
The Many Ways Google Harvests Data - j32fun
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-has-more-of-your-personal-data-than-facebook-try-google-1524398401
======
Nadya
44 blocked scripts loading the article - nearly half of which was tracking
related. Surely the irony of that isn't lost on people? Google's ability to
track users is 99% entirely due to companies like the WSJ using them for
tracking users. These companies are just as much to blame, if not more, than
Google itself.

E: What I mean by that is Google provides the means, but Google couldn't track
nearly half of all sites if nearly half of all sites weren't complicit in the
tracking.

~~~
laythea
The whole tracking thing should be outlawed in my opinion.

It's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare into
people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of
curtains.

In a world where that is clearly not ok, then why is it that this kind of
thing (tracking) is deemed ok?

What we need is something that does to our online privacy, what curtains did
for peoples real privacy. And, although I fear that this is not technically
possible, the absence of the possibility of such protections, still does not
make tracking right.

~~~
downandout
_It 's like saying that because windows are transparent, it is ok to stare
into people's living rooms. It's not - irrespective of transparency or lack of
curtains._

Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no expectation
of privacy. These websites belong to private entities. So it’s more like
saying that because you voluntarily walked into my store, it’s ok for me to
observe your behavior while you’re there. Which, of course, is completely
logical and acceptable to most people.

Don’t want me to track your behavior while you’re in my store? There’s a very
simple, 100% effective solution for that: don’t enter my store. Because if you
do enter, you have no right to complain that I’m observing you.

~~~
chongli
_Nope. When you enter someone else’s place of business, you have no
expectation of privacy._

That's not true at all. When I go to the hardware store to buy a box of nails,
I don't have any expectation for the owner to begin following me around for
the rest of the day (and in perpetuity thereafter). I also don't expect the
hardware store owner to get on the phone with the grocery store owner and ask
him what groceries and personal hygiene products I bought.

Also, the comment originally pertained to the Wall Street Journal, a
newspaper. Are you suggesting that reading the newspaper at home grants the
publisher the right to peer in through my window?

Expectations of privacy have long been enforced by social norms rather than
laws. Since technology has granted corporations the means to do an end-run
around social norms then we should expect the law to catch up and fill the
gaps.

People may not have had a lot of privacy from their neighbours when living in
small towns but they could generally count on their community to care about
their well being. This is not the case with online businesses of any sort.

~~~
downandout
_Are you suggesting that reading the newspaper at home grants the publisher
the right to peer in through my window?_

No, nor did I even intimate that. That's your property, not mine. That
suggestion is as ridiculous as the one I was trying to refute. But when you
enter my property - be it virtual or phyiscal - expect to be observed using
whatever technologies and vendors I want that are legal (with a few obvious
legal exceptions, such as bathroom surveillance). If, to continue with your
newspaper example, you took your newspaper into my store and decided to read
it there, I am fully within my rights to observe that you did that, watch you
to see if you buy something while you're there, and see if others exhibit that
same behavior. Depending on the results of that analysis, I might then decide
to move the newspapers to the front of the store, near tables, where you can
sit and read because I have determined that newspaper readers are profitable
customers. There's nothing wrong with that - I've now used data obtained while
you were in my store (where you have no expectation of privacy) to improve
both your experience and my profitability.

~~~
thaumaturgy
People that want to move this discussion forward need to stop using analogies
for things in the physical world, because the interactions between a website
and a browser aren't similar enough to anything physical. Every single time
someone resorts to analogy in one of these threads, it immediately and
permanently devolves into an argument over the details of the analogy.

Browsers run code delivered by websites. It's generally considered impolite,
at least, to provide code that mines cryptocurrency on visitors' machines.
Most people wouldn't defend serving up malware, either. So there is well-
established precedent for arguing that there are things a website shouldn't do
to its visitors.

Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto
miners and malware.

The explosion of ad blockers on users' browsers is a direct result of websites
pushing advertising tactics way too far and not putting enough effort into the
safety of their visitors. Tracking scripts will be next. Firefox has a lot to
gain from pushing browser features intended to make it look like a more
privacy-conscious browser than Chrome; there are already extensions like
Ghostery and Disconnect, and uBlock Origin blocks a number of other tracking
scripts too.

If website developers don't accept some kind of middle ground in this
discussion, they'll be relying on their access logs for all of their data
before long.

~~~
downandout
_> Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto
miners and malware. _

That's definitely your opinion, and it is one that is not widely held. How do
I know this? Because Facebook's usage - despite a deluge of recent headlines
headlines that vastly overstated their privacy issues and made it the poster
child for extensive tracking technologies - hasn't gone down. So, roughly 2
billion of the world's Internet users disagree with you.

~~~
thaumaturgy
It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it.

Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean
you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware".

Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter.
They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday
[2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

I guess you can stand steadfastly behind the position that "nobody cares
because there are 2 billion users", and ignore the falling metrics for user
engagement [3], and the protests (see the picture at the top of [2]), and the
senate hearing, and the media coverage, and the millions of Ghostery and
Disconnect users who've gone to the trouble of searching for and installing
extensions specifically to block tracking, and Firefox's built-in tracking
protection. Sure, aside from all that, nobody cares.

But this isn't an issue that's going away yet, no matter how much you want it
to.

[1]: [https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-
change-...](https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-web/)

[2]: [http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-
revenge-a...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-
after-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-2018-4)

[3]: [http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-
earnings...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-
earnings/index.html)

~~~
downandout
As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent
privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of
April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a
desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as
people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have
contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal,"
but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible
impact.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26%
of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not
so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that
many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with
your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't
even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-
user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads
that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without
clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found
them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers
aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel
any violation of my privacy either.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-
senate-c...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-
committee-hearing-no-facebook-user-dropoff.html)

~~~
Intermernet
>I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given
any personally identifiable data by the ad networks

The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by
many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by
correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a
high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your
education level, your family size and many other details.

~~~
downandout
And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in
the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc.
It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

~~~
thaumaturgy
In the first place, your repeated assertion that you are anonymous in the data
is wrong. A combination of zip code, date of birth, and gender will uniquely
identify 87% of the people in the country [1], and I assure you advertisers
have far more detailed information than that. In some cases, they have your
DNA. [2]

Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still
proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change
audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to
inflame political tensions [3]. The tracking widgets used on nearly every site
you visit now means that some company, somewhere, knows everything you're
interested in. They are in the business of using that information against you,
to their benefit, whether it's in crafting sensational stories with clickbait
headlines to get more of your attention, or selling you products you don't
need by preying on your insecurities, or just trading it for money to other
companies who will use it in new and creative ways -- like CA, who specialize
in tilting voting behavior. [4]

Thirdly, you're counting on advertising firms having perfect security and
never accidentally giving your information away to people who shouldn't have
it. Advertising companies just don't have good history when it comes to data
security [5] [6] [7].

People seem happy to ignore the ramifications of all of this, because it's not
like they're feeling physical pain or discomfort or noticing any other
immediate negative effect when more tracking data is collected or they see
another ad. But this is a form of psychological warfare, and at least some of
this stuff is designed to corrupt your thinking, to get more of your attention
and change your opinions about things and convince you that it's all very
harmless.

We've strayed away from tracking data and into advertising, but they are two
sides of the same coin.

[1]:
[http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html](http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html)

[2]: [https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-
us...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-use-your-dna-
to-target-ads/)

[3]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-
of-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-divisive-
facebook-ads-bought-by-suspicious-groups-study-idUSKBN1HN2KV)

[4]: [http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-
cambridge...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge-
analytica/index.html)

[5]: [https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-
sa...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-
that-malware/)

[6]: [https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-
breach/](https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/)

[7]:
[https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-s...](https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-spotify-
ad-slipped-malware-onto-pcs-and-macs)

~~~
downandout
You obviously feel very passionate about this subject, so there is no point in
attempting to convincing you to change your opinion, other than to reiterate
that it is not a commonly held opinion.

I did want to respond directly to one of your points that is dead wrong. With
regard to this statement:

 _> Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica
still proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change
audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to
inflame political tensions_

There has been no scientific evidence that CA, the Russians, or anyone else
was actually successful in their efforts to use Facebook to influence the
election or _" inflate political tensions"_. In fact, CA's own customers say
that it didn't work [1]. This whole thing was a manufactured controversy.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-
facebook-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-
scandal-trump-cruz-operatives-2018-3)

~~~
thaumaturgy
You confused my statements regarding CA with a separate issue regarding
political ads on Facebook, covered in the Reuters article I cited (which
didn't mention CA at all).

If CA were a "manufactured controversy", I think HN would've cottoned on to
that quite a while ago, rather than the various comments (among thousands on
the topic now) expressing surprise that people are suddenly paying attention
to this:

50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16606924](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16606924)

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641550](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641550)

How Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook targeting model really worked:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719403)

Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first responded in
2015:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16667805](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16667805)

The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16621885](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16621885)
(solid top comment on that thread)

Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721)

Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16644067](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16644067)

I'm not, by the way, providing any of these links in my comments to try to
change your mind. I realized several comments ago that you've got an
entrenched and unmovable opinion that pervasive user tracking on the internet
is no big deal. I've been providing these links for anyone else reading who
might be interested in the topic.

------
redm
Just some of the ways Google collects data [1]:

Google Search, Google Fiber, Google Recaptcha, Google Translate, Google
Adsense, Google Chrome (Safe Browsing checks etc.), Google DNS (8.8.4.4 etc.),
Google Mail, Android Integrations, Google GSuite (Sheets, Docs, etc.), Google
Drive, Google Analytics, Google AMP, YouTube

So on and so forth. Of course, Google keeps most of this data to themselves to
improve products and sell ads, but it's scary how much they have especially
since they broke down the firewall between services. [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products)

[2] [https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-
privacy...](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-
policies-and-terms.html)

~~~
wang_li
A more egregious way Google collects data on internet users is through their
hosted libraries service. You visit some completely unaffiliated site which
happens to use jquery or some other library and instead of hosting it
themselves they have a script tag with a src=ajax.googleapis.com/...

~~~
pgeorgi
For that, see
[https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/terms](https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/terms)

That stuff is kept separate from all account data (like with Google DNS[0] and
fonts[1], too): no common cookies, "unauthenticated" (ie. no cross-referencing
with Google accounts), logs retain no referrers

[0] [https://developers.google.com/speed/public-
dns/privacy](https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy) [1]
[https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_...](https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq#what_does_using_the_google_fonts_api_mean_for_the_privacy_of_my_users)

~~~
ballenf
I don't read it as stating that the data is kept entirely separate. In fact it
references the general privacy policy making it quite clear that whatever data
is collected is governed by the same rules as everything else.

~~~
gowld
What data is collected?

------
dannyw
I think Google is a lot less creepy than Facebook. Yes, they vacuum a lot of
data, but I do get directly related benefits from it, as well as controls that
I trust.

Example: Location history. It is turned off by default. I chose to turn it on,
so I can know places I’ve been to previously (if I forget the name). It’s like
a journal that writes itself.

Google has its privacy issues, but on a whole I voluntarily choose to give
them permission to collect my data, because I get direct value from it.

~~~
lucideer
> _controls that I trust._

I think this trust might be misplaced.

> _Example: Location history. It is turned off by default._

Displaying your location history to you is turned off by default. Google's own
recording of your location, for their purposes, cannot be turned off.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Google's own recording of your location, for their purposes, cannot be
> turned off.

Citation needed. Android even lets you turn off AGPS, which collects anonymous
location data to update itself. As far as I know, this is not even possible on
iOS.

~~~
kop316
I'll copy an earlier post of what I found:

On Android, I noted before that when I turned on and off location services,
the GPS lock was near instantaneous (i.e. when I turned on location, Google
Maps located me with GPS precision immediately. There could be other ways of
how this happens, it was noted in another post of mine, but that had still had
me a bit suspicious. I replaced Google Play Services with microG recently
([https://lineage.microg.org/](https://lineage.microg.org/)). I then saw that
it was MicroG, NOT the OS, that had control over my location, and MicroG still
tracks my location when Location is
off([https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/wiki...](https://github.com/microg/android_packages_apps_GmsCore/wiki...)).

While none of this conclusively points to Google Play Services tracking me
when it is off, the way that Android is set up makes me very strongly suspect
that's what they did.

~~~
lallysingh
By tracking, do you mean the phone keeping track of its own location, or it
sending location data back to Google?

Google maintains a database of wifi networks and their locations (I don't know
the ways this data is acquired) to help triangulate the position:
[https://www.quora.com/How-does-android-use-WiFi-to-get-
your-...](https://www.quora.com/How-does-android-use-WiFi-to-get-your-current-
location-so-accurately)

~~~
kop316
By tracking, I mean MicroG/Google Play Services controls location services,
not Android OS.

~~~
lallysingh
.. but does the location leave the device?

~~~
kop316
That's a great question. I cannot conclusively say that Google Play Services
does that, but I cannot think of another reason for why Android would be set
up that way.

I welcome any alternative conclusions though.

~~~
lallysingh
Quite possibly for sensor fusion. E.g., combine with WiFi triangulation,
accelerometer deltas from last fix, etc.

Play Services has a lot of stuff in it because it's easy for Google to upgrade
it without going through phone vendors or carriers. It was a way to counteract
the effects of many phones being on old versions of Android.

------
jacksmith21006
Why is Apple given a pass?

They gave all their China user data to the China government so they could stay
in China to make a buck. Is that not selling users data?

Versus Google chose to leave China instead of handing over the data.

[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 ...

~~~
thisacctforreal
They make an effort to design their products and services with privacy and
security in mind, and are much more transparent about what data is collected
and how it's used.

The iCloud-China situation is unfortunate. The situation is very different
from Google, both in the opportunity costs, and the fact Apple's products are
dependent on China to be manufactured.

Additionally, if you forego iCloud services (namely iCloud backup), then the
data that the CCP can access is actually quite limited. All of their phones
since the 5s in 2013 have been leaders in security, and if you use a
passphrase or 10-digit pin as a passcode then not even the most recent iPhone
cracking tools could brute-force your phone (within a dozen years, within a
century for 11-digits).

I'm miffed about China, but I still believe Apple is the best option because I
don't think there's much that can be done in their position and the impact is
limited. For me that would change the instant an actual iOS backdoor is made
for any gov't.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Not following. There were billions to be made by Google in China and they
decided giving up their user data was a bridge too far. So basically chose to
not sell their user data.

Versus Apple handed over all there user data to make a buck. Plus this is
actual data not a targeted ad.

Do I have this correct?

~~~
awakeasleep
You're missing facts that change the whole picture.

Cloud services are _required_ to use Google services & devices. G had to
choose between giving China everything or withdrawing from the market.

Cloud services are an add-on to Apple's products. The iPhone is still useful
without enabling anything from iCloud. Cloud services are _optional_ with the
iPhone.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Cloud is not required with Google. What are you talking about?

~~~
saagarjha
What are _you_ talking about? 90+% of Google's services are online. Apple has
a substantial hardware business, so I don't see how you are conflating the
two.

~~~
jacksmith21006
You can buy an Android phone and never use the cloud if you want just like an
iPhone.

The two are actually very similar.

Google services do not matter if you have an Android phone or an iPhone.
Suspect there is actually more consumption of Google services on the iPhone
then even Android but do not have numbers handy to support.

~~~
millstone
Huawei selling customized AOSP with WeChat doesn't represent Google's
participation in the Chinese market. Chinese Android users aren't Google
users.

------
weakgeek
i find it interesting that no one points out how much data AT&T and Verizon
have collected ... they know the location of your phone, which cell tower you
are connected to, which stores you've been in and when, who you've called, who
has called you, all of which can be cross referenced ... and there is no
reason to think they don't where the IP they supplied you has been, to which
websites you've visited, etc ... same with Comcast for broadband ... and the
GOP last year repealed what privacy was in place on this ... if you combine
that with the media properties they own, they also get a pretty good picture,
across android, iOS and your desktop, of what a person does ... they also have
payment data, a credit profile, possibly health info, possibly data on your
kids, etc,

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-
trump/trump-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-trump/trump-
signs-repeal-of-u-s-broadband-privacy-rules-idUSKBN1752PR)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
ISPs present a tiny footprint compared to the global tech behemoths (they're
regional), and they already actually are significantly regulated even with the
loosening of various restrictions over the past year or so. Contrary to
popular belief, ISPs can't sell your browsing history legally, whereas tech
companies generally can.

------
sqdbps
I guess it's cheaper to try and extend this whole facebook/cambridge analytica
story than to do actual journalism. What's more you get to attack a business
rival (doubly true for wsj v google).

~~~
baud147258
Also when writing about facebook/cambridge analytica story, you can easily add
a few lines about the election, which makes the story more shared, generating
more clicks (~engagement), so the story is much more talked about.

If the cambridge analytica story was about selling cars or home appliance, it
would have been forgotten in a few days.

Edit: And perhaps it's a good thing that it was about the elections? It would
mean that it might force a change on first Facebook, then maybe other internet
companies

------
lamename
On one hand, I'm glad to see popular concern for (or at least media coverage
of) personal data privacy issues. On the other hand, I can't imagine this is
news to anyone at HN, or anyone who's been following such issues for years.

Ok ok, maybe the mass public is finally becoming more aware of these issues,
but they're also even more heavily invested in the services Google/FB provide
than when these revelations were first known to a more niche online community.

I find it hard to believe that all this media attention is anything _other
than_ too little too late.

~~~
40acres
I'm of an opposite mind. The tech world has known about these issues for years
and _nothing_ has happened. When the Verge or Wired write about these privacy
issues the outside world really is not of much concern. But when the NYT and
WaPo write about it, and when there are Congressional hearings about it
changes is much more likely to occur.

~~~
jimmy1
Because many of us are employed to take advantage of the current situation of
data proliferation. I am. I take your information and I pass it along to our
marketing partners. I am a professional spammer. Your data is worth a couple
bucks to us. We provide no real value (working on fixing this, atm). I get to
feed my kids and take vacations as a result. I guess I will continue to float
the moral line until actual harm comes out of this. We take data security
seriously. We've straight up refused to partner with people who don't, even if
it meant passing a lucrative deal. I have hope that as long as there are
people like me out there, it will be OK, but I think the worst thing we can do
is not talk about it / shame those that do make a living on ad tech to flee
the work.

------
textmode
"Recent controversy over Facebook Inc.'s hunger for personal data has surfaced
_the notion that the online advertising industry could be hazardous to our
privacy and well-being._ "

The NYT can publish stories centering on this notion despite being ??% reliant
on said online advertising in order to stay in business.

Would Google (or Facebook) publish similar warnings against the annoyances and
harms of online advertising despite being 98% reliant on said online
advertising in order to stay in business?

How strong an argument is "Newspapers use trackers in their online editions
therefore any news they publish about tracking has no educational value." (or
is somehow compromised in some way)

Did newspapers have a choice in whether they chose to participate in the www
as we see it today (overrun with advertising and fraudulent, insidious
tactics)?

If yes, what was the choice?

What would happen to these newspapers if they failed to "cooperate" with
Google?

~~~
soared
They'd lose massive amounts of revenue and cease to exist. Even with digital
advertising most newspapers are dead or barely staying afloat. They all
struggled to convert to digital and tracking-based advertising was just one of
many life boats they tried to save themselves with.

------
rdlecler1
I don’t see Google getting the same kind of backlash as Facebook even though
Google probably knows far more about me. For most people Google has real
utility while Facebook is an indulgence.

------
kodablah
Didn't read the article, but does anyone see some media narrative happening
here? One part of me would like to think that they are just publishing what
readers want. But another part says there is an underlying narrative. I can
almost predict the news cycle wrt tech, data collection, privacy, etc. Does
anyone stop to think, why now? I fear this is a rolling snowball started
during the election and it won't end until those with pitchforks get the laws
the rest who are quieter may not want. This media-built furor, while it may
have legitimate roots, has me seeing deja vu. I fear the internet equivalent
of the patriot act.

Just know when we get things like the cloud act, the next sopa, or the next
government-over-tech bill, we asked for it by building this furor. Seems quite
unbalanced to me. I wonder how I or others can stop feeding this growing
furor.

~~~
ucaetano
> but does anyone see some media narrative happening here?

WSJ is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. He has been in a anti-Google crusade for
a while.

2009:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google.html)

2014:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says_google_is_worse_than_the_nsa/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Why is it that no one ever suggests articles about Facebook's privacy
violations are part of some anti-Facebook conspiracy?

~~~
cromwellian
Because there are very specific reasons to be suspicious of Fox or WSJ
articles and if this anti-Google article had appeared in the NYT it would have
been better and free of suspicion.

Anti-Tesla articles are another example of places to be suspicious of the
source because a) day traders trying to short the stock have deliberately
tried to spread damaging information and b) fossil fuel companies and regular
car manufacturers have a vested interest.

That’s not to say all anti-Tesla articles are wrong, just one should be
careful that you aren’t being a rube to propaganda.

Also, Facebook wasn’t dinged for collecting data, they were dinged for
allowing a third party to scrape it.

The people using Facebook are quite aware of all of the stuff they’re telling
FB interests, likes, groups they join, what they don’t want is third parties
who shouldn’t know, to know.

I don’t care that Facebook knows what articles I liked. But I don’t want
Cambridge Analytica to know in an individually identifiable manner.

------
reacharavindh
Haven't read the article because it is behind paywall, but it is not that hard
to stay away from Google if you really care for it.

Search - Use DuckDuckGo or startpage.

Use Fastmail or any other email provider that is not Google.

Watch Youtube videos without creating an account and clear out cookies
regularly.

Use Vimeo or some other service to host your videos for private use.

Use Google Translate without a Google Account, and make sure you're not logged
into a Google account in another tab or even the same browser.

Use Firefox instead of Google Chrome.

Google Adsense - Block ads using adblocker, Ghostery, and if you're up for it,
use Adnauseum. Again, make sure to not leave a trace of a Google account in
that browser.

Google DNS - Use your carrier's DNS or even better something like Quad9
instead. Keep changing it among the open ones if you dont want a single DNS
provider getting all your history.

Android Integrations - Use iPhone :-) But, if you have something against Apple
or dont like it, Use as plain Android as possible. Check if you can live
without the Play store. Rooting?

GSuite - Use local Office programs with files living in Nextcloud or
something.

Google Drive - Use Nextcloud instead.

Google Analytics - Adblock/Ghostery it.

Google AMP - Note sure what you reveal if you can avoid a Google account.
Clear out cookies frequently.

The point being, do NOT use a Google account in the browser, clear out cookies
as often as reasonable.

~~~
Skunkleton
You might be able to dislodge yourself from certain datasets, but good luck
getting out of all of them. For example: [https://www.inc.com/emily-
canal/google-credit-card-purchases...](https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/google-
credit-card-purchases-track-online-ads.html)

------
sayhello
(Disclaimer: I work at Google, though on unrelated things. Opinions my own,
yada, yada)

Worked at a privacy obsessed place before (Mozilla) where I worked on building
privacy-preserving ad infrastructure.

I think we've more to fear about the other data brokers (so-called DMP's and
their sources of data, e.g. your bank) than Google. At the very least, we have
some assurance Google is competent with handling the data.

Google is a big well-known target and definitely poses a central point of
failure for our data, but this piece could've been more than a dig at Google
and rather, could have explored how private information is handled in the Ad
industry in general.

------
z3t4
and yet most ads I see on the internet are almost less targeted then tv ads.
what are they doing with all this data i wonder. to be fair though i dont even
know myself what i might be interested in.

------
uasnew
Solution: Ban Lobbying?

------
thisisit
This is disappointing from WSJ. Google's data collection is a good story but
pulling Facebook in and then devolving into what-about-ism is not. This is
toeing the what-about-Google/twitter stance Facebook took in it's release.

> Google gathers more personal data than Facebook does, by almost every
> measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?

Because one problem at a time. If we are going down this path, how about,

> _Many people die of hunger every year_ more than Facebook, by almost every
> measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?

~~~
dqpb
I think your getting the "what-about-ism" argument backwards. This isn't
avoiding talking about Google by saying "What about Facebook". This is
comparing the two to _highlight_ it's point about Google, the subject of the
article.

~~~
thisisit
Maybe I have it wrong but what-about-ism isn't only about avoidance. It is
also about drawing an equivalence saying - "Yes, X is bad but what about Y?"
The idea being if everyone does it then X hasn't done anything wrong.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Noone is saying Facebook hasn't done anything wrong. We just don't want Google
to get away with it.

Whataboutism would be if we were to suggest Facebook isn't that bad because
Google does it too. But articles like this are trying to point out that _both_
companies are doing bad things: We should be going after both of them.

------
dwighttk
[https://duckduckgo.com](https://duckduckgo.com)
[https://protonmail.com](https://protonmail.com)
[https://apple.com](https://apple.com)

~~~
caymanjim
One of these things is not like the other. DuckDuckGo and Proton were founded
on the basis of protecting privacy and not sharing personal data. The other is
part of the cabal.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Exactly. Apple is also one of the participants in the NSA's PRISM [1] domestic
surveillance program. Their participation shows at least some disregard for
the privacy of their customers in and of itself, but more tellingly it's also
indicative of the NSA's appreciation for the amount and quality of unique and
identifiable data that Apple has or can readily obtain on their users.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29)

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Their participation shows at least some disregard for the privacy of their
> customers in and of itself

Why? Apple is legally required to hand over the court ordered data whether or
not they participate in the FBI's data integration program. By implementing a
proper data integration system, Apple can standardize audits and alerts and
make sure the FBI gets only what is required and not somebody else's data by
accident as might happen if the data were sent by hand each time.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I'd recommend checking out the article and other reading on PRISM. PRISM is
operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal privacy
including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data retrieval
in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently collected data"
and more. This entire period of extreme surveillance and secret courts, which
are in effect kangaroo courts, will likely be looked at in the history books
similar to how you look at things like the Stasi. Keep in mind that the Stasi
was founded in 1950 and prosecutions only began once East Germany fell, some
40 years later.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> PRISM is operated by the NSA and involves egregious breaches of personal
> privacy including bulk collection of loosely targeted data, warrantless data
> retrieval in some instances, the collection and use of "inadvertently
> collected data" and more.

No, according to Snowden's documents, PRISM is a data processing system that
consumes data sent to the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit following a
Section 702 order for communications sent to or from a specific foreign user
not in the US.

[https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/how-to-talk-about-prism-
and-...](https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/how-to-talk-about-prism-and-not-get-
entirely-blown-off-if-youre-an-activist-e2a79d2cd2ad)

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I would avoid basing your knowledge on blogs.

The wiki page's synopsis are contradictory as usual, but the original images
as well as Snowden's comments are not ambiguous. The slides show real time
access to video, voice, VOIP, etc.

Snowden's synopsis was, _" In general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI,
CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence]
databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want."_

Quoting Greenwald who received the information and disclosure directly from
Snowden: "...even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to
the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and
supervision." Greenwald said low level Analysts can, _via systems like PRISM_
, "listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing
histories, Microsoft Word documents. And it's all done with no need to go to a
court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the
analyst."

~~~
lern_too_spel
> The slides show real time access to video, voice, VOIP, etc.

For the specific users whose data was requested in the Section 702 request.

> Quoting Greenwald who received the information and disclosure directly from
> Snowden: "...even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to
> the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and
> supervision."

Funny how Snowden didn't have any evidence of this. All his documents match
the description I gave you. The FBI's DITU is right there in the system
diagram slide. This is just a misunderstanding of the documents by a low-level
sysadmin who never actually saw the programs and a credulous reporter who
didn't even try to check his facts.

