Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 09:21 UTC
Google

When Google bought the advertising network DoubleClick in 2007, Google founder Sergey Brin said that privacy would be the company's "number one priority when we contemplate new kinds of advertising products."

And, for nearly a decade, Google did in fact keep DoubleClick's massive database of web-browsing records separate by default from the names and other personally identifiable information Google has collected from Gmail and its other login accounts.

But this summer, Google quietly erased that last privacy line in the sand - literally crossing out the lines in its privacy policy that promised to keep the two pots of data separate by default. In its place, Google substituted new language that says browsing habits "may be" combined with what the company learns from the use Gmail and other tools.

The web, by definition, isn't private. The web is like a busy shopping street; you wouldn't shout your secrets for everyone to hear there either. The sooner people accept this fact, the better they'll be for it. Note that I'm not saying I'm happy about this fact - I'm just saying it is what it is. There's nothing any of us can do about it, until authorities or regulators start stepping in.

That being said, Google published a statement about this, stating this change is opt-in.

Our advertising system was designed before the smartphone revolution. It offered user controls and determined ads' relevance, but only on a per-device basis. This past June we updated our ads system, and the associated user controls, to match the way people use Google today: across many different devices. Before we launched this update, we tested it around the world with the goal of understanding how to provide users with clear choice and transparency. As a result, it is 100% optional - if users do not opt-in to these changes, their Google experience will remain unchanged. Equally important: we provided prominent user notifications about this change in easy-to-understand language as well as simple tools that let users control or delete their data. Users can access all of their account controls by visiting My Account and we're pleased that more than a billion have done so in its first year alone.

You can opt-out in the Activity Controls section of your Google account settings.

Order by: Score:
You can't trust Google
by Macka on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 09:58 UTC
Macka
Member since:
2016-05-25

Fundamentally, we cannot trust a company that makes money from our personal data. Their incentives don't align to protect our personal data.

Reply Score: 13

v RE: You can't trust Google
by TheMole on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 10:29 UTC in reply to "You can't trust Google"
RE[2]: You can't trust Google
by Wondercool on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE: You can't trust Google"
Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

What kind of reasoning is this? Google is an accident waiting to happen!

It's like arguing it's not bad to have a dictator running your country as: "he has done nothing wrong.., You can always leave your country...".

What choice do I have here? There are only 2 phone OSes and about 4 desktop Oses. On each platform, Google has a stake and on the phone OS side both spy equally hard even if they try to sweep it under the carpet.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: You can't trust Google
by loic on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You can't trust Google"
loic Member since:
2012-09-23

And worse than that, their vocabulary has become damn specific and self-explaining. You cannot opt-out, you can only pause all this tracking and profiling stuff. What has been tracked previously will never be erased, and the matter that the profiling is paused for real is either a matter of trust or delusion.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[3]: You can't trust Google
by TheMole on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You can't trust Google"
RE[3]: You can't trust Google
by caudex on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You can't trust Google"
caudex Member since:
2008-07-05

4 desktop OS:s and 2 phone OS:s? What?! Windows, macOS, Linux and what? Chrome OS? It's just a browser running in Linux. There are three real (and usable) desktop OS:s.

As for phone OS:s, there are currently Android, iOS, Windows 10 Mobile, Sailfish OS, Tizen and Ubuntu Touch (I'm not counting BlackBerry 10 and Firefox OS since they aren't maintained any longer). Only one of those are tied to Google. No need to use Google's stuff on the other platforms. The only Google service I use myself is YouTube, and I'd stop using it if there existed a real viable competitor with lots of content.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You can't trust Google
by Wondercool on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You can't trust Google"
Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

It doesn't matter if it is just Linux in a browser, it is more widely used than Linux on a desktop AND Google is already busy adapting Android to make it a desktop OS (multitasking, multiwindow).

On the phones, that war is over. Who are we kidding here?
Android 80+ percent
Windows 10 Mobile, Sailfish OS, Tizen and Ubuntu Touch
< 1 percent
the rest if for iOS.
I can't get my banking app, public transport app, sat nav app, flights app,popular games on anything but iOS and Android, as much as I like to use Ubuntu touch. Windows 10 (mobile) is spying too.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: You can't trust Google
by Alfman on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: You can't trust Google"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

TheMole,

You couldn't be more wrong on the 'trust' part. Google has been nothing but transparent about its policies, and has never been caught doing anything that it hadn't properly communicated and/or given tools to opt-out of.



http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/technology/google-privacy-settlemen...

http://www.ibtimes.com/google-sued-data-mining-california-students-...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-p...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-17/google-violated-p...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-privacy-google-dutch-idUSKBN0JT1T...

The problem is that their financial incentives do not align with consumer's privacy, that's a fundamental problem for privacy and it is a cause for concern. In some of these cases they clearly broke the law and went way past any decent concept of ethical guidelines.

While this could be true of all corporations, google's shear scale and the breadth of their data collection makes especially troubling. Users can even be monitored unwittingly by invisible bugs they don't know are there.

I care about privacy, and even though I take steps to protect it by using my own hosting, regularly clearing cookies, using ghostery plugins, hostfile modifications, etc. Not everyone knows how to do these things even if they care about privacy.

If google were just a search engine, or just an advertising company, or just an app company, or just a web analytics service, or just a webmail provider, or just a mobile company, then multi-vector tracking would be much less of a concern. However when they have a hand in almost everything, our privacy issues escalate much further than if services had been controlled separately.


On mobile devices it's difficult to block tracking when most phones aren't rooted. On android, I'm forced to use the playstore, but I really don't know what information google collects or where else those credentials get used. Do they get my MAC address, IME, my real contact info stored on the phone? WiFi Access points? If an app shows ads or has tracking, can google associate that with private identifying information the app store scraped from my phone? What's more, statements about privacy that used to be true are changing year by year, and without regulation they're always changing in favor of collecting more of our private information.


So you can definitely TRUST Google. Of course, you're absolutely right about the fact that their monetization strategy is tied to your personal information, as is the case with many others. But that's a well known fact, and not something they are trying to hide from you. You're not being bamboozled into giving away your inner most secrets or anything of the likes.

If you want to give an example of a company that has actually broken our trust in the past, look no further than Microsoft (forced upgrades, sending info to MS servers even if you've turned on all privacy settings), Sony (rootkits), etc...

But not Google.



I'm uncomfortable with, yet fully understanding of Thom's point of view that privacy is simply futile. Yet this point of view that google has no blame and only oother corporations are responsible for eroding trust...well that's just ridiculous. Go ahead and blame microsoft, there's more than enough criticism to go around, but it's absurd to pretend that google hasn't played a large part in eroding privacy.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: You can't trust Google
by Licaon_Kter on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You can't trust Google"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

> On mobile devices it's difficult to block tracking when most phones aren't rooted. On android, I'm forced to use the playstore,

Umm, nope, disable Google apps, get F-Droid and NetGuard (local VPN based firewall) and be done.

Yes, you need to change your workflow (use other apps, other services), but either do that or stop complaining that your free services are not actually free for those hosting them.

Edited 2016-10-22 23:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You can't trust Google
by Alfman on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You can't trust Google"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Licaon Kter,

> On mobile devices it's difficult to block tracking when most phones aren't rooted. On android, I'm forced to use the playstore,

Umm, nope, disable Google apps, get F-Droid and NetGuard (local VPN based firewall) and be done.


Actually F-Droid was one of the first things I installed and I like having an independent source for FOSS software. But you are wrong to assert that all my needs can be satisfied by it, and whether I like it or not I frequently end up having to go into google's playstore to find something I'm looking for.

Edited 2016-10-23 03:22 UTC

Reply Score: 5

It's opt-out, not opt-in
by sj87 on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 11:03 UTC
sj87
Member since:
2007-12-16

That being said, Google published a statement about this, stating this change is opt-in.

There's a clear distinction between "opt-in" and "opt-out" features. Google's adopted behaviour is the worse of these two.

Reply Score: 7

RE: It's opt-out, not opt-in
by segedunum on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 12:27 UTC in reply to "It's opt-out, not opt-in"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed, you have to opt-out, and if you do opt out you will be pestered at regular intervals to complete those ridiculous forms, and they are designed to be as annoying and time-consuming as possible with additional pop-ups.

Most people will give up out of frustration and just agree - but the default is that you opted in.

Edited 2016-10-22 12:27 UTC

Reply Score: 7

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 16:44 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

This sort of thing is exactly why I try to spread my service use across as many different companies as possible and prefer open-source and/or offline solutions whenever feasible.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by Alfman on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 17:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ssokolow,

This sort of thing is exactly why I try to spread my service use across as many different companies as possible and prefer open-source and/or offline solutions whenever feasible.


Me too, but we're becoming marginalized in a society that doesn't care enough about privacy to avoid products that violate it. As companies continue to target the masses who don't show much preference for privacy, it's going to become increasingly difficult to remain private.

Even the practices in windows 10, which received so much negative press for not respecting choice & privacy, are becoming normalized. All the commercial platforms will follow suit because there's money to be had. For better or worse, the future does not bode well for privacy.

Reply Score: 3

sad
by kristoph on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 17:58 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apologist bloggers is exactly why we have no internet privacy, especially in America.

There is always someone who is willing to say 'this is ok' to justify the behavior of their favorite company.

I remember back when Scott McNealy said “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.” and got eviscerated for it. Thom is basically saying the same thing. So sad.

Reply Score: 3

RE: sad
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 23:46 UTC in reply to "sad"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apologist bloggers is exactly why we have no internet privacy, especially in America.


Apologising for what?

There is always someone who is willing to say 'this is ok' to justify the behavior of their favorite company.


Learn to read. I specifically said I'm not happy about it.

I remember back when Scott McNealy said “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.” and got eviscerated for it. Thom is basically saying the same thing. So sad


It's quite clear by now that you either did not read the article at all, or - and this is more likely - you're just spouting bullshit because I'm hard on your little pet fruit company.

I know you're not really interested in engaging with me sincerely - all you do here on OSNews is attack me with strawmen - but I'll humour myself and try.

I'm not saying "get over it". In fact, I'm saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. However, I'm also being honest and realistic, in that we, as individuals, have no way to change the cold and harsh fact that any internet-connected device and any traffic crossing the internet IS SIMPLY NOT PRIVATE. None of us can change this. The only way to change this is to change the fundamental nature of the web - which we can't.

Edited 2016-10-22 23:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: sad
by winter skies on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE: sad"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

Oh Thom, you're at it again with your "genitals in private" analogy. Undemonstrated opinions presented as unavoidable truth.

You're saying you don't like this, but you're also saying that there is nothing anybody can do about it except regulators.

Your stance is akin to that of the ones that during the Industrial age would say "Workers are exploited, that's a rule of nature enforced by the structure of industrial production. There's nothing anybody can do about it."

If you really don't like that things are this way, being a speaker of resignation is morally questionable.

P.S. I equally despise both Apple and Google.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: sad
by vtpoet on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sad"
vtpoet Member since:
2013-12-31

So you criticize Thom because why? Because he doesn't follow your firm, brave, well-articulated and regulation-changing posture?

Lets see... What was it? Wait. Hold on. Where is it? Oh, there it is, added as a little 7 word post script. One might call it an afterthought or, perhaps if you were French, a little digestif:

"P.S. I equally despise both Apple and Google."

Why, you're a model for movers and shakers everywhere. If only Thom had such backbone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: sad
by kristoph on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sad"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

We criticize Thom because he is an apologist Google shill who takes a holier then thou, anti corporate approach in all things - except when it's his favorite company then his position is "it's just the way it is".

This is just pure hypocrisy.

I do not, incidentally, hate Google. I love Google products and use them every day. But when they do shit like this - take away all privacy and enable a surveillance society it the name of corporate greeted - it's important for everyone to speak out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: sad
by winter skies on Tue 25th Oct 2016 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sad"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

So you criticize Thom because why? Because he doesn't follow your firm, brave, well-articulated and regulation-changing posture?

Lets see... What was it? Wait. Hold on. Where is it? Oh, there it is, added as a little 7 word post script. One might call it an afterthought or, perhaps if you were French, a little digestif:

"P.S. I equally despise both Apple and Google."

Why, you're a model for movers and shakers everywhere. If only Thom had such backbone.


LOL WUT

Oh, I am sorry my words hurt you so much! That was not my purpose. Thank you for speaking for Thom anyway. I am sure he can speak for himself better than you can, but I guess you felt like sharing some of your enlightening sarcasm.

I really did not want to bring in a bad and skewed sexism analogy, but I get angry at Thom's stance because – though in a completely different context and with different power relationships – it's vaguely similar to recommending women to refrain from dressing conspicuously in order to avoid harassment *without* spending enough words to condemn the abusive behaviour of some men.
You know, even if you believe bad men will never change, even if you have lost all faith, I think you should still avoid being fatalistic and cynical so that you don't foster resignation.
On a different ground, I think a stronger critical voice would be needed towards privacy-impairing choices made by large businesses.

I know such criticism might be a little unfair to our host Thom who selects and comments interesting news for us, but I would like him to be equally critical of every company.

PS Sorry for that little 7-word postscriptum.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: sad
by Gargyle on Tue 25th Oct 2016 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: sad"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Sooo... the only thing you actually accuse him of is being a cynic and a fatalist?

I think the level of rage and the amount of hope someone has in this completely unfair fight (be it women vs obtrusive men, or the plebs vs the giant corporations that have a high disregard for everything ethical) is wildly varying from person to person and I bet even from moment to moment. Sometimes I think "fuck that shit, I want to spoil myself by indulging in mindless crap", but other times I think I want to become an activist and really try to make a difference.

Whatevs, eh.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: sad
by winter skies on Tue 25th Oct 2016 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: sad"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

Sure, I'm not accusing him of anything more than that. ;)
Yeah, I understand your reasoning.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: sad
by kristoph on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: sad"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Thom,

I read the article. I read your commentary.

You wrote: 'The web, by definition, isn't private ... The sooner people accept this fact, the better they'll be for it'

This is such apologist bullshit I am ashamed for you. Classic McNealy here. Your follow up 'Note that I'm not saying I'm happy about this fact - I'm just saying it is what it is.' is frankly pitiful.

Firstly, the right to privacy is a human right. Google is not simply taking that away when using their products. Their taking that away period, because unless you avoid using your Google account entirely Google will track you as you browse 3rd party sites.

Second, the notion that the internet lacks privacy is just absurd. Do you not use internet banking? Do you not purchase products? Do you not send and receive confidential documents?

How is all that possible and yet, according to you, tracking your searches, tracking your email and tracking your browsing is inevitable? Are you seriously listening to yourself now?

A company is now tracking the digital lives of hundreds of millions of individuals. For those of its who grew up in a surveillance society this stuff is very real, and very wrong - and your preference for OS or.online servo ds shouldn't cloud that!

Edited 2016-10-23 22:30 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: sad
by Gargyle on Mon 24th Oct 2016 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sad"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

From the gist that I get in his writings, he's not apologist but rather generally fatalist.

He sympathises with the pro-privacy movement that is fighting against the big privacy-destroying companies like Google, but in the end he thinks it all does not matter anyway, because of the inherently unprivate (or 'public') nature of the internet.

Am I wrong with this or not?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: sad
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 24th Oct 2016 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sad"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

From the gist that I get in his writings, he's not apologist but rather generally fatalist.

He sympathises with the pro-privacy movement that is fighting against the big privacy-destroying companies like Google, but in the end he thinks it all does not matter anyway, because of the inherently unprivate (or 'public') nature of the internet.

Am I wrong with this or not?


Yup.

It doesn't matter, though. You're trying to apply reason to a person who once defended Apple for pushing fullscreen pop-up ads to iPhone users pushing the new iPhone. So, when Apple does targeted advertising using user metrics, it's apparently okay to him.

You can't apply reason to such hypocrisy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: sad
by kristoph on Mon 24th Oct 2016 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: sad"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Thom saying shit like this is pathetic. You can't argue the point at hand so you're just falling back into 'but you like Apple products so ...'.

For the record I don't have favorite companies. I have favorite products. Google makes some great products that are better then Apple's. Apple makes some great product's that are better them Google's.

And for the record pushing an ad in a store is NOTHING compared to tracking millions of people as their browsing unrelated 3rd party sites, by name, IP and email address.

The first may be in poor taste, the second is fucking Orwellian. If you can't tell the difference you have no right to criticize any company.

Reply Score: 2

RE: sad
by Necroplasma on Mon 24th Oct 2016 11:43 UTC in reply to "sad"
Necroplasma Member since:
2013-09-20

Apologist bloggers is exactly why we have no internet privacy, especially in America.

Yeah, apologist bloggers created the NSA, GCHQ, five eyes and all the other government agencies combatting even the illusion of privacy online. Right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: sad
by Alfman on Mon 24th Oct 2016 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE: sad"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Necroplasma,

Yeah, apologist bloggers created the NSA, GCHQ, five eyes and all the other government agencies combatting even the illusion of privacy online. Right.


Ironically, I think that corporations are fairly well positioned to give consumers stronger privacy, if they wanted to, by using encryption in a way that makes the data inaccessible to themselves. Encryption isn't really being used at it's highest potential when corporations keep control of the keys to themselves.

Fixing this vulnerability would go a very long way in curtailing secretive governmental mass surveillance. By forcing governments agencies to obtain the information from the end user's devices rather than from the network, end users would finally be able to bring strong legal case to hold the government accountable for warrantless wiretapping.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/why_you_cant_sue_the_government_for...
Americans don’t even have the right to sue their government over its surveillance program, unless they can prove that their communications were intercepted. Of course, that’s essentially impossible since the program is classified and you can’t use classified documents in court, even if you somehow got your hands on them.



Client side encryption is the answer, but data mining business models result in an inherent conflict of interest. They are fundamentally what's blocking strong privacy. Unfortunately consumer preference for free/cheap services only serves to encourage corporate/government data mining.

Edited 2016-10-24 13:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: sad
by dionicio on Mon 24th Oct 2016 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sad"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"... but data mining business models result in an inherent conflict of [multi-stake] interest." Fully agree.

There is a huge polygon of plausible answers. And all of them surely are being explored now. Unfortunately for us Consumers&Users, marginal and underground, almost all true efforts.

Any effort trying to achieve critical mass, would have to be multi-stake approved, otherwise security ephemeral. [This is a corollary pointing to mindless resources' drain].

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: sad
by kristoph on Mon 24th Oct 2016 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE: sad"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You're very much missing the point. ANY government agency in the US can obtain a subpoena for the digital documents of ANY individual given probable cause.

Google is building the ultimate surveillance tool for every government out there to track what you read, where you read it, who you email about it, and so on and so forth.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 20:32 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Fortunately, I have ublock on Chrome for Windows. Unfortunately, I haven't found a good (aka fast) browser with adblocking capabilities for my Android smartphone. Free AdBlock browser stopped working after the upgrade to Nougat, AdBlock Browser is slow and Opera is terrible all-around.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by Licaon_Kter on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 23:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

Firefox on Android plus:
uBlock Origin
HTTPS by default
HTTPS Everywhere
Privacy Settings
CanvasBlocker
Decentraleyes
No resource URI leak
Self-destructing Cookies

On desktop: uMatrix
On Android: NoScript

So yes, either take the easy way and concede your info to trackers or take 5 minutes to install some (hopefully) useful extensions to barrage the flow of personal info from escaping through your browser.

Want even more control, get this: https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js

Fun stuff, get TrackMeNot and throw a wrench in their collection machine.

Edited 2016-10-22 23:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Gargyle on Mon 24th Oct 2016 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Very VERY nice and comprehensive list to start off taking back your privacy on your mobile device. I have already made the switch to Firefox Mobile and installed µBlock origin, but some of the extensions you mention were still lacking in my config. Not anymore though!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by Necroplasma on Mon 24th Oct 2016 11:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
Necroplasma Member since:
2013-09-20

Try adguard.com, it opens a VPN through your own phone that filters ads, without requiring root or any technical knowledge. The only hurdle is that it is not available through the Play Store.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Licaon_Kter on Mon 24th Oct 2016 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

NetGuard does that too (https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md), and it's open-source, and it does not require root.

Reply Score: 1

What opt-out?
by C5523 on Sun 23rd Oct 2016 10:57 UTC
C5523
Member since:
2013-04-08

What exactly options does opt-out from this? There is a lot of settings on Activity Control...

Reply Score: 1

Illegal
by Carewolf on Mon 24th Oct 2016 03:35 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

This will not be legal in the EU. They will be forced to undo it like they were with the merger of Youtube and Google Plus data.

Reply Score: 2

Authorities have stepped in
by darknexus on Mon 24th Oct 2016 11:35 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Or did you forget what Snowden taught us so quickly?

Reply Score: 2

Maybe wrong, but...
by dionicio on Mon 24th Oct 2016 16:08 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Only change I perceive here is that Commercial profiling goes from 'per device' toward 'per individual'.

........

"...“You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.” and got eviscerated for it. Thom is basically saying the same thing. So sad."

We HAVE HAD, from the moment We 'grabbed' a former Mil Comm Tech, zero privacy. Get over it.

On having a Corp openly talking about it. Google is presenting us the opportunity to start the long, long process of civilizing it. Don't drop the ball.

Same happened with Steel, and many, many other 'bloody' technologies.

Reply Score: 2