in on a US Presidential election well, that ol' Rubicon got crossed.
The minute their CEO went all-in on a US Presidential election well, that ol' Rubicon got crossed.
I also prefer the value proposition of the Apple ecosystem - I give Apple money and they give me stuff -the point of the article is that Apple’s business model puts their products out of reach for most of the world.
its not that people can't see truth due to intelligence.
the ability to see truth has requires only average levels of g.
rather, the ability is bestowed as a gift.
the gift is in the form of trauma through which the actual state of things forcefully injects itself into one's consciousness uprooting the foundations of self and inserting itself.
and until death, it stays.
[deleted]
> what happens when google is Google no more?
Google already have many, many advertising partners to whom they gladly provide your location and other data. But they anonymize it, so you are safe ;)
Google already have many, many advertising partners to whom they gladly provide your location and other data. But they anonymize it, so you are safe ;)
This is a lie.
> But they anonymize it, so you are safe
For now...
For now...
Generally, Google sells ads against your data, they don't sell the data itself.
How can I buy anonymized location data? Is there a landing page for that service?
There is a contingency: GDPR. Use my data in ways I don't agree with and you are breaking the law. Best we can do in a world where information wants to and will be free, imo.
Consent is one legal basis for use of data under GDPR, but there are others.
Research use is one but you have to show that re-consenting is an unreasonable effort. Research use comes with a obligation to make sure data is anonymous and results have to be made public (for the common good).
[deleted]
I'm impressed with the direction Google is taking, and how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns.
I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me.
Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.
I like the Google products and services that I use. There are some that I miss (Reader) and some that just confuse me (Bookmarks), but the core works for me.
Based on commentary I've seen, I may be the only person on Hacker News to think so. Regardless, I'm hopeful for the future.
FWIW, I agree with this sentiment.
Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that our data is their business model.
I get it: our online privacy is important. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to remain truly anonymous on the Internet, and this is mostly thanks to Google. However, the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any.
I believe we live in an age of online convenience, and not just for the average user. Google generally makes security-conscious products, especially with Chrome. Heuristics has proven to become very effective in combating online malicious behavior. By establishing our identities with Google, Google can generally say "we are who we say we are" with a degree of confidence, without us having to do much of anything. This is generally bad from a privacy stand-point, but can be good from a security stand-point.
Overall, I think Google has done good things for the Internet. But good things sometimes come at a cost, and sometimes third party companies want that cost paid in a way we do not agree with. I think Google is doing all they can to make that point clear.
Google did not need to give this stance at I/O. It appears that they're being as transparent as they can about the fact that our data is their business model.
I get it: our online privacy is important. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to remain truly anonymous on the Internet, and this is mostly thanks to Google. However, the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any.
I believe we live in an age of online convenience, and not just for the average user. Google generally makes security-conscious products, especially with Chrome. Heuristics has proven to become very effective in combating online malicious behavior. By establishing our identities with Google, Google can generally say "we are who we say we are" with a degree of confidence, without us having to do much of anything. This is generally bad from a privacy stand-point, but can be good from a security stand-point.
Overall, I think Google has done good things for the Internet. But good things sometimes come at a cost, and sometimes third party companies want that cost paid in a way we do not agree with. I think Google is doing all they can to make that point clear.
> the converse could be Google using our data for malicious purposes. Has there been any evidence of that? I have not seen any.
You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do.
As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that many people to exist in one place period.
You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either. What frightens me is that IF something happens and Google is compelled or chooses to give that data to an entity to use maliciously there will be nothing we can do.
As I look at it: It is dangerous for that much data about that many people to exist in one place period.
I look at it this way: What is your threat model?
What do you stand to lose if:
* Google shuts down tomorrow?
* Google turns into a malicious conspirator tomorrow?
* Google's databases are compromised by a separate malicious party tomorrow?
Each of these can have different outcomes for your data. Do you wish to mitigate, avoid, or accept that risk?
Likewise, what do you stand to gain from using Google services? AKA, do you get substance out of their services in exchange for the information you're giving them?
Everyone can have different answers to these questions. If you choose not to use Google services, more power to you. I simply encourage everyone to think about their threat model critically, and make an educated decision - rather than hopping on a bandwagon.
What do you stand to lose if:
* Google shuts down tomorrow?
* Google turns into a malicious conspirator tomorrow?
* Google's databases are compromised by a separate malicious party tomorrow?
Each of these can have different outcomes for your data. Do you wish to mitigate, avoid, or accept that risk?
Likewise, what do you stand to gain from using Google services? AKA, do you get substance out of their services in exchange for the information you're giving them?
Everyone can have different answers to these questions. If you choose not to use Google services, more power to you. I simply encourage everyone to think about their threat model critically, and make an educated decision - rather than hopping on a bandwagon.
I think for me personally its:
Over the next 20-30 years personal freedoms and economic opportunities in the United States gradually erode, and large corporations seeking to continue/increase profit are entirely complicit in legally feeding their data into a surveillance state.
The goal of the model would be to decrease how fucked I am from this eventuality.
Over the next 20-30 years personal freedoms and economic opportunities in the United States gradually erode, and large corporations seeking to continue/increase profit are entirely complicit in legally feeding their data into a surveillance state.
The goal of the model would be to decrease how fucked I am from this eventuality.
I understand your point that is a trade-off. I think a lot of my issue with google is that the trade off is not presented in a clear way.
You make it sound like a clear and simple transaction: I give Google my location, they give me relevant information based on that information. They add that location data to their model.
In my experience it is not presented as a transaction. I have no idea what information Google is taking/inferring about me.
Are they using my phone microphone to listen in on me? I don't think so. As far as I know there's nothing stopping them from doing that tomorrow without telling me. How would they use that data? How much are they keeping on file? There's no way for me to know and they don't have to tell me.
I found out a year ago that Google maps was tracking my every movement. I would not have consented to that, but it was grouped in with a bunch of other "app history" permissions that I agreed to a decade ago.
So it's true. I do stand to gain from using Google's services. What's hard to judge is the costs. I can't make an educated decision without knowing the costs.
You make it sound like a clear and simple transaction: I give Google my location, they give me relevant information based on that information. They add that location data to their model.
In my experience it is not presented as a transaction. I have no idea what information Google is taking/inferring about me.
Are they using my phone microphone to listen in on me? I don't think so. As far as I know there's nothing stopping them from doing that tomorrow without telling me. How would they use that data? How much are they keeping on file? There's no way for me to know and they don't have to tell me.
I found out a year ago that Google maps was tracking my every movement. I would not have consented to that, but it was grouped in with a bunch of other "app history" permissions that I agreed to a decade ago.
So it's true. I do stand to gain from using Google's services. What's hard to judge is the costs. I can't make an educated decision without knowing the costs.
> You are right. I have not seen any evidence of this yet either.
Then again, since Google controls so much of what you see, would you ever be exposed to this evidence?
Then again, since Google controls so much of what you see, would you ever be exposed to this evidence?
But they did need to do this, because it's great for them. Now there's two new apologies that can be breathlessly recited to excuse surveillance capitalism:
* Google are brave for admitting they have your data!
* Sure it's bad they have so much data, but they can be so much more helpful.
Your reply's funny in a way, because if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. And why Google's awesome for the internet (with capital I).
Google at the end of the day is gobbling up information on billions of people from mobile phones, browsers, e-mail, ads, their search engine, their web analytics, their smart home devices and classroom laptops, Google voice service, captchas and almost anything one can think of. The fact that so much information exists in one place is dangerous in itself, they don't have to actually do anything evil.
But they do anyway: they lock people out of their online lives, out victims to their stalkers, manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns, subvert or take over web standards, conspire to keep employee salaries low, sometimes serve malware through their ads, crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search, illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish and so on and so forth.
They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean.
The only good things they might have accidentally done for the internet were done to cement their power.
* Google are brave for admitting they have your data!
* Sure it's bad they have so much data, but they can be so much more helpful.
Your reply's funny in a way, because if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not. And why Google's awesome for the internet (with capital I).
Google at the end of the day is gobbling up information on billions of people from mobile phones, browsers, e-mail, ads, their search engine, their web analytics, their smart home devices and classroom laptops, Google voice service, captchas and almost anything one can think of. The fact that so much information exists in one place is dangerous in itself, they don't have to actually do anything evil.
But they do anyway: they lock people out of their online lives, out victims to their stalkers, manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns, subvert or take over web standards, conspire to keep employee salaries low, sometimes serve malware through their ads, crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search, illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish and so on and so forth.
They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean.
The only good things they might have accidentally done for the internet were done to cement their power.
> if you jump from the beginning to the end it reads like "I get it: our online privacy is important" and then you give N reasons why it's not.
I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider.
Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions.
> they lock people out of their online lives
I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know).
> out victims to their stalkers
> manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns
I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two.
> subvert or take over web standards
Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this?
> conspire to keep employee salaries low
I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees.
> sometimes serve malware through their ads
Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense.
> crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search
Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites.
> illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish
Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part?
> They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean.
Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible?
--
To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.
I don't believe I was listing reasons why privacy is not important. I was simply noting a benefit that has come from Google's data collection: increased heuristics to combat malicious online activity. I believe this is a valid thing to consider.
Regarding your list of evil deeds Google has done, lets refer to the definition of 'evil'. According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), I believe we're focusing on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of Google's actions.
> they lock people out of their online lives
I have seen reports of folks being locked out of their Google accounts because Google marked them as 'suspicious', which ultimately locks them out of logging into many other sites that they choose to link their Google account with. I agree that this is a valid concern. If this is an intentional act by Google, I would say this is morally reprehensible. Is it intentional though? And how quickly does Google typically fix these lock-outs? (I genuinely don't know).
> out victims to their stalkers
> manipulate people into handing over their data with dark patterns
I'm not sure what context you're referring to with these two.
> subvert or take over web standards
Google has contributed to many web standards. However I have not seen them 'subvert' or 'take over' any existing standard. Is there an example of this?
> conspire to keep employee salaries low
I don't have salary reports for Google employees in front of me. I will not pretend to know the business logic for their payroll dept. I think the only folks who can accurately answer this are actual Google employees.
> sometimes serve malware through their ads
Through Google-owned ad companies? I have not seen an example of this. Malvertising is a real concern, but I have not seen this in the wild on a Google/Alphabet-owned website or on a site that serves ads directly from AdSense.
> crush competition by illegally promoting their properties on search
Yes, I have seen what you are talking about here. Is this illegal though? And is it crushing competition? If I search for 'duckduckgo' or 'bing' on Google.com, I get results for those websites.
> illegally prevent Android suppliers to use Android as they wish
Again, would love examples. AFAIK, phone manufacturers are free to alter AOSP however they wish. Again, what is the illegal part?
> They've been found guilty in a court of law multiple times on both sides of the ocean.
Guilty of what, and are those things morally reprehensible?
--
To make my point clear, I completely agree that Google has a lot of power in their data collection, and it is something we should be concerned about. The reason why I'm replying is because I am genuinely curious about a lot of these points. Lets not romanticize the problem. Provide hard facts. That is the only way things change.
The force of the wind hits you less when you already bend in its direction. When the privacy laws are put in place, which they will be, Google will escape most of the wrath. This is just getting their affairs in order for the inevitable.
Google pivoted? When? And from what to what?
Still a company that collects and sells consumer data and ads right?
Still a company that collects and sells consumer data and ads right?
Yes, but now in some of the use cases they demoed the data itself never leaves the device. The AI models are running directly on the device, so there is no need to transmit user data to cloud servers. This is on contrast to all of their apps running in the cloud and your data living centrally off device. I find this new approach to be a nice balance for user privacy and the necessity of data aggregation in order for the models to be constructed.
Did they say that the data never leaves the device? Just because it's local inference doesn't mean it doesn't leave the device. They have a strong incentive to call home with the transcripts/metadata to improve their model on you.
I haven't had the time to wade through the barrage of information Google has put out in the last few days (ironically)...did they explicitly say that?
I haven't had the time to wade through the barrage of information Google has put out in the last few days (ironically)...did they explicitly say that?
The explicitly stated in the presentation that all AI modeling data is processes on device, and then only anonymized lessons learned are sent back to google.
Generally, Google does not sell personal data. They use personal data to sell ads.
They also forward personal data to government agencies when asked, like it or not.
So does every other company when subpoenaed by the government. If they didn't comply, we would be complaining how a corporation feels they are above the law.
So does the phone company, right? This seems like something everybody should know before they send a text message.
which is why you use iMessage whenever possible
Doesn't matter if you're a Chinese user on an iPhone:
>Fast forward to today: China Telecom, a government owned telco, is taking over the iCloud data from Guizhou-Cloud Big Data. This essentially means that a state-owned firm now has access to all the iCloud data China-based users store, such as photos, notes, emails, and text messages.
https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...
>Fast forward to today: China Telecom, a government owned telco, is taking over the iCloud data from Guizhou-Cloud Big Data. This essentially means that a state-owned firm now has access to all the iCloud data China-based users store, such as photos, notes, emails, and text messages.
https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...
You don't have to back anything up to iCloud. You can keep on your locked device and backup elsewhere.
My point was that iMessage is an easy way to have your default mode of messaging be E2E encrypted
My point was that iMessage is an easy way to have your default mode of messaging be E2E encrypted
Technically "we do not sell your data" ;)
"We just have your data, and sell promises to show you exquisitely targeted ads based on our exhaustive data about you."
"We just have your data, and sell promises to show you exquisitely targeted ads based on our exhaustive data about you."
That is not a technicality; it is a completely different thing.
I would definitely stop using Google if they actually sold my data. I don’t mind them using it for ad targeting.
I would definitely stop using Google if they actually sold my data. I don’t mind them using it for ad targeting.
Sure, but as seen many times in the comments here, even 'technical' HN posters seem to not understand the differece.
I agree with you. Google isn't a shining knight of consumer rights and privacy but I don't think they are as bad as every thinks.
They offer a lot of customization for tracking and the ability to turn it off. They don't do anything hyper anti-consumer(IMO) and provide me very good products at either a low price or at the cost of my data(which I'm willing to pay with).
I don't see all the reason for the hate, but it is there, and I'm glad they are taking steps to be more privacy aware.
They offer a lot of customization for tracking and the ability to turn it off. They don't do anything hyper anti-consumer(IMO) and provide me very good products at either a low price or at the cost of my data(which I'm willing to pay with).
I don't see all the reason for the hate, but it is there, and I'm glad they are taking steps to be more privacy aware.
Me too. Their stuff just works and where it doesn't, I want to give it more of my data.
how they've pivoted in the face of public awareness of privacy concerns.
Can you provide some more information about this pivot? I haven't noticed it, and I thought I was paying attention.
Can you provide some more information about this pivot? I haven't noticed it, and I thought I was paying attention.
Kinda the whole point of the linked article of this thread.
I'm having hard to time to share your enthusiasm. Google has been leveraging its monopoly more than ever and myself as customer feels our arm getting twisted all the time. They shut down products arbitrarily, most of the time with FU on your face. The quality of main search has been massively in decline with they ignoring most of my keywords and putting generic links all the time. I'm sure they are delusional that this is not the case. Lot of Google products are becoming 2nd rate or even 3rd rate but because of their special treatment on Android and other properties you would be forced to use them anyway. Overall, I don't think Google was the innovative company it used to be. They are mostly in business of milking their monopoly to increase shareholder value.
[deleted]
>It all begins with our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful, and today, our mission feels as relevant as ever.
I said this 15 years ago and I will repeat it again. Google is like a man selling boats after a dam brake. They are profiting by managing the problem, not by fixing it. It is to their benefit if the problem actually gets worse. In other words, looking at their long-running effects and initiatives, I see that they aim to change the Internet so that it's completely unusable without their services. (The recent stunts with AMP and Gmail are great, obvious examples, but it didn't start there. It was going on for a very long while.)
This not the kind of thing that I want to spread to my offline life.
I said this 15 years ago and I will repeat it again. Google is like a man selling boats after a dam brake. They are profiting by managing the problem, not by fixing it. It is to their benefit if the problem actually gets worse. In other words, looking at their long-running effects and initiatives, I see that they aim to change the Internet so that it's completely unusable without their services. (The recent stunts with AMP and Gmail are great, obvious examples, but it didn't start there. It was going on for a very long while.)
This not the kind of thing that I want to spread to my offline life.
What exactly are you suggesting here? What's the fundamental problem that Google is managing instead of fixing, once and for all?
Discovery. From a technical point of view search doesn’t have to be centralized. Economics and the nature of markets may say different though
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not following. How could they solve discovery once and for all, instead of managing it?
I don't see how decentralization would permanently solve discovery. I can see how it could be useful in other ways, but you'd still be managing an ongoing problem.
I don't see how decentralization would permanently solve discovery. I can see how it could be useful in other ways, but you'd still be managing an ongoing problem.
I _think_ the GP's point is that Google is "managing" discovery, i.e., if Google were to up and disappear we would have a large problem on our hands. If search were decentralized then no single entity could bring it down.
I mean, there are a bunch of other search engines out there, and I still don't see how having even more would somehow 'solve' search for good.
I think Google is way more than just "search".
No other engine knows everything about you. Knows what you read, what you dislike, your appointments, your travels, etc.
While there are alternatives for search, it's only search. Everything else is scattered. Google lives and breathes through the mesh of services they offer. Search is at the core, but everything attached to it is what makes Google so different.
It is a scary prospect IMO. We already sold our souls to it whether we like it or not. We live on our tech bubble and perhaps try to make better choices but it will never happen to the majority.
Most of what I said can also be said about Facebook, with the social network at the centre instead.
While there are alternatives for search, it's only search. Everything else is scattered. Google lives and breathes through the mesh of services they offer. Search is at the core, but everything attached to it is what makes Google so different.
It is a scary prospect IMO. We already sold our souls to it whether we like it or not. We live on our tech bubble and perhaps try to make better choices but it will never happen to the majority.
Most of what I said can also be said about Facebook, with the social network at the centre instead.
Okay. This has absolutely nothing to do with my original question, though, so I'm not sure why you put it here.
Any decentralized information system will suffer tragedy of the commons as bad actors exploit it's usefulness (imagine the SEO garbage), or have the vacuum of power filled by a few centralized players.
Before you say, "Bitcoin did it!", just look at the block size debacle or the fact that it's mostly controlled by a handful of Chinese miners.
Before you say, "Bitcoin did it!", just look at the block size debacle or the fact that it's mostly controlled by a handful of Chinese miners.
Case in point: Google Play Services on Android.
There, I fixed it for you:
https://imgur.com/a/enJ3C8V
https://imgur.com/a/enJ3C8V
Google is also holding the plunger that helped create the dam breakage. Not to mention the pry-bars being applied to any attempts to fix the dam.
EDIT: For those who want to downvote, consider that the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from the use of your personal information to target you with ads, and that most of the advances in ad targeting using personal data have been made by Google.
EDIT: For those who want to downvote, consider that the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from the use of your personal information to target you with ads, and that most of the advances in ad targeting using personal data have been made by Google.
I think you are espousing an "ADS ARE INHERENTLY BAD" mentality that just doesn't resonate with people. I want to know about the best services that are useful for me. I do not want to be advertised women's swimsuits on Instagram (I'm a male with no interest in purchasing said item). When I see ads that are useless its infuriating. However, when I see an ad for Allbirds or a cool new leather jacket, I feel very much inclined to explore or purchase a product that I will genuinely be happy with. So, ads aren't inherently bad, they become bad or unfulfilling when they aren't personally relevant or become overly invasive in experience or content.
> When I see ads that are useless its infuriating.
Yeah, me too. The difference is that nowadays all the platforms, services, devices, and tracking are being used intrude into every single corner of life. They are constantly tracking you, analyzing you, studying your every move. And they are trying to interpose into every waking moment of your life.
The day that my guitar tuner app for Android showed me an ad in the middle of tuning my guitar (which usually takes 20 seconds), intruding to the very thing that I need most to unplug from this shit show, I just about lost my mind.
Fuck advertisers. I hope that whole ecosystem implodes.
Yeah, me too. The difference is that nowadays all the platforms, services, devices, and tracking are being used intrude into every single corner of life. They are constantly tracking you, analyzing you, studying your every move. And they are trying to interpose into every waking moment of your life.
The day that my guitar tuner app for Android showed me an ad in the middle of tuning my guitar (which usually takes 20 seconds), intruding to the very thing that I need most to unplug from this shit show, I just about lost my mind.
Fuck advertisers. I hope that whole ecosystem implodes.
It resonates with me, because I view ads as (intrinsically) mentally intrusive. I find seeing any ad, regardless of its relevance, infuriating; the advertiser is paying someone, not me, to place a thought or perception into my brain that I do not want there.
If I decide that I want to purchase a new jacket, for example because I'm traveling to a much colder climate, I want to be able to seek out (ideally unbiased) information about jackets and make my own decision.
Some of that might be in the form of advertising, but I will have made the decision to seek it out, rather than my plane ticket purchase being mined and then targeted with a clothing company ad.
I consider it to be equivalent to someone unexpectedly spooning food into my mouth, then arguing "Well, you have to eat anyway, why are you complaining?" It violates my sense of agency.
Perhaps I have a higher desire for agency than most?
If I decide that I want to purchase a new jacket, for example because I'm traveling to a much colder climate, I want to be able to seek out (ideally unbiased) information about jackets and make my own decision.
Some of that might be in the form of advertising, but I will have made the decision to seek it out, rather than my plane ticket purchase being mined and then targeted with a clothing company ad.
I consider it to be equivalent to someone unexpectedly spooning food into my mouth, then arguing "Well, you have to eat anyway, why are you complaining?" It violates my sense of agency.
Perhaps I have a higher desire for agency than most?
[deleted]
Do you believe you are being force-fed thoughts any time you hear or read anything anyone else expresses? Seems to be just as much the case whether on not that expression is part of an ad.
I personally have a pretty strong desire for agency. I’m also conscious that my understanding of the world is entirely constructed by the sum of my interactions with said world, and advertising is only a tiny part of it. I’m thankful for the sensory input this world provides me - without them my brain would have nothing to do and my agency wouldn’t be very useful.
It sounds like you are suffering a lot because your experience of advertising in the world is incompatible with your opinions about advertising. I can see two ways to solve this problem:
1) Adjust your opinions about advertising, so that you think of them as part of your voluntary engagement with the world around you, not something that is being forced on you.
2) Remove advertising from your life.
I personally have a pretty strong desire for agency. I’m also conscious that my understanding of the world is entirely constructed by the sum of my interactions with said world, and advertising is only a tiny part of it. I’m thankful for the sensory input this world provides me - without them my brain would have nothing to do and my agency wouldn’t be very useful.
It sounds like you are suffering a lot because your experience of advertising in the world is incompatible with your opinions about advertising. I can see two ways to solve this problem:
1) Adjust your opinions about advertising, so that you think of them as part of your voluntary engagement with the world around you, not something that is being forced on you.
2) Remove advertising from your life.
There’s a difference between ads targeted to information you provide explicitly (age & gender when you signed up, etc) and information that is obtained by stalking you across the entire internet.
I’m all in for the former, but the latter should be made illegal.
I’m all in for the former, but the latter should be made illegal.
Retargetting is a curse that needs to be eliminated. The idea of following people for up to (30?) days without an easy opt out is just so wrong. Just because I visited your website doesn’t mean I care to buy what you sell, no matter how long you stalk me.
"However, when I see an ad for Allbirds or a cool new leather jacket, I feel very much inclined to explore or purchase a product that I will genuinely be happy with"
You've been trained to buy things and don't even realise it. What would happen if you didn't see that ad for the jacket, would you go without clothes? Heck, maybe you'd go visit a store and meet new people. Or you'd save more money.
The whole premise that we need advertising to make us happy is ridiculous.
You've been trained to buy things and don't even realise it. What would happen if you didn't see that ad for the jacket, would you go without clothes? Heck, maybe you'd go visit a store and meet new people. Or you'd save more money.
The whole premise that we need advertising to make us happy is ridiculous.
First and foremost - ads do not require personal information. Newspapers, television, and blogs have thrived on non-personalized ads for decades. The advent of targeted ads (the dam getting blown to hell) is what made general ads unfavorable (personalization and the absolute saturation of ads in every aspect of our lives).
/rant
That said, given that ads are a psychological trick to get you to purchase something (often something that you don't need in the first place), you're right: I do consider ads to be inherently bad.
"But mah blog isn't sustainable without ads" - If your blog depends on collecting a heap of pennies generated by psychological manipulation of your viewer base, your blog provides a net negative value to your viewers.
/end rant
/rant
That said, given that ads are a psychological trick to get you to purchase something (often something that you don't need in the first place), you're right: I do consider ads to be inherently bad.
"But mah blog isn't sustainable without ads" - If your blog depends on collecting a heap of pennies generated by psychological manipulation of your viewer base, your blog provides a net negative value to your viewers.
/end rant
Newspapers, television, blogs, direct mail, billboards, etc. all rely on a modicum of audience targeting. Don't pretend that P&G would naively pay for laundry detergent ads in Playboy magazine because they didn't know who the magazine's audience was.
As with all things, it scales with technological advancements, which also includes new responsibilities (that this article is mentioning).
As with all things, it scales with technological advancements, which also includes new responsibilities (that this article is mentioning).
There’s a marked difference between targeting ads based on the surrounding content and targeting ads based on my age, gender, location, browsing history, purchasing history, religion, job, income, and social network.
Claims that they are equivalent feel like an attempt to normalize such invasive ad targeting.
Claims that they are equivalent feel like an attempt to normalize such invasive ad targeting.
Nothing in my comment said they were equivalent - As with all things, it scales with technological advancements, which also includes new responsibilities (that this article is mentioning).
Please don't discount how deep the rabbit hole goes with adtech.
I spent over a decade in adtech. I have several patents from > 8 years ago for metadata-based ad targeting.
While I agree with you that it is better to see relevant ads over irrelevant ads, the datastores that enable fine-grained behavioral targeting is, simply put, just too much power for any corporation (or government) to wield.
Corporations directly profit from larger data stores. The more invasive the data extraction, and the more available it is to their true customers, which are advertisers, the more they profit. The advertiser dashboards and ability to explore potential audiences based on targeting, both on G and FB, are astoundingly detailed.
I try to convince everyone in my life to run an adblocker and stay off FB.
One of the richest sources of metadata about you and your loved ones are your photos. I quit my day job to build a self-hosted, life-scale photo store, partly as a passion project, partly driven by disgust and penance from prior adtech work.
I spent over a decade in adtech. I have several patents from > 8 years ago for metadata-based ad targeting.
While I agree with you that it is better to see relevant ads over irrelevant ads, the datastores that enable fine-grained behavioral targeting is, simply put, just too much power for any corporation (or government) to wield.
Corporations directly profit from larger data stores. The more invasive the data extraction, and the more available it is to their true customers, which are advertisers, the more they profit. The advertiser dashboards and ability to explore potential audiences based on targeting, both on G and FB, are astoundingly detailed.
I try to convince everyone in my life to run an adblocker and stay off FB.
One of the richest sources of metadata about you and your loved ones are your photos. I quit my day job to build a self-hosted, life-scale photo store, partly as a passion project, partly driven by disgust and penance from prior adtech work.
> One of the richest sources of metadata about you and your loved ones are your photos. I quit my day job to build a self-hosted, life-scale photo store, partly as a passion project, partly driven by disgust and penance from prior adtech work.
This sounds interesting. Do you have any links you can share?
This sounds interesting. Do you have any links you can share?
Or perhaps an ad supported blog?
Targetted ads are inherently bad, and that resonates with most people I've talked to about it. I want to be able to specifically search for things that solve my problems; I don't need a torrent of competing products that I have no interest in distracting me from reading a cool article. I blacklist products advertised to me, refuse to buy them, because I hate the snake oilery the advertising profession has become. And, Google is evil and has perpetuated and propagated (and profiteered) the monetization of personal information, and bolstered that environment by sabotaging the open web.
> the vast majority of Google's revenue comes from the use of your personal information to target you with ads
The vast majority of the revenue comes from search ads, which are intent-based on the keywords in the query.
What you're talking about are display ads / adsense, which is not even close to the majority of their revenue.
The vast majority of the revenue comes from search ads, which are intent-based on the keywords in the query.
What you're talking about are display ads / adsense, which is not even close to the majority of their revenue.
[deleted]
Also
> our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible
to Google
> our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible
to Google
And to make the wrong information inaccessible.
Yeah. What else do you think search ranking does? Do you want an unsorted list of all websites that contain your keywords?
>Do you want an unsorted list of all websites that contain your keywords?
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
> Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
Not without more compute than you could afford.
Not without more compute than you could afford.
It has nothing to do with search rankings. Allegedly, they are demoting wrongthink publications in multiple places.
Besides, if the results were sorted only by rankings (not that the rank was a particularly great thing) it woiuld've been OK, but theyu are personalized which is a Bad Idea(tm).
Besides, if the results were sorted only by rankings (not that the rank was a particularly great thing) it woiuld've been OK, but theyu are personalized which is a Bad Idea(tm).
Ahh so Google should only be the universal arbiter of truth.
Should everything be marked with a sarcasm tag?
I think this is all just a PR stunt and Google's business model goes against user privacy.
It's quite interesting the way people are more willing to trust Google than Facebook with their data though. I think this might come from Google actually offering more "useful/needed/can't live without" offerings vs facebook's more vanity based services.
For example, Google takes your very privacy sensitive location data but also returns you amazing mapping capabilities (google maps), transit information, nearby points of interests etc.
They might have access to all your text messages, emails, contacts etc but returns you useful features like the last year's Duplex feature or auto reply suggestions in emails etc.
Facebook's vanity based offerings are quite shallow imo - Instagram is just hyper edited pictures to scroll through, messenger/whatsapp might be useful but it has quite good competition from iMessage or simple text messaging. So for people who actually care about privacy, they are still okay with Google having their data but are not okay with Facebook having their data because FB doesn't really offer much of real value. This could be because Google being a much older company than FB. FB has also had quite major privacy issues (Cambridge Analytica being one of the major ones) and they have shown that they really don't care at all about privacy.
One thing to note though, I still don't think Google should operate the way they do and I am not willing to compromise so much of my privacy. That's why I stick with iOS even though I know Android offers more power (especially since I am an iOS and Android Developer). iOS's AI might be inferior but it gets the job done for me and I appreciate the privacy stance of Apple over Google.
It's quite interesting the way people are more willing to trust Google than Facebook with their data though. I think this might come from Google actually offering more "useful/needed/can't live without" offerings vs facebook's more vanity based services.
For example, Google takes your very privacy sensitive location data but also returns you amazing mapping capabilities (google maps), transit information, nearby points of interests etc.
They might have access to all your text messages, emails, contacts etc but returns you useful features like the last year's Duplex feature or auto reply suggestions in emails etc.
Facebook's vanity based offerings are quite shallow imo - Instagram is just hyper edited pictures to scroll through, messenger/whatsapp might be useful but it has quite good competition from iMessage or simple text messaging. So for people who actually care about privacy, they are still okay with Google having their data but are not okay with Facebook having their data because FB doesn't really offer much of real value. This could be because Google being a much older company than FB. FB has also had quite major privacy issues (Cambridge Analytica being one of the major ones) and they have shown that they really don't care at all about privacy.
One thing to note though, I still don't think Google should operate the way they do and I am not willing to compromise so much of my privacy. That's why I stick with iOS even though I know Android offers more power (especially since I am an iOS and Android Developer). iOS's AI might be inferior but it gets the job done for me and I appreciate the privacy stance of Apple over Google.
It is possible for most people to live their lives without Facebook's Apps.
It is not possible for most people to live their lives without some form of Google, whether it's search, email, drive, maps, docs, or calendar. It's almost impossible to function today without using Google or interfacing with someone who is using Google.
People are more OK with Google because there is no alternative.
It is not possible for most people to live their lives without some form of Google, whether it's search, email, drive, maps, docs, or calendar. It's almost impossible to function today without using Google or interfacing with someone who is using Google.
People are more OK with Google because there is no alternative.
Don't forget YouTube! I sort of agree but I think this is changing for better as competition improves. If I were to rate google services in order of importance and lack of decent competition, it would be:
0. YouTube 1. Maps 2. Search 3. Email 4. Docs 5. Drive 6. Calendar
I put YouTube as 0 as it is at the very top of the list. There's virtually no comparable competition for YouTube and that's why Google is also getting away with abusing their power with YouTube trending feed, censorship, demonetization, clickbait etc. YouTube really needs some proper competition but I really doubt any company will want to take over this massive infrastructure. I don't consider Twitch to be a competition for YouTube for non-gaming content.
Maps is the only one which I cannot live without. Apple Maps has improved drastically in the last couple years though but in Canada, they are still not as good as Google. But they seem to be on the right track.
DuckDuckGo is pretty good actually and I think most people can get the job done pretty well with it. For email, there are okay competitions and I still have an alternate yahoo email but they have been going downhill in last few years.
Docs is one place where Microsoft Office is good but Docs is superior if online collaboration is needed.
Dropbox is superior to google drive imo, especially since I am on iOS and Mac.
I have never used Google Calendar as I use iOS offerings and it does pretty well.
I think if Apple can improve their Maps and if Siri stops being so useless, it would be for the better and will help take away some power from Google. And somebody really needs to compete heavily against YouTube.
0. YouTube 1. Maps 2. Search 3. Email 4. Docs 5. Drive 6. Calendar
I put YouTube as 0 as it is at the very top of the list. There's virtually no comparable competition for YouTube and that's why Google is also getting away with abusing their power with YouTube trending feed, censorship, demonetization, clickbait etc. YouTube really needs some proper competition but I really doubt any company will want to take over this massive infrastructure. I don't consider Twitch to be a competition for YouTube for non-gaming content.
Maps is the only one which I cannot live without. Apple Maps has improved drastically in the last couple years though but in Canada, they are still not as good as Google. But they seem to be on the right track.
DuckDuckGo is pretty good actually and I think most people can get the job done pretty well with it. For email, there are okay competitions and I still have an alternate yahoo email but they have been going downhill in last few years.
Docs is one place where Microsoft Office is good but Docs is superior if online collaboration is needed.
Dropbox is superior to google drive imo, especially since I am on iOS and Mac.
I have never used Google Calendar as I use iOS offerings and it does pretty well.
I think if Apple can improve their Maps and if Siri stops being so useless, it would be for the better and will help take away some power from Google. And somebody really needs to compete heavily against YouTube.
I totally forgot about YouTube, but that is a great point.
There is no good alternative to Google maps on Android IMO. I've tried
- HERE: the app is not great and I'm not sure it's any more private than Google.
- OsmAndroid: as a map it is fine. It doesn't do address searches very well which makes it useless when you need to get somewhere you haven't been before.
If anyone has a suggestion I'd greatly appreciate it.
There is no good alternative to Google maps on Android IMO. I've tried
- HERE: the app is not great and I'm not sure it's any more private than Google.
- OsmAndroid: as a map it is fine. It doesn't do address searches very well which makes it useless when you need to get somewhere you haven't been before.
If anyone has a suggestion I'd greatly appreciate it.
> For example, Google takes your very privacy sensitive location data but also returns you amazing mapping capabilities (google maps), transit information, nearby points of interests etc.
I think it's more that it returns you what will keep you using the product, so they can sell more ads. Every time I open Google maps on mobile (to see how busy the traffic is, for example), I get a big useless "Explore nearby" window taking up 40% of the screen, which I have to close to be able to actually use the map. I will never want to explore ads for businesses near my house or workplace, and the fact that the app doesn't remember that suggests the true intention.
I think it's more that it returns you what will keep you using the product, so they can sell more ads. Every time I open Google maps on mobile (to see how busy the traffic is, for example), I get a big useless "Explore nearby" window taking up 40% of the screen, which I have to close to be able to actually use the map. I will never want to explore ads for businesses near my house or workplace, and the fact that the app doesn't remember that suggests the true intention.
That's accurate description of their business interests. They keep you hooked onto the product by offering you something which you most likely can't live without (Maps) and in return they also hope you will spend money on things they advertise. You as well as I won't ever click on those explore features / ads but I think there's enough users who do which makes it worthwhile for them to push it in our faces.
[deleted]
Say what you will about Google, they're really good at PR. They and Facebook share the most indefensible tech business model in today's political climate (at least in the west), but Google does such a better job of obscuring and re-framing that fact than Facebook does.
I think there's also a distinction about what you get in return.
When I let Google track my location, I get useful hyper relevant results for searches. When I let it track my emails, I get useful flight reminders and package delivery notifications.
But Facebook doesn't really need to track my location to offer the service I want from it, the extra privacy invasion very specifically only helps advertisers. By giving it access to my contact list I can add friends more easily which is nice, but it also does so much more analysis of my extended offline friend network than I want it to, which feels like it hurts me more than it helps me.
Both companies are monetizing my private data, but with Google it feels like I get enough out of the deal that I'll (sometimes grudgingly) allow it. With Facebook I feel like it's an adversarial relationship where I have to constantly defend myself from FB. Obviously each person's valuation of the deal will be different; for some people there's no amount of usefulness Google could offer to justify the data they collect. But I suspect for many people Google is on the right side of the usefulness to creepiness ratio.
When I let Google track my location, I get useful hyper relevant results for searches. When I let it track my emails, I get useful flight reminders and package delivery notifications.
But Facebook doesn't really need to track my location to offer the service I want from it, the extra privacy invasion very specifically only helps advertisers. By giving it access to my contact list I can add friends more easily which is nice, but it also does so much more analysis of my extended offline friend network than I want it to, which feels like it hurts me more than it helps me.
Both companies are monetizing my private data, but with Google it feels like I get enough out of the deal that I'll (sometimes grudgingly) allow it. With Facebook I feel like it's an adversarial relationship where I have to constantly defend myself from FB. Obviously each person's valuation of the deal will be different; for some people there's no amount of usefulness Google could offer to justify the data they collect. But I suspect for many people Google is on the right side of the usefulness to creepiness ratio.
Flight reminders and package delivery notifications... seriously?
This is what we let Google ruin the internet for?
For all the things people have mentioned here: maps, e-mail, search, docs, etc. there are alternatives. Sure, they're not (yet) as good or convenient but put some effort into this guys.
This is what we let Google ruin the internet for?
For all the things people have mentioned here: maps, e-mail, search, docs, etc. there are alternatives. Sure, they're not (yet) as good or convenient but put some effort into this guys.
> Flight reminders and package delivery notifications... seriously?
> This is what we let Google ruin the internet for?
If you use any other searchable email service, you have exactly the same loss in privacy. The only difference is they don't give you these value adds from the data they already have about you.
> This is what we let Google ruin the internet for?
If you use any other searchable email service, you have exactly the same loss in privacy. The only difference is they don't give you these value adds from the data they already have about you.
Facebook’s mistake was making an enemy of the media by demoting their status in the news feed. This has led to many reporters and their friends being put out of a job. Now everyone thinks Facebook is public enemy #1 for selling ads when other major companies have the business model of literally burning the Earth.
Google is a few years older, wiser and has far greater political clout. Being older, google went through what facebook is going through a few years ago. So they are much more savvy and also much more powerful ( politically at least ). I suspect Facebook is spenting their billions buying lobbyists, politicians and media/pr as we speak, just like google did. And microsoft did before them.
I think the bigger differentiator is Zuckerberg's ego. It's made him blind to his own flaws and mistakes and deaf to criticism, and he's maintained an iron grip on the company's steering wheel. I think he may run it into the ground. Google's direction is much less monarchical, and more willing to adapt.
Zuckerberg copied Page and Brin's share structure. Page and Brin control Google just as much as Zuckerburg controls Facebook - totally. As for ego, I don't know these people personally so I'll take your word for it.
Every company has two mission statements: The stated one and the real one. Google's real mission statement is "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers."
The noises Google makes about being "useful" are just cover for the fact that being useful is the only way they can entice everyone to give them that personal information for free. If Google could get a law passed that required everyone to have a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body, Google would do it in a heartbeat. And then the need for all that expensive "usefulness" would be over.
The noises Google makes about being "useful" are just cover for the fact that being useful is the only way they can entice everyone to give them that personal information for free. If Google could get a law passed that required everyone to have a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body, Google would do it in a heartbeat. And then the need for all that expensive "usefulness" would be over.
This is a very cynical way to look at Google's business. I agree that their business model is based on connecting (mostly relevant) ads from the advertisers to the users with the help of user data but I do find some of those ads pretty useful. Let me just give you one example: I had almost missed the due date for the smog check on my car and at the last moment I searched on Google with query "smog check nearby" and I found the top Ad with the nearest to me and with the cheapest rate for the smog check service. I had a really good and pleasant experience as well. So That's Google for me: It helps me when I need it the most.
Given that you lack basic understanding of how advertising works, the rest of your argument is moot.
Please enlighten me as to what I'm missing about how advertising works.
If you think Google "sells everyone's personal information to advertisers", then you are mistaken about their business model as umeshunni said.
Google themselves explain it clearly and openly.
https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
Google themselves explain it clearly and openly.
https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
I know Google doesn't literally sell my personal information. They collect it and use it to match a demographic that advertisers want. But the fact remains that Google collects my personal information -- they couldn't match my demographic otherwise. And that means that Google itself is a giant repository of everyone's personal information, even if they choose (today) not to sell it, not to give it to governments on demand, and not to misuse it in any other way. But should we trust them forever not to do so? And why?
But that's what you said:
> "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers."
It's a very important difference between trusting Google with the data, and trusting a random advertiser.
> "make shitloads of money selling everyone's personal information to advertisers."
It's a very important difference between trusting Google with the data, and trusting a random advertiser.
>a grain-of-rice sized Android tracker implanted in their body
I don't even think they need that with everyone having a smartphone.
I don't even think they need that with everyone having a smartphone.
I appreciate the fact that they are being transparent about the nature of the deal they are offering. I suppose my own naivete was partly to blame, but I might not have wasted my time going to work there back in 2011-2012 if they had been clearer about their value proposition. I remain convinced that Google is full of intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned people who are shackled to a business model I will not participate in, and all of their beautiful technical achievements therefore remain irrelevant to my life.
This article is uncritical.
In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product.
I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.
In particular it doesn't mention the critical problem that Google makes its money from advertising, not from people who pay for premium phones or premium services. That is, you are still the product.
I recognize social positives from advertising, but there is a fundamental conflict when you are dependent on "free" services paid for by a third party.
You can still make money from advertisements if you don’t track everything your users do. Magazines don’t know how long you look at a page and they still sell ads. It’s just harder.
The services would still be bad services.
I don't see tracking as the problem with Google.
The problem with Google is that it crowds out competition, also that it contributes to a "data smog" environment. The way we would get better services is to pay for them ourselves so we establish a feedback loop such that encourages better services from our point of view (not that of advertisers)
I don't see tracking as the problem with Google.
The problem with Google is that it crowds out competition, also that it contributes to a "data smog" environment. The way we would get better services is to pay for them ourselves so we establish a feedback loop such that encourages better services from our point of view (not that of advertisers)
The problem with google’s mission is that it doesn’t say which information has to be accessible to whom and in what way it’s going to be useful.
Given that google’s income is mostly from advertising, it feels like the mission is about making my information available to someone else, and useful for them to make money.
Given that google’s income is mostly from advertising, it feels like the mission is about making my information available to someone else, and useful for them to make money.
Absolutely agreed. The doublespeak and lack of transparency leaves a really bad taste in one's mouth.
It would be one thing if they were very straightforward the 'with whom' and the 'for what' of the data they harvest. Users could weigh the pros and cons, make an informed decision, and move on.
But instead they choose to masquerade as a forward-thinking philanthropic organization, burying their ulterior motives behind pages of fine print and intentionally vague 'disclosures' about what they do with your data.
Wearing a disguise makes one appear guilty. I would be wary of any individual or group intentionally presenting a false image in order to mask their true intentions.
It would be one thing if they were very straightforward the 'with whom' and the 'for what' of the data they harvest. Users could weigh the pros and cons, make an informed decision, and move on.
But instead they choose to masquerade as a forward-thinking philanthropic organization, burying their ulterior motives behind pages of fine print and intentionally vague 'disclosures' about what they do with your data.
Wearing a disguise makes one appear guilty. I would be wary of any individual or group intentionally presenting a false image in order to mask their true intentions.
Google is not too evil presently, but nothing is guaranteed and the amount of data they have gives them more power than most nation states. So on principle I've been degoogling. Here are my approaches:
search: duckduckgo
android: copperheados (dead ended, waiting for puri.sm librem 5 on order)
chrome: firefox, containers, uMatrix. Isolated usages of chrome w/o logging in.
gmail: fastmail
youtube: peertube
docs/sheets: local software (libreoffice)
reCaptcha: isolated chrome usage w/o logging in, or I avoid the website and email the webmaster.
fonts: uMatrix block them, I live with the fallback fonts. On my sites I host the fonts locally.
analytics: uMatrix blocks it. I don't need it myself.
maps: OSM or other mapping websites
earth: [never needed it]
sky?: [never needed it], stellarium
Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century.
Google is doing everything in its power to buy/take/borrow that commodity from people (just like FB. Amazon, MS, etc...) They can say things like "We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done…We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day. "
But I don't buy it.
Google is doing everything in its power to buy/take/borrow that commodity from people (just like FB. Amazon, MS, etc...) They can say things like "We are moving from a company that helps you find answers to a company that helps you get things done…We want our products to work harder for you in the context of your job, your home, and your life, and they all share a single goal: to be helpful, so we can be there for you in moments big and small over the course of your day. "
But I don't buy it.
> Privacy is going to be the most valuable commodity of the 21st century.
Pretty bold statement. Can you expand on that?
Pretty bold statement. Can you expand on that?
OP is probably confusing service with commodity, as privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged.
No I did mean commodity, but a personal commodity. Essentially when you are born you are born into a certain level or amount of privacy. And slowly as you age and use technology, everything you wished to remain personal or private is slowly given away or sucked away, stolen, etc.... It's near impossible to remain a private individual in today's world. And privacy is something that once gone you can never get back. So I refer to it as a personal or individual commodity, and these corporations would love nothing more than to take that from you... for in their words "the greater good".
Clearly an opinion piece.
Clearly an opinion piece.
>privacy is not a tangible to be sold or exchanged
It is right now in the US (outside of health data). It isn't in the EU because of GDPR.
It is right now in the US (outside of health data). It isn't in the EU because of GDPR.
> But I don't buy it.
Actually, I do buy it!
What that actually means is: injecting Google into every aspect of your life.
Would that bring a usability improvement for users? Maybe. But it also gives Google what it craves - all the data they can possibly have about you.
Actually, I do buy it!
What that actually means is: injecting Google into every aspect of your life.
Would that bring a usability improvement for users? Maybe. But it also gives Google what it craves - all the data they can possibly have about you.
Regarding that lady. I am from India and I see 100s of people everyday struggling with this exact problem, unable to read what's written. BUT as awesome the technology is it doesn't solve the advertised problem. The very same people, almost everyone I know/see are above the age of 20 and don't even bother to learn the language when they easily can from the $.01 books available almost everywhere. You can give them a tool but how will you give them the motivation?
I found that lady fascinating. I wonder if she has a learning disability. In any case, Google's solution is amazing: by highlighting the word while reading it to her, she is likely to learn to recognize words, leading her to improved literacy. If this solution works as well as Google hopes, Google may end up raising literacy throughout the world. Even if that means Google gets more data about everyone, I think the effects on the world would be a net positive.
So if I am using an ad blocker and dont see any ads at all, dont I just _cost_ google, facebook, etc. money from using their services and having them store my data?
What if the majority of people would block all ads? Wouldnt data collection become meaningless?
What if the majority of people would block all ads? Wouldnt data collection become meaningless?
> Wouldnt data collection become meaningless?
Data is used for more than advertising.
These data silos are enormous blackmail machines waiting to be activated. There is tons of evidence of crime, adultery, extortion, and all the other fun things humans get up to in there.
Google, FB, and the other big surveillance outfits protect this data now. Who knows what happens tomorrow, or if that protection is "enough", or if $nation_state will grab what's stored in their borders, or...
Building these blackmail machines is incredibly dangerous, _even if you completely ignore_ the garden-variety privacy problems they cause for "little people".
Data is used for more than advertising.
These data silos are enormous blackmail machines waiting to be activated. There is tons of evidence of crime, adultery, extortion, and all the other fun things humans get up to in there.
Google, FB, and the other big surveillance outfits protect this data now. Who knows what happens tomorrow, or if that protection is "enough", or if $nation_state will grab what's stored in their borders, or...
Building these blackmail machines is incredibly dangerous, _even if you completely ignore_ the garden-variety privacy problems they cause for "little people".
These scum companies use data gathered from your friends as well, so even if you block ads, they will still use data gathered about you to “improve” the ads your friends get.
Ads are much harder to block on mobile. Especially on iOS, it's nearly impossible to block ads in a native app. There are some tricks you can do with a VPN but the coverage isn't great and it's error-prone enough that I don't bother, which means casual ad-block users like my sister will absolutely never go that route. So to the extent that mobile is the future, it seems ad-blocking is not a long-term solution.
As much as I like iOS, I agree with you and I am still waiting for a good ad-blocking solution.
But I am not sure it's ever going to come. Many smaller devs and studios publish free apps which they monetise only with ads. Not sure Apple wants to scare off millions of developers by officially streamlining app ad-blocking.
On iOS, VPN remains the only good choice so far, sadly.
But I am not sure it's ever going to come. Many smaller devs and studios publish free apps which they monetise only with ads. Not sure Apple wants to scare off millions of developers by officially streamlining app ad-blocking.
On iOS, VPN remains the only good choice so far, sadly.
In the video, they say they have compressed translate, vision and speech into "just over 100kb."
That seems pretty magical. Perhaps it is all server-side?
That seems pretty magical. Perhaps it is all server-side?
This is definitely a sneaky twisting of words in my opinion. Maybe they mean the size of the js that powers the app, or something along the size. Even simple dictionaries on my phone are never less then 500kb.
> Perhaps it is all server-side?
Probably.
> translate, vision and speech
To me, these types of technology are both wonderful, and particularly dangerous.
With Google Translate, I was able to read technical posts on a Russian forum, which contained a piece of critical information to the problem I was trying to solve. And with Google's speech recognition on YouTube, highly accuracy text transcripts are now generated at an industrial scale, and even in real-time, that enabled me to see parts of unintelligible speech in some videos which are otherwise impossible to understand. In the future, it's expected that these types of technologies would see greater applications, for example, using automatic translation in international conferences or private conversations is not a "far future" Sci-Fi idea anymore, and may eventually be crucial tools for a specific propose, or even play a central role in the human society.
> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.”
On the other hand, due to the very nature of these types of technology, it's mostly impractical to deploy them locally, the only natural way to implement these is running them on Google's computers. It means soon enough, Google, would have access to massive volumes of information, not only personal, but human information, such as private conversations and communications. And unlike those cheap IoT devices you could refuse to purchase, using these services may be essential (e.g. being able to understand the conversations) to live in a digital society. And even if it's not Google, the information collected would be vulnerable from another service provider as well, in addition to a government subpoena.
To some extents, the search engine already showed the existence of these problems - it's not possible to run a search engine on your computer (I know there are some FOSS Proof-of-Concept projects, but they are what they are...), the search engine has to be operated by a large centralized provider which would be able to see and track everything you've searched. Meanwhile, you must use an search engine to find information produced by the human civilization.
In the future, it's certain that Homomorphic Encryption and Differential Privacy may be important and must-have solutions, but only for some very specific applications, they allow some computations and queries to be performed by a 3rd-party without revealing their contents or nature. Theoretically, if there's a future breakthrough in applied cryptography, you would be able to execute an entire blackbox program on someone else's computer without revealing anything.
But I doubt if there's a solution in general.
Probably.
> translate, vision and speech
To me, these types of technology are both wonderful, and particularly dangerous.
With Google Translate, I was able to read technical posts on a Russian forum, which contained a piece of critical information to the problem I was trying to solve. And with Google's speech recognition on YouTube, highly accuracy text transcripts are now generated at an industrial scale, and even in real-time, that enabled me to see parts of unintelligible speech in some videos which are otherwise impossible to understand. In the future, it's expected that these types of technologies would see greater applications, for example, using automatic translation in international conferences or private conversations is not a "far future" Sci-Fi idea anymore, and may eventually be crucial tools for a specific propose, or even play a central role in the human society.
> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.”
On the other hand, due to the very nature of these types of technology, it's mostly impractical to deploy them locally, the only natural way to implement these is running them on Google's computers. It means soon enough, Google, would have access to massive volumes of information, not only personal, but human information, such as private conversations and communications. And unlike those cheap IoT devices you could refuse to purchase, using these services may be essential (e.g. being able to understand the conversations) to live in a digital society. And even if it's not Google, the information collected would be vulnerable from another service provider as well, in addition to a government subpoena.
To some extents, the search engine already showed the existence of these problems - it's not possible to run a search engine on your computer (I know there are some FOSS Proof-of-Concept projects, but they are what they are...), the search engine has to be operated by a large centralized provider which would be able to see and track everything you've searched. Meanwhile, you must use an search engine to find information produced by the human civilization.
In the future, it's certain that Homomorphic Encryption and Differential Privacy may be important and must-have solutions, but only for some very specific applications, they allow some computations and queries to be performed by a 3rd-party without revealing their contents or nature. Theoretically, if there's a future breakthrough in applied cryptography, you would be able to execute an entire blackbox program on someone else's computer without revealing anything.
But I doubt if there's a solution in general.
The author is naive about monetization. Google should not care if making a better product hurts its existing revenue sources. If Google doesn't do it, someone else will. A smart company worries about having the best products that people want to use first and about monetizing those products second, and unlike a startup, Google has the luxury of being able to wait to monetize new products until the ecosystem around them becomes clearer.
The author's simple-minded reasoning is why Microsoft was late to the Internet search engine game.
The author's simple-minded reasoning is why Microsoft was late to the Internet search engine game.
I wonder if someone can explain to me why I should be upset about Google collecting my data. I would pay money for Google to continue collecting my data and improving its predictive model of my behavior, in order to better address my needs as they arise. They're getting better and better at this over time. It has improved my quality of life.
Yeah I don’t buy any of it (full disclosure I and my household are an Apple only household). I’ve been moving away from google services. It’s slow. And it’s tough because most everything they do is so damn good: google search, amazing; google maps, gold standard imo; gmail — eh? It’s rather good. But I would rather a company like Apple study me because currently they’re not in the business of monetizing my every thought, action, or whim. I pay a premium for the hardware and in return I get a company hellbent on privacy so much so that they refused to unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist.
So while I often hate that DuckDuckGo’s results are sometimes wildly laughable compared to Google’s I’ll continue supporting privacy first companies and pay a premium to do so before I let my phone be a Google phone.
So while I often hate that DuckDuckGo’s results are sometimes wildly laughable compared to Google’s I’ll continue supporting privacy first companies and pay a premium to do so before I let my phone be a Google phone.
The inline translate text using your camera, right from search was in windows phone circa 2010. Just sayin'. This feature plus offline maps caching & offline routing with subway info was incredibly useful for a European vacation my wife and I took.
RIP WP8
RIP WP8
I would love to pick all of the arguments in this topic and fit them in this: https://maxwellito.github.io/tilt/
Not sure if I'm the only one but I don't see a perfect solution on the smartphone part: - iOS is privacy focussed but walled garden and overpriced and impossible to repair. - Android is affordable and hackable but Google powered. - Cyanogen alternative: not easy to access and remain dependant to the Play Store to get apps (so back to Google power)
Not sure if I'm the only one but I don't see a perfect solution on the smartphone part: - iOS is privacy focussed but walled garden and overpriced and impossible to repair. - Android is affordable and hackable but Google powered. - Cyanogen alternative: not easy to access and remain dependant to the Play Store to get apps (so back to Google power)
So we live in a society that isn't able to find the resources to teach someone how to read and get free... Instead that people can buy an Android phone and become a slave of the technology... what a shame
I see a lot of comparison of device makers, with regards to privacy, in this thread. I think this is a moot point, in that data is collected regardless of what company, service, device is used. The fact that the data is being collected is key; your anonymity is compromised regardless. Google is an easy target due to their size and market share, but many people here work for tech companies of all sizes. Reflect on what data that company collects, how it is leveraged, and if the semantics is much different. Collect, leverage, repeat.
The first thing that comes to mind here is Google trying to remove the edge they themselves required to get into the position they are now in. They used and abused data for two decades (and will continue to do so) to become an absolute behemoth.
If they now play the "privacy" card it will stifle competition even more, as there will forever be a compromise on either the amount of data they are able to gather, or the public perception due to being less "privacy" focused than big G.
If they now play the "privacy" card it will stifle competition even more, as there will forever be a compromise on either the amount of data they are able to gather, or the public perception due to being less "privacy" focused than big G.
They get the most elementary thing wrong in their “mission.” The very first search link should be the most relevant, right? Now the entire first PAGE is often bought and paid for.
Yet another hit piece. It's disgusting how obvious and desperate these are getting.
> To put it more succinctly: “Yes, we collect a lot of data. But that data makes amazing things possible.”
I don't like Google, but stating that collecting data is bad just because, doesn't sell it for me. Oh, and this refers to data already available to the general public.
It makes me wonder if there is something behind. What's the agenda behind all these hit pieces? I really don't know.
> To put it more succinctly: “Yes, we collect a lot of data. But that data makes amazing things possible.”
I don't like Google, but stating that collecting data is bad just because, doesn't sell it for me. Oh, and this refers to data already available to the general public.
It makes me wonder if there is something behind. What's the agenda behind all these hit pieces? I really don't know.
It could be that it's a hit piece concocted by the secretive privacy cabal, still working at their evil plan to hurt people by making them control their private information and at the same time to inconvenience powerful corporations from doing whatever they want.
There is no privacy cabal that you sarcastically suggest, but there is a lot of money to be made out of paranoia, justified or not. Protonmails worthless encryption, the dubiously safe vpn ads I see everywhere. I tend to see a lot of exaggerations from some privacy oriented companies. I still trust those companies far more, and a sizable portion doesnt try to spread fear and exaggeration, though, but I do believe that a lot of companies are trying to make a ton of money off of paranoia they help create.
> Protonmails worthless encryption
Can you elaborate on that, please?
Can you elaborate on that, please?
Protonmail advertises special end to end encryption thats only available when sending emails to other protonmail users. Others get the standard TLS that every provider uses. Recently they added a feature convert emails a link to a page that asks the non-protonmail user for a password (not a private key or login) and then decrypts the email in the browser, which I find pretty worthless.
That's suboptimal but worthless might be too strong a word to describe it.
It's definitely better than nothing.
The proprietary thing does not look good I admit. But maybe they think the open stack is easy to pwn?
It's definitely better than nothing.
The proprietary thing does not look good I admit. But maybe they think the open stack is easy to pwn?
Oh, and they dont support PGP with non protonmail users, locking you into their proprietary junk.
FWIW, the quote you used is making the case for Google, not against them.
Mission statement at I/O "be helpful for everyone" They showed how their improved software helps diabled and illiterate people around the world.
The other day I sent my nephew a text on my smartphone:
As Morphius said, "Now do you believe?"
My Android phone decided what I really meant was "As Amorphous said..." So maybe before they decide they want to control everything in my life with all the data they are collecting, they should figure out spell correction first. I got the spelling wrong, but their correction was completely stupid.
As Morphius said, "Now do you believe?"
My Android phone decided what I really meant was "As Amorphous said..." So maybe before they decide they want to control everything in my life with all the data they are collecting, they should figure out spell correction first. I got the spelling wrong, but their correction was completely stupid.
I changed my default search engine and homepage to DuckDuckGo. Two weeks later, I didn't even realize I was still using DuckDuckGo -> it's that good. Once people realize this, and how easy it is to switch, google may be in trouble.
i don't have anything against google. I just think, having only 1 search engine is too much power for any 1 company, no matter how benevolent.
i don't have anything against google. I just think, having only 1 search engine is too much power for any 1 company, no matter how benevolent.
Most of the things demoed existed before in Translate app. I have used it and as far as I know someone good hearted at Google did this in his/her 20% time. The speaker, who seems to be some sort of executive, pretended that this is new achievement from her side and Google is suddenly socially responsible. I don't get this article and its author.
Can Google become privacy focused faster than Apple can develop decent software/services, thats the question.
If only this technology could actually educate people, instead of being used as a crutch. This is what Google wants, to have you so dependent on their technology that living life without them is nearly impossible without them.
For me, a timely discussion. Early this year I signed up for GSuite, copied stuff over from the free gmail account I have had for about 15 years, decided Cloud Search, etc. made the privacy hit worthwhile.
Well, I got fed up this week because release of new GSuite services lags the free offerings, and sometimes just aren't released. I lived with switching between free and paid accounts depending on what I was doing (made OK by using Firefox containers).
So, I switched my ProtonMail account to a paid for account, applied my custom domain, and flipped back to using Apple's Calendar, Siri, Maps, etc.
Literally Google lost a tiny bit of my business because their paid for product in some ways was worse than the free offerings.
I can see myself going back to Google paid services in the future but they have to up their game.
Well, I got fed up this week because release of new GSuite services lags the free offerings, and sometimes just aren't released. I lived with switching between free and paid accounts depending on what I was doing (made OK by using Firefox containers).
So, I switched my ProtonMail account to a paid for account, applied my custom domain, and flipped back to using Apple's Calendar, Siri, Maps, etc.
Literally Google lost a tiny bit of my business because their paid for product in some ways was worse than the free offerings.
I can see myself going back to Google paid services in the future but they have to up their game.
This is a painfully well contrived bit of PR.
When companies start peddling poor people in need from some desperate place to pull on our heartstrings ... it's a problem.
If this were something related to their core product - maybe.
But this is virtue signalling at it's ugly finest.
Surely, they mean well. Kudos for that - it's good they're spending a tiny portion of their trillion dollars doing that.
What I object to - strongly - is the attempt to brand themselves by this act, to imbue themselves with some kind of moral fervour, especially in such an emotional way.
"Look at these puppies, they were starving, and then we saved them! Everyone likes puppies, right?" Ok, so they actually saved puppies.
---> Now please fix our privacy problems, which is actually the core of what you're supposed to do.
When companies start peddling poor people in need from some desperate place to pull on our heartstrings ... it's a problem.
If this were something related to their core product - maybe.
But this is virtue signalling at it's ugly finest.
Surely, they mean well. Kudos for that - it's good they're spending a tiny portion of their trillion dollars doing that.
What I object to - strongly - is the attempt to brand themselves by this act, to imbue themselves with some kind of moral fervour, especially in such an emotional way.
"Look at these puppies, they were starving, and then we saved them! Everyone likes puppies, right?" Ok, so they actually saved puppies.
---> Now please fix our privacy problems, which is actually the core of what you're supposed to do.
I will stick to my on device privacy thanks. I know it costs more but its well worth keeping my entire life out of being a lab rat for company that wants to do good for yet to be born rats.
> The implicit message was clear: “Yes, we have all of your data, but the fact we have all of your data is a good thing, because it allows us to make your life easier.”
This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But there's no inherent reason this has to be done "on the cloud" (which is just a marketing phrase for "on other people's computers"). As an industry, I would like to see us putting more computing power into end users' hardware and more intelligence into freely available software so that more of this work can be done on people's personal computers without giving their data to amoral corporations.
This is why a) free/libre software and b) Moore's law are important. Trading privacy for convenience is a real trade you can make right now, and nobody benefits from pretending it isn't--the first step to fixing that problem is to admit it exists. But there's no inherent reason this has to be done "on the cloud" (which is just a marketing phrase for "on other people's computers"). As an industry, I would like to see us putting more computing power into end users' hardware and more intelligence into freely available software so that more of this work can be done on people's personal computers without giving their data to amoral corporations.
It's not really about it being cloud based. It's about having a central trusted party with access to private data which has public utility. As an example, Tesla collects lots of private data about their users' driving, in order to train their self-driving tech. Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available.
The way out of this situation is to develop competitive solutions which are less private data dependent.
The way out of this situation is to develop competitive solutions which are less private data dependent.
> Doing this in a free software solution (if you consider the training to be part of the software) would be less practical, as it would require training journeys to be publicly available.
I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public.
I do agree that there's some problem to be solve here, though. Part of the point of free software is to be able to trust that the code you are running is serving your interests. Right now I don't know of any proofs of concept of manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data, but it's a very plausible attack vector.
I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public.
I do agree that there's some problem to be solve here, though. Part of the point of free software is to be able to trust that the code you are running is serving your interests. Right now I don't know of any proofs of concept of manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data, but it's a very plausible attack vector.
> I think most free software folks would agree that the training data doesn't have to be public.
That seems antithetical to me. The trained model is the program, and the training data is in-essence the source code.
> manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data
You don't even have to do this. You can manipulate the model directly. Writing neural networks manually isn't difficult. You can't do more with that than conventional programming, but its sufficient to add malicious behaviour.
That seems antithetical to me. The trained model is the program, and the training data is in-essence the source code.
> manipulating what an AI does by manipulating the training data
You don't even have to do this. You can manipulate the model directly. Writing neural networks manually isn't difficult. You can't do more with that than conventional programming, but its sufficient to add malicious behaviour.
> That seems antithetical to me. The trained model is the program, and the training data is in-essence the source code.
No, I think that trained models and training data are entirely new concepts. I can see the similarities between trained models/programs a and training data/source code, but there are obvious privacy concerns with training data that don't apply to source code. Calling the training data the source code is a leaky abstraction.
You could, for example, equally argue that the trained model is the source code, and the program which operates on the trained model is an interpreter which runs that source code.
Even if you refuse to concede that there are differences between training data and source code, you'll note that I am talking about free (libre) software, not open source. There are lots of cases where free software doesn't mean opening all the source up. Free software is about freedom, not about open source. For example, while there's plenty of source code in settings files, I don't think there's anyone arguing that we need to check in our settings files on open source projects. The point is to put the power in the hands of users. Putting users' data out of their control is the antithesis of that.
> You don't even have to do this. You can manipulate the model directly. Writing neural networks manually isn't difficult. You can't do more with that than conventional programming, but its sufficient to add malicious behaviour.
That's an interesting point, and may provide a workaround making training data public, i.e. you can generate the model and then make a representation of the model public, rather than the training data. However, there's an assumption here that the training data can't be reconstructed from the trained model--if a study of this exists, I'm not aware of it.
No, I think that trained models and training data are entirely new concepts. I can see the similarities between trained models/programs a and training data/source code, but there are obvious privacy concerns with training data that don't apply to source code. Calling the training data the source code is a leaky abstraction.
You could, for example, equally argue that the trained model is the source code, and the program which operates on the trained model is an interpreter which runs that source code.
Even if you refuse to concede that there are differences between training data and source code, you'll note that I am talking about free (libre) software, not open source. There are lots of cases where free software doesn't mean opening all the source up. Free software is about freedom, not about open source. For example, while there's plenty of source code in settings files, I don't think there's anyone arguing that we need to check in our settings files on open source projects. The point is to put the power in the hands of users. Putting users' data out of their control is the antithesis of that.
> You don't even have to do this. You can manipulate the model directly. Writing neural networks manually isn't difficult. You can't do more with that than conventional programming, but its sufficient to add malicious behaviour.
That's an interesting point, and may provide a workaround making training data public, i.e. you can generate the model and then make a representation of the model public, rather than the training data. However, there's an assumption here that the training data can't be reconstructed from the trained model--if a study of this exists, I'm not aware of it.
I think the trained model is analogous to a program (which may be interpreted by a virtual machine; not necessarily a machine code program) because it is not intelligible by humans. I'll admit that there are tools for analysing neural networks, but these are like disassemblers.
Trained models carry all the hazards of binary blobs, and so can't just be trusted. Training data is no true analogue to source code, but the concept of reproducibility is still relevant. At the very least, the production of blobs should be auditable.
Trained models carry all the hazards of binary blobs, and so can't just be trusted. Training data is no true analogue to source code, but the concept of reproducibility is still relevant. At the very least, the production of blobs should be auditable.
> I think the trained model is analogous to a program (which may be interpreted by a virtual machine; not necessarily a machine code program) because it is not intelligible by humans. I'll admit that there are tools for analysing neural networks, but these are like disassemblers.
Yeah, I agree that's a valid analogy, but again I'll say it's just an analogy. The training data still differs from source code in its privacy attributes, so I don't think it should be treated the same way as source code in a free (libre) software context.
> Trained models carry all the hazards of binary blobs, and so can't just be trusted. Training data is no true analogue to source code, but the concept of reproducibility is still relevant. At the very least, the production of blobs should be auditable.
This is true, and it's a big problem, not just because of free software concerns. One of the deeply problematic effects of this is that we can't always explain why an AI does what it does, leading to horrifying possibilities[1].
[1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2019/04/frogger-ai-explains-its-dec... (WARNING: I recommend copy/pasting this link to a separate tab rather than clicking it. JWZ has a rather negative opinion of HN and a while back his server started serving up rather unsavory images in response to requests with an HN referrer. I'm not sure if that is still happening, but I know that if you copy/paste the link there's nothing offensive on the page.)
Yeah, I agree that's a valid analogy, but again I'll say it's just an analogy. The training data still differs from source code in its privacy attributes, so I don't think it should be treated the same way as source code in a free (libre) software context.
> Trained models carry all the hazards of binary blobs, and so can't just be trusted. Training data is no true analogue to source code, but the concept of reproducibility is still relevant. At the very least, the production of blobs should be auditable.
This is true, and it's a big problem, not just because of free software concerns. One of the deeply problematic effects of this is that we can't always explain why an AI does what it does, leading to horrifying possibilities[1].
[1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2019/04/frogger-ai-explains-its-dec... (WARNING: I recommend copy/pasting this link to a separate tab rather than clicking it. JWZ has a rather negative opinion of HN and a while back his server started serving up rather unsavory images in response to requests with an HN referrer. I'm not sure if that is still happening, but I know that if you copy/paste the link there's nothing offensive on the page.)
And c) cryptography is important. Or maybe also, d) P2P and federation is important? (a) ensures, although only partially, the computing freedom of the user, (b) ensures, although only partially, the computing power of the users, and (c) ensures, although only partially, the ability of the user to selective reveal information, and/or reserve control of them, when it's in hands of a 3rd-party.
Unfortunately, even with (a), (b), and (c). I doubt if a general solution exists, as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19861630.
Unfortunately, even with (a), (b), and (c). I doubt if a general solution exists, as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19861630.
The average user isn't willing to pay more for their devices just to avoid the seamless sharing of their data with google. There's a reason people stopped buying desktop computers and are relying on mobile devices and cheap laptops for more: its cheaper and they don't care about the hidden "costs" of their data being shared.
In addition, sure, people could absolutely create local, non-cloud ways to accomplishing a lot of this. But who is footing that bill? Where's the value proposition to anyone who has the manpower
In addition, sure, people could absolutely create local, non-cloud ways to accomplishing a lot of this. But who is footing that bill? Where's the value proposition to anyone who has the manpower
Just because something doesn't make anyone money doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
Moore's Law died 5 years ago. And services completely negate Open Source.
What exactly is the fighting back in this article?
Apart from the privacy concerns I'm rather hesitant to switch to anything they make, only to see them kill it off again later. But well that also happens all the time when they buy other companies, so you cannot really avoid that from happening to you. Just like the nest news from yesterday.
Good job Google. Nicely done.
Google has become so evil, their whitewash attempts are a sad joke.
how does illiterate pass through driving license test that they can rent a car?
The F'ing Circle.
Just look at Admob latest releases notes, and understand this is all PR bullshit
Everyone was concerned about the old big brothers: the government, the police,etc. Now the real big brothers are silently here already: Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook,etc. They can own the government and the police force if they want to, and all citizens, of course.
I think people misinterpret Google's vision as neutral:
"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"
They want to make Laplace's Demon real in the form of their publicly traded company. That's a breathtaking vision statement.
They explicitly want to collect every piece of information on everything that happens worldwide, and then influence how that information is used. "Useful" is in the eye of the beholder and is the wonderful escape command that lets them do anything they want.
If that doesn't inspire/terrify you then it should.
"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"
They want to make Laplace's Demon real in the form of their publicly traded company. That's a breathtaking vision statement.
They explicitly want to collect every piece of information on everything that happens worldwide, and then influence how that information is used. "Useful" is in the eye of the beholder and is the wonderful escape command that lets them do anything they want.
If that doesn't inspire/terrify you then it should.
Honestly the amount of people concerned about their "privacy" is shocking... kinda makes one wonder what most of these people are up too, what are they trying to hide? Obviously, some people are just concerned for good reason but I get the feeling most people are concerned because their hiding shit.
If it means that an literate mother of 3 from India can become literate when it counts then Google execs can take naked pictures of me and publish them in the New York times for all I care.
If it means that an literate mother of 3 from India can become literate when it counts then Google execs can take naked pictures of me and publish them in the New York times for all I care.
"Not having anything to hide" isn't a great argument because some people, for completely legitimate reasons, do have something to hide. It could be an abused person hiding from their abuser. It could be somebody with strong political views entering an unfriendly territory. There's reasons for privacy and it should be protected.
That said, there's also much value in allowing this data to be free. Google are open about their business model (and they always have been), and provide services that make use of it.
I do think it's funny when people accuse them of "harvesting data" or "surveilling" people. That's just using emotional language to paint a more sinister picture than is warranted, and it's rampant on HN unfortunately.
Try to watch out for extremist positions on both sides of the debate. Reality is more nuanced.
That said, there's also much value in allowing this data to be free. Google are open about their business model (and they always have been), and provide services that make use of it.
I do think it's funny when people accuse them of "harvesting data" or "surveilling" people. That's just using emotional language to paint a more sinister picture than is warranted, and it's rampant on HN unfortunately.
Try to watch out for extremist positions on both sides of the debate. Reality is more nuanced.
When I get a plumber over to my apartment to fix the sink I don't want him telling his colleagues what's in my medicine cabinet.
If Google's possession of all this data makes many new good things possible, then sharing this data broadly and freely with others would make even more good things possible. Would Google share the data with other corporations so that they, too, can innovate and serve the consumer even better?
I mean, if I buy into the notion of Google's benevolence, I should buy into that notion for other corporations, shouldn't I?
I mean, if I buy into the notion of Google's benevolence, I should buy into that notion for other corporations, shouldn't I?
Isn't that the purpose of Google Takeout? If Google isn't providing the most value for your data, you can take it elsewhere.
That's how I use Internet services. If they don't do anything useful with my data, I don't use them. If they do something useful with my data, I use the one that does the most useful thing with my data. Thus, Gmail over other email services and Slack over whatever nonsense Google's messaging product managers are pushing today. And Apple services for nothing — collecting data and not being helpful with it is stupidity, not "privacy."
That's how I use Internet services. If they don't do anything useful with my data, I don't use them. If they do something useful with my data, I use the one that does the most useful thing with my data. Thus, Gmail over other email services and Slack over whatever nonsense Google's messaging product managers are pushing today. And Apple services for nothing — collecting data and not being helpful with it is stupidity, not "privacy."
thank you for making me aware of that.
This feels like bait, but I'll answer anyway.
No. You should decide whether to give your personal data to organizations on a case by case basis, depending on whether you trust the organization in question, and the value proposition they offer in exchange for your data.
If a company is able to share your data with whomever they want, you don't have that choice anymore. Which is why something like GDPR would be good to have in the US.
No. You should decide whether to give your personal data to organizations on a case by case basis, depending on whether you trust the organization in question, and the value proposition they offer in exchange for your data.
If a company is able to share your data with whomever they want, you don't have that choice anymore. Which is why something like GDPR would be good to have in the US.
of course some companies will abuse our trust, but, overall, most will try to do good things and create new innovations that benefit everyone. the good that comes out of having this data freely available will overwhelm the damage. these huge data sets exist -- but only in the hands of Google. that seems a shame.
Google should fight back at last years promisses.
Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant?
Last year they promised they would call my hair saloon for me, and it's all BS.
Like everything they say every year, it never works in real life.
But I see lots of "journalists" praising it, while criticizing Siri as useless.
Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".
Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant?
Last year they promised they would call my hair saloon for me, and it's all BS.
Like everything they say every year, it never works in real life.
But I see lots of "journalists" praising it, while criticizing Siri as useless.
Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".
Looks like I bothered some fanboys, the Earth still rotates around the Sun. I don't have time for people that refuse to accept the truth, and the fact is that "duplex" is not even a shadow of what they promised last year, doesn't matter to anyone but for fanboys because the assistant usage is exactly as you expect: Siri the most used, then Samsung's Bixby then Google's... in a market where Android dominates, it's shameful for Google to lose so clearly at their core competence, so they push so hard for their image as a "cut above the rest" that some people actually believe it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-...
This is in the US, where Apple only manages a 36% smartphone market share, and google assistant is available on the iPhone, but Siri isn't on non-Apple devices
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/siri-google-assistant-voice-...
This is in the US, where Apple only manages a 36% smartphone market share, and google assistant is available on the iPhone, but Siri isn't on non-Apple devices
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-had-the-most-smartphone-...
> Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant?
https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-86947...
https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-google-duplex-86947...
It simply doesn't work, at all.
Prove that it does work. Because it just doesn't exist at all.
You pointed to an Android fanboy's site.
It's not the reality:
https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-dupl...
This is to put it lightly....
Prove that it does work. Because it just doesn't exist at all.
You pointed to an Android fanboy's site.
It's not the reality:
https://mashable.com/article/google-io-2018-report-card-dupl...
This is to put it lightly....
You've made this claim a few times in this thread now. Can you please elaborate as to what about Duplex, specifically, has not worked for you?
Edit: A quick browse through OP's comment history suggests that s/he might not be US-based. Should that be the case, then it's not that Duplex is flawed, it's that it's simply not available where they live.
Edit: A quick browse through OP's comment history suggests that s/he might not be US-based. Should that be the case, then it's not that Duplex is flawed, it's that it's simply not available where they live.
I have been using the call screening feature on my Original Pixel for months now. It works very well. I can't comment on making reservations via phone, since we don't often go to places that require reservations, but the call screening is great.
> Where is the feature of calling people automatically on google assistant?
already available in 44 states, they’re bringing it to the web.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/goo...
> Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".
there’s zero rush when there’s a chance of killing people.
also this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...
already available in 44 states, they’re bringing it to the web.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/05/07/goo...
> Where is their self driving car too? Never complete, they always promise "it's the next year".
there’s zero rush when there’s a chance of killing people.
also this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...
It simply doesn't work in any real life situation.
Yes, the problem of self driving cars is they can kill people, that's the whole problem, thing is that google is always promising that "they are here for all", "it's the next year", etc. it's all BS.
You don't have a google self driving car, and you didn't book your hairdresser via duplex, and you won't be booking your car or anything through any of this.
Those are the facts.
Yes, the problem of self driving cars is they can kill people, that's the whole problem, thing is that google is always promising that "they are here for all", "it's the next year", etc. it's all BS.
You don't have a google self driving car, and you didn't book your hairdresser via duplex, and you won't be booking your car or anything through any of this.
Those are the facts.
duplex is available though, have you even tried using it ?
can you provide any basis for your "facts"
Siri being subpar when compared to Google Assistant is well established.
can you provide any basis for your "facts"
Siri being subpar when compared to Google Assistant is well established.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>> Where is their self driving car too?
Waymo is not a car company. They don't have the capability to make an actual car even if the autonomy stuff worked well enough to be used nationwide. Which it does not and will not in the foreseeable future.
Waymo is not a car company. They don't have the capability to make an actual car even if the autonomy stuff worked well enough to be used nationwide. Which it does not and will not in the foreseeable future.
They promised that we all be driving in self driving cars in 2017. And they announced they partnered with FIAT Chrysler automotive.
Google simply doesn't have it.
Google sells this BS to journalists, and they sell it to Wall Street. That's only why Google is worth $817B.
Google simply doesn't have it.
Google sells this BS to journalists, and they sell it to Wall Street. That's only why Google is worth $817B.
You seem fixated on the word "promise," which I've never once heard said.
Assistant calling and Duplex appointment booking were both available within the year, across most of the United States, but you claim neither work.
Assistant calling and Duplex appointment booking were both available within the year, across most of the United States, but you claim neither work.
Where did they promise it, again?
"Company is wrong about release date of cutting edge technology" isn't exactly a new story.
"Company is wrong about release date of cutting edge technology" isn't exactly a new story.
[deleted]
I suspect you're also crying about still not having the jetpack we were promised in the 50s.
Vision is imprecise.
Vision is imprecise.
I downvoted you because you are peddling outright lies.
Google Duplex has been launched and you can use it today to book appointments in restaurants that are not on any table booking platform. Have you tried it?
If you haven't, please do.
If you have, and you still insist on saying it doesn't exist, please explain what it will take to convince you.
(Edit: I went through your comment history and your comments pattern match to either a troll or an Apple shill, neither of which are welcome here. Please take this to reddit)
Google Duplex has been launched and you can use it today to book appointments in restaurants that are not on any table booking platform. Have you tried it?
If you haven't, please do.
If you have, and you still insist on saying it doesn't exist, please explain what it will take to convince you.
(Edit: I went through your comment history and your comments pattern match to either a troll or an Apple shill, neither of which are welcome here. Please take this to reddit)
Google Duplex is only available in the US, that is less than 5% of the population. HN is a global community - it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service that, after a year, is not available outside the US market.
Also, please do not accuse people of being trolls. It is against the site guidelines and is not constructive discourse.
Also, please do not accuse people of being trolls. It is against the site guidelines and is not constructive discourse.
>it is entirely believable that GP is unable to use this service
They didn't say "it isn't available to me". They said it was "BS" - that is, that it was a lie and isn't a real service. They could have easily verified for themselves this isn't true. They could have even read the linked article which specifically mentions that Duplex did in fact come out.
They didn't say "it isn't available to me". They said it was "BS" - that is, that it was a lie and isn't a real service. They could have easily verified for themselves this isn't true. They could have even read the linked article which specifically mentions that Duplex did in fact come out.
a) Their comments indicate otherwise.
b) They could say that then. Instead they are blaming Google for more or less lying about Duplex, which is quite disrespectful to the people who have actually worked on it.
c) If they had expressed disappointment about the service having limited availability, I'd not be here making this point.
I nominally pay for these services, but I suspect it makes me a vassal instead of a serf. Google consumes. Google contemplates. Google cognates. Google knows. Google sees me while I will never get to see it.
At face value, as long as Google is Google, everything is okay but what happens when google is Google no more? When it goes to join the great corporate farm in the sky? What happens to the exabytes of data they’ll have gathered by then? Who will own it once Google is Google no more? What will happen to our lives once the data changes hands a decade or four from now?
Are there any contingency plans for the largest dataset on Earth? Do we get to know these plans?
Who the fuck owns MySpace now?
Say what you will about Apple (and I’ve said a lot), at least I know where we stand. I have switched to iOS and I recommend that you should do the same. At the very least, Google will no longer know when you sleep.