
After Facebook scrutiny, is Google next? - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-facebook-scrutiny-google.html
======
justinzollars
Concerned that google has so much info
([https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity](https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity))
I visited
[https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols](https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols)
to turn off Web & App Activity, but left Voice & Audio Activity on.

This breaks my google home.

I do not want Google to save 20 years of search history so I can use a stupid
google home. For the first time I'm considering Apple's device.

This is a dark pattern Google

~~~
product50
Yeah - you want to make use of Google services (search, maps, youtube, Photos
etc.) for free and don't want to give anything in return. #entitlement

Also, most likely you turning off tracking will impact your Google experience.

Google is different than Facebook in that they offer real value services
without which you can't survive a day on the web. Just count how many times
you rely on a Google service in a day. The least you can do is to support them
in maintaining their ad ecosystem in return. Or be ready to pay for their
servuces. Unlike Facebook, Google has never had a data breach/trust issue.

~~~
zeta0134
Okay actually, I would pay to use most of Google's good services. I expect
them to do advertising and they do not (!) need that kind of data on me for
their search result advertising to be relevant. They have my search term; that
should be enough in isolation.

I would pay handsomely for Google Maps, but I have no such option. Again
though, that is a service that works just fine without my individual data;
they have my location and my search term, and any business that pops up is
inherently relevant due to simple proximity.

Please do not call this entitlement. Please understand that my privacy is
valuable to me. Please understand that I would gladly pay to keep it.

~~~
modeless
> actually, I would pay to use most of Google's good services.

A lot of people say this. You already can pay for Gmail, Docs, Drive,
Calendar, Photos, and YouTube. Are you paying for them?

~~~
larkeith
Does paying for these products disable tracking and provide strong privacy
controls?

~~~
modeless
For G Suite, "Google does not sell your data to third parties, there is no
advertising in G Suite, and we never collect or use data from G Suite services
for any advertising purposes."

Also "G Suite's compliance with ISO/IEC 27018:2014 affirms our commitment to
international privacy and data protection standards. ISO 27018 guidelines
include not using your data for advertising, ensuring that your data in G
Suite services remains yours, providing you with tools to delete and export
your data, protecting your information from third-party requests, and being
transparent about where your data is stored."

[https://gsuite.google.com/security](https://gsuite.google.com/security)

~~~
larkeith
Oh, huh. I might have to look into paying for that then.

------
opportune
This article is about (in favor of) censoring the youtube platform to make
life easier for advertisers. That doesn't seem very related to the information
leaks and level of granular individualized advertising that the Facebook
platform provides and which can be used to negative effect _by_ advertisers.
To me this is a clumsy, lazy attempt to make lazy platform censorship seem
"good" in the way that regulating how Facebook treats data would be good, by
coopting a popular topic only tangentially related

~~~
prolikewhoa
That CNN article they quote is nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is
challenging them in viewers and ad money. CNN isn't exactly the bastion of
legitimacy and journalistic standards either. They're also trying to take down
true left wing media like Jimmy Dore, painting him as a 'conspiracy theorist'
for not being certain about the Syrian gas attacks _before the OPCW was even
there_ , as real journalists should do -- not just take talking points from
the Pentagon. Cenk Uygur had to step in on TYT and denounce that stupid CNN
article advocating for censorship and bring Jimmy out of that hole.

~~~
notacoward
> nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers
> and ad money

Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook
too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.

~~~
Mononokay
> Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on
> Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.

Yeah, no. Generalisations are stupid. Doctorow's a perfect example of why what
you're saying isn't true, for example.

~~~
notacoward
One counterexample doesn't prove anything, and Doctorow is barely even a
relevant example. It's journalists who feel most threatened by Facebook, as
they see their subscriber base - and thus their own income opportunities -
dwindling. Pseudo-journalist commentators even more so. Once they might have
looked to Facebook as a possible ally, a channel through which they could ply
their profession, but increasingly (to answer another respondent) they see
Facebook purely as a threat. Whether consciously or not, they're highly
motivated to magnify everything negative about a rival and never _ever_ write
about anything positive.

The incentives for bloggers are similar, though lesser. The more income they
derive from ads on their site, the more they see that ad revenue decreasing,
the more similar their motivations become to those of the professional media.
I'm sure Doctorow makes a bit from pushing products on Boing Boing, but most
of his (and other contributors') income comes from other sources and the
audience there was always rather Facebook-averse since forever so Facebook's
(or Google's) increasing dominance of the ad space has probably not made a
dent for them overall.

The real point, though, is that one can't point to self interest as a reason
for criticizing Google and pretend that it plays no part in why people
criticize Facebook. That's just favoring the devil you're in bed with over the
one you're not.

~~~
Mononokay
He said "All"

~~~
notacoward
Yes, I said "all" but it was clearly hyperbole. Most people would interpret
"journalists who are all..." the same way as "all journalists who are..." or
treat "all" as an intensifier rather than a qualifier. "He was all up in my
face" doesn't mean he put his entire body in my face. But hey, if you want to
be super-literal for the sake of being contrary I guess that's your problem.
The fact remains that what's true for Boing Boing is not necessarily true for
CNN, and that there's adequate reason to believe self-interest affects CNN's
coverage here.

------
oflannabhra
The spark that triggered the current firestorm Facebook is facing has nothing
to do with Facebook’s practices—those have been apparent and obvious since
before Facebook is as even a company.

The spark was the confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage-
driven news cycle.

I’m thankful that spark has resulted in sustained scrutiny of Facebook, but
without a similar environment and controversy, I doubt Google will find itself
in a hot seat.

Maybe such a controversy is waiting for Google. I hope so, they’ve gathered
far more data about me and my interests than Facebook ever will.

~~~
oflannabhra
I’ll add a thought:

The great irony in Facebook’s situation is that it is purely the result of
hubris. In 2010, Zuckerberg saw FB as the next great platform. The API was
released to much acclaim. But the API essentially gave away the keys to the
kingdom!

Facebook either 1) didn’t realize that they _weren’t_ a platform and the
social graph was the most valuable information they possessed, and were
blinded by ignorance, or 2) didn’t _want_ to be “just” an advertisement
business, and was blinded by hubris.

Maybe it was a bit of both, but given how engineering driven FB is, I’d guess
there was a healthy dose of #2, and probably still is.

~~~
GauntletWizard
In 2010, Facebook's revenue was significantly driven by something other than
ads - Social Games. Zynga and the like were raking in billions based on people
clicking virtual cows, and Facebook was getting a cut. Promoting these kinds
of uses was their goal. It's easy to see modern Ad-Driven FB and forget that
there were other eras of the company.

~~~
oflannabhra
Yes, hindsight is 20/20\. However, Google was smart enough to see the endgame:
knowing people’s interests is some of the most valuable information available
to advertisers, ever.

What Facebook has, and what they essentially gave away for free, is far more
valuable than whatever revenue they generated as a “platform.”

The fact FB was generating revenue as a platform in 2010 has more to do with
their strategy (which was lacking at the time) than with the value of the
information they had.

I’m suggesting they Zuckerberg’s hubris prevented him from seeing the value of
what FB already was, and how to monetize that.

------
dawhizkid
If you frame the question as "how much value do I get from X in exchange for
my data?" I think the answer is clear that Google > Facebook. G Search, Gmail,
Analytics, Docs, YT (original home of Khan Academy) etc. all contribute to my
learning and productivity...with FB the total opposite.

~~~
hierux
You're right. This is an important point to keep in mind to maintain
perspective.

------
aphextron
I trust Google, but it's only because I have to. Their tools are 10x better
than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a
disservice to not use them. It's not like Facebook where I can just email my
friends or whatever. Google search is a fundamentally life changing technology
that is untouched by any competitor.

~~~
rlv-dan
Google may be better than everyone else. The question is though, do you really
need all that "betterness"? Because if you don't, there are actually plenty of
alternatives to choose from. They may not be as good as Google, but they do
their job pretty well. Giving up some of the (perceived) "Google awesomeness"
in favor for say privacy, may be worth considering. Just a thought.

~~~
jacksmith21006
I do and why I use Google. But live in the US which is a free country to use
whatever you want and just want to be left alone so I can.

I am fine with you using whatever you want.

~~~
scottie_m
Use whichever search engine maybe, but not “use whatever you want” in general.
The US is hardly “do what you want” in the general case. Is also the home of,
“you have a duopoly, but you’re free to pick between the two,” trying to lock
your mobile down. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-doj-at-t/u-s-said-to-
inve...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-doj-at-t/u-s-said-to-investigate-
att-verizon-over-wireless-collusion-claim-source-idUSKBN1HR2Z8)

~~~
jacksmith21006
What do you mean can't use whatever you want in the US? Not following?

------
zmmmmm
This seems like a fairly superficial argument to me. Facebook is mostly
getting scrutiny for specific problems that Google has managed (whether by
luck or otherwise) to avoid and which have little connection to the main
argument of the article around advertising on YouTube. To me, the equating of
these two companies is actually harmful because then we are failing to
distinguish why Facebook specifically was such a powerful vector into the 2016
election. Both companies present privacy concerns, but they are definitely not
the same in their approach and we should be carefully looking at those
differences for their instructive value, not lumping them together.

------
blackrock
This may be the minority opinion here.

But Facebook, Google, and all these other shady companies that collects
massive personal data, in ways that were never envisioned of being collected.
They need to be reigned in. They have overstepped their boundaries of what is
socially acceptable.

Facebook should just call themselves the FBIbook, because they have amassed
such huge amounts of private data on us. And they have also done unethical
things like creating fake dark profiles of you, or your children, and tracked
them on their usage of the internet. This is egregious.

The creepiest thing by far, is their usage of facial scanning, to create a
facial biometric of you. Their technology is probably something that the FBI
has wet dreams of having. And they use this to identify you in any and all
pictures on the internet.

Their next move, might be to actually partner up with brick-and-mortar stores,
or CCTV surveillance cameras, to get a real time biometric identification on
people. All the CCTV cameras at Walmart, Target, and in the malls, will get
fed into the Facebook brain, and Facebook can build a real time tracking
system as you wander through their digital surveillance system.

I just want to go to the mall and enjoy an ice cream with my loved ones. I'm
not interested in getting tracked by Facebook's creepy surveillance system.
This is akin to walking around in a digital virtual prison, that we can never
escape from. And once this technology is built, then it will get expanded
everywhere. To every single street corner camera, and combined with your
smartphone's GPS, it's the perfect thing to track you everywhere. Just to sell
you an ad, for something that you don't want to buy.

If you thought they make a lot of money now, by selling ads on their platform.
Just imagine when they decide to go down this route. Their revenue and profit
potential will explode! And they will be unstoppable.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Same with Apple? I mean they basically sold all their user data in China.

"Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users"

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-
privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-
betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/)

Versus Google chose to not sell their user data in China and left.

------
samfisher83
The fact that google assistant won't even work without enabling web&app
activity really pisses me off. Most of time I use the voice controls to set
timer or notes. Why does it need my web history to do that?

~~~
mirceal
Alexa, turn off Google Assistant.

In all seriousness, this is just sad.

------
cdancette
Next is passing laws to avoid those kind of problems (like GDPR). It's not
sufficient to go after each shady company that sells your data.

~~~
maxxxxx
Exactly. There has to be a framework that everyone has to follow. Imagine we
had no laws against theft and you would get into trouble only if you overdid
it by some undefined standard

~~~
matte_black
No, it’s more like people leaving shit all over your property and when you go
pick it up they come back and want to charge you with theft.

~~~
SahAssar
No, it's like inviting people over for a casual party and then recording
everything from 15 different angles, including in the bathroom, and then
hiring a few people on every street in the town to photograph everyone walking
down that street so that you can cross-reference those photos to your candid
bathroom shots.

And then you let some other people get those photos because "Chad who was at
that party said it was OK with him".

------
Falell
It's not next, it's already being targeted. The recent Right To Be Forgotten
case touches on a theme I think we'll see again - "we don't like what society
does with easy access to certain information, and companies that facilitate
access to that information are going to face increased scrutiny".

------
pjc50
The key here is the reccomendation engine. Is an automatically-generated
reccomendation an endorsement?

If someone is watching "non-extreme" material and suddenly gets a conspiracy,
far right, or propaganda video suggested to them, what responsibility does
Google have for that reccomendation? To what extent is it possible for people
to "self radicalise" from Youtube?

(I've experienced this myself; an innocuous gaming video had a column of
reccomended videos all relating to the same game .. and a livestream of Tommy
Robinson. Why? Is Google radicalising gamers accidentally?)

~~~
dijit
I have similar anecdotes regarding youtube. My feed often randomly recommends
"SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I may have watched one or two
videos from prominent feminists and their supposed opposition in 2011 but
google is really waiting for me to get back to that particular political fight
for some reason.

How long do I have to ignore something before it goes away? It reminds me of
how in the UK the tabloid newspapers have audacious headlines but you're
forced to read them because they are in the entrance of every store. I dont
want to read about this. Leave me alone and stop filling my head with garbage.

~~~
wybiral
> My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism
> fails".

I had the same videos queue up in mine and nothing I watch seems even remotely
related to that. My YouTube usage is pretty "family friendly" so it struck me
as particularly odd to see such blatantly divisive hate videos.

I've even seen weird ads about deep state conspiracy stuff on there too. Their
algorithms seem totally broken because I'm definitely not the right target for
that stuff.

~~~
icebraining
Where do these appear? If it's in the Recommendations, you can delete them,
then a link appears called "Tell Us Why", and in that dialog you can see which
video in your history influenced that recommendation (and tell it to stop
recommending stuff based on it).

It's always worked quite well for me. I have zero crap in my recommendations.

~~~
pjc50
The problem isn't just _my_ reccomendations, it's those of my fellow citizens,
voters, and potential lynch mobs.

(Also, I don't get the information on why a video is reccomended to me - is it
country-specific? I was googling for how to find it and ironically came across
a huge thread of complaints:
[https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/7Sf7E...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/7Sf7Emtrwp0))

~~~
icebraining
_The problem isn 't just my reccomendations, it's those of my fellow citizens,
voters, and potential lynch mobs._

No argument there.

 _Also, I don 't get the information on why a video is reccomended to me - is
it country-specific?_

I don't know; it worked in all European countries I've used it in. You mouse
over the video, it shows the three-dots menu (⋮), then you choose "Not
Interested", then the thumbnail is replaced by text saying "Video Removed" and
"Tell Us Why".

Example: [https://imgur.com/a/zlUtCfc](https://imgur.com/a/zlUtCfc)

~~~
pjc50
Ah, I've figured it out: the _next_ dialog, "Tell Us Why", doesn't always name
a particular video that prompted the reccomendation. Some of them do, some of
them don't. Which begs the next question: where are they coming from if not
previously watched videos?

~~~
icebraining
Uh, that's curious. Can't say that ever happened to me.

------
amelius
Congress should take action, and install a watchdog that continuously monitors
these companies; e.g. by verifying that data placed online cannot be bought
through different channels.

~~~
mudil
That is wrong way to approach the issue. These companies should not be
gathering personal information worse than NSA. Personal information is
personal, and free people in a free society should not be followed by
multinational corporations.

~~~
AJ007
At least the targeting is advertising and not drone strikes.

~~~
hedora
I’m sorry, but trying to draw this distinction is dangerously naive.

In order to get decent ad targeting for most industries, they need more than
enough information than is needed to target a drone strike.

They are legally obligated to share this information with multiple governments
(including the US) that openly and routinely engage in extra-judicial killings
of civilians.

The only solutions to this moral quandary are to either (a) change multiple
governments, some democratically elected, some not, or to (b) simply not
gather the information in the first place.

Google has already tried and failed at option (a), and option (b) would
eliminate the vast majority of their revenue.

------
drawkbox
Yes, because ISPs are pushing this and they now have all their net neutrality
abolishment and private protection removals in place, all that money can now
go to all out assaults on Facebook, Google and any other competitors in the ad
space.

Part of ISPs justification for removing privacy protections via bribes was to
allow them to compete with Facebook/Google.

As seen with removing ISP privacy protections from the FCC to help them get
net neutrality removed, ISPs don't give up when it comes to using their local
monopolies and bribing their way into markets rather than competing with
products built on it that people want like Facebook/Google.

Right now ISP money isn't being spent on innovation or expansion of their
network capabilities, it is being spent to combat competition in areas they
want to move into such as the ad network/tracking space, network
throttling/data caps and more.

ISPs also want to be the implementers of the internet filters that will be
arriving soon to be broad censorship and stifle competition [1]. They are also
big on helping the surveillance state and will get shared data to use in their
ad networks [2].

The ISPs are helping build the network that will be more like hotel wifi than
the internet we know and love today. If the ISPs do one thing well it is
stifling competition to create near monopolies because they don't like to
compete building actual quality or products to compete next to market leaders,
they bribe and use their local monopolies to get in.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-
advanci...](https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing-
under-trump/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

------
prolikewhoa
What would happen to Google? Nothing happened to Facebook except a slap on the
wrist. They'll continue doing everything they do and only a few of us nerds on
the internet will really care.

Americans have the attention span of fruit flies, which is why none of this
actually matters long term.

------
DanBC
> Child advocates have also raised alarms about the ease with which
> smartphone-equipped children are exposed to inappropriate videos and
> deceptive advertising.

COPPA has unfortunate consequences. My 7 year old child watches youtube. He
can't have an account, so he uses my account. Youtube thinks an > 18 year old
is watching the videos, and so places ads for gambling and alcohol on the
videos he watches.

There's no mechanism to tell Google that:

i) My child is under 18 and so cannot legally buy the products being
advertised (and in the UK it's illegal to target alcohol to children)

ii) I campaign against alcohol and gambling adverts, and that's the only
reason they think I have an interest in the product. I'm never going to buy
these products.

The Youtube Kids product isn't available on my laptop, and he's not interested
in many of those videos.

And the fix seems simple enough: allow a toggle for "viewer is under 18".

~~~
pjc50
It sounds like an adblocker would be responsible parenting best practice here.

~~~
scrollaway
Not letting a child on the web without an adblocker is, in general,
responsible parenting. The ad industry is at its scummiest when it comes to
ads targeted at kids (and it's been that way for decades, it's just especially
visible on the web).

------
remir
I think what Eelo is trying to achieve is interesting. They forked LineageOS,
but they understood that nowadays a smartphone is not that smart without
services (email, map, contact/cal sync, etc), so they plan to develop their
own services that respect privacy.

Now, will these services be on par with Google's? Of course not, but if
they're good enough, it could be a game changer.

~~~
notatoad
This was essentially what Cyanogen was doing before they went bust (in
cooperation with microsoft).

Providing a "good enough" service in a sustainable way is _very, very
difficult_. Maybe you can make the service happen, but services require a
continuing revenue stream, and that is _hard_. Especially when you don't own
the platform, you don't own the hardware, and your only selling point is that
you'll promise to ignore the biggest potential revenue source.

------
laythea
I have already seen the reminder about privacy etc from google, which tells me
they are nervous.

------
matchagaucho
Google knows far more about me than Facebook. But their product is not
premised on my genuine identity, or the sharing of my social graph with apps.

Google has been pretty good at preserving the illusion of "anonymous
browsing".

~~~
craftyguy
> their product is not premised on my genuine identity

Their product to you may not be, but their primary revenue stream sure is
based on the premise of knowing your genuine identity (including habits.)

~~~
jacksmith21006
Not really. Google does search ads based on what you are searching at that
time. Plus Google does ads with a call back so no data leaves Google.

The byproduct is ad blockers work by blocking the call back.

~~~
craftyguy
They most definitely tailor ads to your personal data.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Target ads but do not sell personal data and have thought out a nice
architecture so your data stays at Google. They use a call back for the ad so
a third party site does not get any data. Also why ad blockers work.

~~~
craftyguy
I never said they sold your personal data, I know they don't. But they still
collect vast amounts of it that they use against you (advertising), and make
available to governments if requested/ordered.

~~~
jacksmith21006
I prefer the gov has to go through a legal process versus just giving all your
data over to the government.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-
privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-
betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/) Campaign targets Apple over privacy
betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

------
cromwellian
An article about YouTube censorship/kids exposed to bad videos and 98% of the
replies don’t talk about the content of the article at all.

------
fourthark
Next Google. Then we forget about it forever.

------
sirmike_
No.

------
jacksmith21006
Might not be a popular view but my biggest issue is Apple and transparency on
what they collect. Google has a fantastic dashboard with everything and
ability to remove or even download.

Apple privacy agreement allows them to collect a ton of private data but that
is it. You agree and no idea what they are doing with your data. Read the
agreement.

[https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-
ww/](https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/) Legal - Privacy Policy -
Apple

I do not like big gov but would be good with Apple forced to create a
dashboard exactly like Google provides.

~~~
bilbo0s
???

I'm genuinely confused here. Are you implying that you are OK with Google-
scale intrusive data collection as long as you get a convenient dashboard with
it?

While it might seem magnanimous of them to allow you to download from their
system, (your own data no less), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that
arrangement. The way the T&C of all these companies are written, you have no
way of validating the deletion of your data in a comprehensive fashion, there
are no provisions for you to look under the hood, and there are explicit
reservations outlined with respect to government related obligations.

I'm not comfortable with any of these companies, but knowing that Google has
all of my searches, (desktop AND mobile), for the past 10 or 15 years, youtube
view history, etc etc etc worries me a bit more than the fact that Apple knows
what apps I've downloaded. Personally, I would rate them as follows:

HIGH PRIORITY CONCERNS: Google and Facebook

PRIORITY CONCERNS: AT&T Amazon

SECONDARY CONCERNS: Netflix Apple Pandora etc

To put it in layman's terms:

Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. AT&T knows where I've been. But Google
and Facebook know all of that PLUS what porn I like, what I REALLY think of my
boss, what I've been posting "anonymously" to different web forums, and they
have a pretty good idea which of my S/O's friends I think are hotter than her.

Which one do you think I'm more worried about?

~~~
jacksmith21006
The problem is Apple had an agreement that let's them collect as much data as
Google yet they are not transparent like Google on what they actually have
right now and enable me to remove like Google. Plus Google let's you even
download and have no such option from Apple.

I try to keep all my data at Google and no where else when possible but I have
both a Pixel and an iPhone and do not know what is at Apple. I do use Google
DNS and Google services including Chrome.

I use Google DNS everywhere, 8.8.8.8, to keep my internet browsing away from
my wireless and isp providers. I also use chrome data saver to keep browsing
data at Google. We now have YouTube TV so now keep my viewing data away from
our cable provider.

We have Google WiFi which made the DNS easy as how it comes. I have a pixel
book and wife CB+ and kids Acer 14s and 15s so keep my data away from MS and
all at Google.

We switched our Echo to the Google home so my home auto data at Google. We
have Nest for everything they offer a product. We do have Phillips lights but
wish Google would do bulbs.

Then we use Gmail. Maps, YT, and Duo. The areas we leak our Netflix as nothing
from Google. Also Amazon for shopping but try to limit. Really almost nothing
with MS.

But Apple has my iMessages and data from me using my iPhone which is an issue
for me as I do not know what they have and that bugs me and is not right.

Our biggest issue is I have 8 kids and can not use Fi because of cost so my
location data is at my wireless provider. This is a big one where you could
use Google and protect your data as Google fi is anonymous to the underneath
carriers. Trouble is the cost is too much.

~~~
bilbo0s
OK... let's walk through this.

How do you KNOW that Google, and all of the people Google has allowed access
to your data, have deleted it?

Do you see where I'm going?

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether Google deleted your data or not.
You just get an email maybe saying that your data was deleted. But that email
is only warranting deletion within the parameters of the original T&C you
agreed to.

Now compare that to Netflix or Apple. They have NO WAY AT ALL of knowing what
I searched for on my home or work machines. If I'm using Google Chrome, as the
vast majority of users are, then Google knows not only what I searched for,
but also which web pages I went to. When I went to them. And what I did when I
was there. Netflix, Apple and Pandora/Spotify etc have almost no way to
determine that level of detail about me.

MAYBE AT&T does, which is why I listed them as a priority concern. But very
few companies outside of the ISP's, Google and Facebook would even have access
to that information. Not even Microsoft and Apple would have access to that
level of detail about you. Let's face it, not many people use Edge or Safari.

Even on your phone, Google will ALWAYS have access to more data about you than
Apple does. I was getting lots of ads for health insurance on my desktop. They
claimed that if I could run a sub-7 minute mile I could get a break on my
insurance. A friend of mine told me it was because I used Youtube on my runs
in the morning. So Google knew how fast I could run. So we did an experiment
where I slowed down for a week, sure enough, the number changed to 8 minute
miles. Apple, Spotify, Netflix etc would not have even known that I was
searching for health insurance on my machines. But Google not only knew that,
but was smart enough to watch me while I was out running to give me an ad that
would seem more attractive to me.

Yeah... I stopped using Youtube.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Google does not allow anyone access to my data and I like things to work in
the interest of the company. The last company going to give up your data is
Google. They know the value and there business is based on trust. They lost
trust and they are screwed while companies like Apple do not have the same on
the line and why we see Google invest so much more into security and why
Google has found Shellshock, Cloudbleed, Spectre, Heartbleed and meltown among
others and Apple and MS did not find a single one.

Another example is Apple handed over all their user data in China over to the
government while Google instead left China. Kind of saids it all.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-
privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-
betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/) Campaign targets Apple over privacy
betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

You never know if any company deleted your data but trust Google far more
because as they have more to lose and Apple giving up their users data in
China proves my point. Apple gives your data away and my daughter is still
buying a iPhone.

Let me give a specific examples of my issue with Apple. I try to keep all my
data at Google. They are not going to give it up for dollar like Apple in
China and Google has the best security by a huge amount.

We were recently on holiday and several of my kids have iPhones. I permanently
share my location on Google maps. But when we are traveling I use iMessages
with my iPhone kids. They need to find me when out and about and will share my
location in iMessages as easy to do.

But I do not have a way to clearly remove from Apple as I do not want that
data at Apple. I do not want my data spread around. Apple is the worse like
this. Google offers on their own and we will need the gov to force Apple to do
the same.

Hope that helps.

------
jacksmith21006
Google provides a dashboard with everything including ability to remove or
even download. Wish we could get the same from Apple.

Do not think Google has the same issues as FB.

------
yuhong
I wrote an essay on this exact topic:
[http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-
mozi...](http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozilla-
essay-final.html)

------
s2g
Probably not.

Wish they would be, but probably not.

------
thathappened
We're learning that good is relative so do no evil can't mean anything good
for us, long-term, unless we're Google.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Use a lot of Google services and never had an issue with my data. Plus Google
will secure far better than anyone else.

------
ben_jones
If congress couldn't grok how Facebook operates I doubt they will be able to
grok Google who in my opinion has a much more indirect (manipulative) way of
getting people to view ads and gather data to show ads.

