Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonlotito | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Please don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines a ton lately. Seriously not cool, and well past the line at which we start banning the account.

I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up, we'll have to. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.

> This might be new to you, but that does not mean it's some new information that's been hidden.

I downloaded Chrome on a new laptop an hour ago (at my employer's request, I'd use Firefox myself) and was certainly not aware of this.

This information was not on any screen at any point. There was a default-checked checkmark for some general statistics sharing which I only noticed after clicking download (because it was small and below the download button), but didn't click through to the privacy policy to learn more.

Guess I should have read the privacy policy. I'm trying to find what it said now, but I can't see it anymore because different terms apply to Linux downloads and there's no button to download the Windows version. Basically, visiting the same page in Firefox on Linux (instead of Edge on Windows, which I don't have access to atm) gives me different contents and no checkmark.

Is it opt-in or opt-out? And if it's opt-in, does it come with infinite nagging until you opt-in?

I know login-in and syncing your data are "opt-in" options that come with infinite nagging (so, actually required options). The information that there are different levels of syncing is news to me.

If a user can somehow someway somewhere learn about what a company is doing, then it’s OK? Really?

What is it you are proposing? If it were every institutions obligation to make sure, that all its instrumental functions were obvious to every potential user and keep any user from engaging with the institution under any false assumptions, nothing in our society would work.

That it not to say that scrutiny is not important. You should certainly be allowed to point at any individual function and demand more upfront transparency, over what is currently being offered. But be aware of the massive additional cognitive load you create, for everyone, when you are not just demanding information availability, but that this information is being delivered to anyone it might concern. Any individuals preference to not care about a function would have to take the backseat to the opinion, that they have to at least somewhat consider the function before engaging.

Considering how expensive this process is, "Google Chrome CrUX" would probably be pretty far down on the list for me personally, as "crucial things everyone should definitely know about before possibly engaging" goes, but to each their own.

I could see two main arguments for this not being okay:

* Chrome is secretly collecting data.

* Chrome is doing something users would object to if they knew and understood it.

I don't think either of these are the case here: they are sharing data about what sites people generally visit in an aggregated form doesn't reveal any individual's browsing (what's to object to?) and talk about it in the place people would go to learn about what data they collect.

> It's fine that this is all new to you, but it's not new to you because anyone has kept this secret. At this point, you've chosen to remain ignorant.

Ah yes. Blame the user for not understanding yet another piece in Google's gargantuan data collecting machinery.

Recent court cases revealed that Google's own employees don't know what's tracked and how to turn it off. But I'm sure it's only ignorance that keeps users uninformed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com