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.
Fundamentally, we cannot trust a company that makes money from our personal data. Their incentives don’t align to protect our personal data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What kind of an analogy is that? Of course it is not the same thing… Furthermore, you could conceivably trust a dictator (or, using a word with a less negative connotation like Monarch), like many in the commonwealth do with the Queen.
In law, this is the definition of trust: “confidence placed in a person by making that person the nominal owner of property to be held or used for the benefit of one or more others.” It seems to me that Google has so far proven to be a trustworthy organization.
I’m not saying you have to like it, I’m not saying it’s a model that I’m personally a big fan of, but to Thom’s point it is better something that we all get used to. It also certainly doesn’t help people understand it better if we use words and descriptions that are demonstrably not applicable here.
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.
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.
TheMole,
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.
> 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
Licaon Kter,
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
There’s a clear distinction between “opt-in” and “opt-out” features. Google’s adopted behaviour is the worse of these two.
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
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.
ssokolow,
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, I’m not accusing him of anything more than that.
Yeah, I understand your reasoning.
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
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.
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.
Yeah, apologist bloggers created the NSA, GCHQ, five eyes and all the other government agencies combatting even the illusion of privacy online. Right.
Necroplasma,
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
“… 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].
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
NetGuard does that too (https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md), and it’s open-source, and it does not require root.
What exactly options does opt-out from this? There is a lot of settings on Activity Control…
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.
Or did you forget what Snowden taught us so quickly?
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.