Hacker News Reader

Comment by ignoramous | Hacker News Reader

> It seems like Google deliberately misses the point in all privacy related changes

Harsh considering the fact that Google has been dedicating resources to privacy and took important steps to that affect with Android O [0] and Android P [1] and now with Android Q.

They hosted a invite-only-industry-experts conference to understand the implications of wide-spread security and privacy issues with Android [2][3].

[0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stu...

[1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pi...

[2] https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-s...

[3] https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-prote...

View on HN

Privacy against everyone except Google: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-study-finds-google-android-is-...

You would think with all those privacy resources, Google would be able to stop itself from spying. Perhaps a few more conferences will help?

Considering that the accuracy of the study it describes is disputed, that doesn't seem like a good link to back up your point?

1.) Disputed by Google as 'misleading'.

2.) Try this link then: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb (note that these studies don't cover the UI dark patterns encouraging you to give up your privacy 'willingly')

3.) Are we really going to pretend Google's spying is such a fringe idea that it needs a citation to be believed, and not their main business model?

The problem with this sort of argument is that I struggle to understand how people are actually harmed. It seems like people assume that Google is harming people, somehow, but it's not spelled out.

(It seems like collecting information, alone, shouldn't count as harm? It needs to be used for some bad purpose or disclosed to harm anyone.)

So now the goal has moved from proving Google is spying, to showing how that spying is harmful? But okay, lets go with it.

First of all, the information is disclosed immediately - to Google. Then it's just a matter of how much more disclosed is gets.

Surveillance has been shown to chill expression (https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_a..., https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chil...), and even just metadata can be used to easily find whistleblowers (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre...).

Will Google now or in the future offer services to help "secure corporate IP" by finding whistleblowers? Is it wise to assume they won't? Keep in mind all the information they gather now will be kept for when they want to misuse it later. What if they get served with a warrant for that information? Such as by a government agency that's helping to quash unions (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728)? How certain are you that there's no company that, now or in the future, will offer services to employers to help identify employees with corporate-unfriendly political beliefs?

Then there is the simple fact that information is power, and used to amass even more power, such as when Facebook used data gathered by Onavo to decide which apps to acquire (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-sp...). So spying directly helps corporate giants maintain their monopolies.

And all of that harm is without an authoritarian government in place. What about countries that aren't so lucky as to have a mostly freedom-respecting government? How sure are you your own country won't join them in the next ~50 years?

Surveillance is a leash and collar around your neck - just because it's long enough now, doesn't mean you should wait to get it off.

None of these links are about anything Google did. I understand how many of the things Facebook have done have harmed people, and how governments can harm people, but these things seem not to apply to Google?

I'm not into guilt by association.

> these things seem not to apply to Google?

So first show that Google spies, then show that spying is harmful, then show that Google's spying has done specific harms? You sure have high standards.

Now could you explain how the risks and dangers of surveillance don't apply to the surveillance done by Google? Are they somehow immune to government warrants? Are you privy to all of their business decisions, to know that they never abused their vast access to data to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Should we keep handing over all our data to them, and just hope that they'll stay benevolent indefinitely?

It looks to me like you don't want to understand.

Of course I can't prove that Google hasn't done anything wrong. I don't believe that. Google is criticized all the time for various things they did. Sometimes they change what they do in response to criticism.

They also have a lot of power that could be abused. I like to make a distinction between potential and actual harm, though. Almost everything you do in civilization involves trusting other people to do things for you. Including keeping secrets. Sometimes that trust is broken, but a trustless society isn't possible.

Doesn’t it seem strange that they needed to hire “industry experts” 10 years into Android’s existence instead of thinking in these terms from day one?

Not to defend a giant corporate entity, but can you think of any major operating system that prevents its users from giving away their information to programs they voluntarily install?

Google's goal isn't to prevent themselves from getting your info, but to prevent random 3rd parties from tricking you out of it. That would seem like a high bar to set a decade ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com