
Not OK, Google - CapitalistCartr
https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/05/not-ok-google/
======
ubercore
Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a
bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I
went and had a great burger that night.

Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy
thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being
lost in articles like this.

~~~
mojuba
One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be
able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the
population who don't use Google much. The simplest example being, even if you
don't use GMail, still some part of your emails inevitably end up in GMail
inboxes. Now also consider this: just being a guest in a Google-stuffed house
means you are under surveillance.

So no, it is not just my problem or your problem, it's everyone's.

~~~
ubercore
Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone
else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel
itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates
me about flight times.

I think this example serves both our points. To your point, it's totally
leaked this other person's info into my "google world" because I'm on gmail.
On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just
because of typos when he fills out online forms. Perfect privacy requires a
lot of vigilance in a digital world, with or without
google/gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
I have a fairly uncommon name and predominately use Gmail. Still, I receive a
surprising amount of other people's mail in error. Apparently lots of people
guess at email addys. I do often wonder at both the lack of privacy this
engenders and what the Goog machine must make of it all.

~~~
blawson
I definitely worry about my life being affected by situations like this.

I receive a ridiculous amount of other people's email - for serious things
like email account reset, to banking info. When the Ashley Madison hack
happened, my email address was there multiple times! Imagine if my then-
partner had bothered to look, what a mess that would be.

~~~
solipsism
Lay down a trail of public comments for plausible deniability. Smart!

------
TulliusCicero
What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously
fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that
they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in
order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

~~~
pimlottc
Nobody was thinking about "the cloud" back in those days. Back then, your
data, you programs all lived and ran on your own computer in your home. Most
people didn't go online, and if you did, it was mostly to read and download
data to use locally on your own computer. Connections were intermittent and
slow. The idea that your own data would be stored online was almost
unimaginable; even using network-depending applications like usenet or email
involved downloading everything first before using it. Online applications
were hardly even dreamed of.

Our expectations of how "Star Trek AI" would actually be implemented were
completely different than how highly connected cloud-based services like
Google Assistant work today.

Anyway, the point being, if the assistant lived entirely in your own computer,
it would entirely different. Most people are not concerned about what their
"computer" knows about them, they're concerned about what companies and their
employees do.

~~~
sangnoir
> Our expectations of how "Star Trek AI" would actually be implemented were
> completely different than how highly connected cloud-based services like
> Google Assistant work today.

The trope-namer (Star Trek AI) was a ship-wide AI - when considering the ship
sizes, it definitely is closer to the "cloud" model and not limited to a
private instances on officers' bunker/bridge terminals/tricorders. Perhaps a
hardcore Trekkie could answer this question: is there any canon that defines
the AIs scope? Is restricted to just one ship, or could it possible be a
Federation-wide presence with a presence/instances on ships?

~~~
falcolas
The AI for the Enterprise D was run from three computer cores on the ship (two
in the saucer, one in the engineering section), made up of Isolinear Chips
subjected to a small warp field (iow, it makes computes using light faster
than the speed of light). Subspace communication bandwidth is too limited (and
potentially affected by latency, since it had to travel through repeaters
throughout the galaxy) to provide realtime cloud computing as we experience
it.

There are some cannon exceptions to this (such as in Nemesis where the
subspace communication interruption affected the star charts), but even then
the functionality of the ship was not impacted.

The Star Trek ships are very analogous to our own ocean-bound ships, where
satellite communication is possible almost anywhere, but they don't rely on
it.

So, yes, the AI is completely confined to the ship.

~~~
timv
What about when someone was (permanently) transferred between ships?

Was there ever an indication that their AI-level data was transferred along
with their personnel file? For example did the replicator know what food to
offer them on day one?

If so, then it's seems reasonable to assume that the Enterprise's AI data was
backed up at Federation HQ during routine maintenance, and that the "IT
department" at Federation knew exactly what you liked to do on the Holodeck.

~~~
falcolas
> did the replicator know what food to offer them

Through specific indication from the user. Recall the constant utterance of
"tea, earl grey, hot"?

Ultimately, I imagine the user's information (documents, etc) was passed
directly between ships, or through (as you say) Federation HQ.

> Enterprise's AI data was backed up

Ultimately, I think this is where AI will differ from ML. An AI won't have
data that isn't a part of the AI - i.e. you couldn't separate out information
specific to Picard from the rest of the AI code. An AI might be able to
"scribble" down some notes about interacting with Picard and pass them off to
another ship's AI, but the second AI would never treat Picard quite the same
way as the first, even with those notes.

This stems from my belief that how ML interprets data is different from how an
AI would. If you were to copy all of the data used to build a ML model and
apply it again, you'd end up with the same ML model. An AI, on the other hand,
if built twice twice from the same data would end creating two separate AIs.

------
jacquesm
So, at the risk of making myself ridiculous and branded a Luddite:

I've totally passed on the 'mobile revolution', I do have a cell phone but I
use it to make calls and to be reachable.

This already leaks more data about me and my activities than I'm strictly
speaking comfortable with.

So far this has not hindered me much, I know how to use a map, have a
'regular' navigation device for my car, read my email when I'm behind my
computer and in general get through life just fine without having access 24x7
to email and the web. Maybe I spend a few more seconds planning my evening or
a trip but on the whole I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

To have the 'snitch in my pocket' blab to google (or any other provider) about
my every move feels like it just isn't worth it to me. Oh and my 'crappy dumb
phone' gets 5 days of battery life to boot. I'll definitely miss it when it
finally dies, I should probably stock up on a couple for the long term.

~~~
jordigh
I'm even more Luddite than you are. I don't have a phone at all (landline or
otherwise). You wanna reach me, you email me. The people in my life that care
about me have come to accept this. For other things, I read paper maps, plan
appointments ahead of time[1], memorise routes, and look up stuff online from
my laptop when I find a place to sit down and wifi.

Reading stories like this makes me want to carry a personal tracking device
even less.

\---

[1] People tend to have fewer emergency reasons to cancel when they can't
reach you 5 minutes before the appointment.

~~~
jacquesm
Can you mail 911 where you live? If not, for that reason alone I would carry a
phone.

~~~
jordigh
People always say that. What about the real emergencies? There's a lot of
anxiety and dread that carrying a phone seems to alleviate.

I live in a big city. There's always a phone nearby, including landlines and
payphones (they're still there precisely for emergency reasons). There are
also passerbys who can help me. The risk of being all alone, having an urgent
need to call 911, and be unable to do so is much too small to warrant carrying
a phone around at all times.

~~~
pmoriarty
What city do you live in where there are always payphones around?

All the cities I've been in have had virtually all their payphones torn out
long ago.

~~~
jordigh
Canada still has payphones.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/canadians-...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/canadians-arent-ready-to-cut-cords-with-payphones-just-
yet/article23221439/)

------
ht85
I feel like an old fool fighting against its time, but to me all those new
applicances are scary not because of privacy (have my data, I couldn't care
less), but because of how they shape our world.

Most of the coolest memories I have were the product of something spontaneous,
or mistakes, that become close to impossible with a computer and internet in
your pocket 24/7.

Assessing what's around you, talking to strangers, actively looking for
something without it instantly popping in suggestions after you've typed 4
characters, all those things have been a great source of circumstance-based,
little everyday life adventures.

This is the difference between risking buying a random book, or browsing
reviews and picking a 5 star one to download.

This is the difference between discovering a place you'd never thought existed
while waiting for someone and poking your nose around, instead of standing
there, frantically watching their dot on the map get closer to you.

This is the difference between the mesmerizing feeling of playing the first
expansions of world of warcraft, versus the tiring experience of the super
streamlined versions that followed. Yes, they are less frustrating, but they
don't bring tear to your eyes when you thing about them, they just feel
averagely satisfying.

A few minutes ago I got up to open the door for my cat, and in a few minutes
she'll be back and I'll be interrupted again. I feel like those interruptions
are precious. They keep you connected to reality. I could install an RFID cat
door, hell I could make a voice activated one in a couple weekends, and I
would not be annoyed anymore. I would also never have seen all the things I
witness every time I get to that damn door.

~~~
ianai
If the twilight zone taught me anything, it's that humanity will always have a
rebel. If you make life so safe and easy that free will is no longer necessary
someone will demand free will.

~~~
ht85
We might get to the point where society is so safe and easy that insurance
company start selling "Risks and Uncertainty" packages.

~~~
ianai
That reminds me of the TNG episode where two sides of a war long ago switched
to simulating attacks. When there's a strike the casualties are required to
report to termination "centers" to comply with the simulation.

~~~
carapace
That was Star Trek original series, Season 1 Episode 23, "A Taste of
Armageddon". Brilliant episode.

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

~~~
ianai
Right, I TOTALLY said TOS. (Damn faulty memory!)

------
jpalomaki
For consumers this will be a choice between keeping their data private and
having intelligent systems that perform better.

So far I haven't seen much, but based on my limited experience I believe
customers are going to continue handing over their data to Google and Facebook
in exchange for personalised services.

The truth is, the only times my smartphone has actually felt _smart_ is when
Google has been mining my information from various services (mainly Gmail and
Calendar) and presented it to me at correct time, enhanced with other
information they have gathered from web.

I don't think there will be any major backslash from consumers. The old
comparison about boiling frog applies here.

~~~
msabalau
There 50 million domestic workers in the world: living, breathing, naturally
intelligence, autonomous human beings that people welcome into their homes.
Not surprising, given that during almost the entirety of our evolutionary
experience everyone one knew knew everything about one. The notion that people
would object to a company knowing some things about one in order to place
slightly more relevant ads is silly. It just doesn't seem that way in a
message board echochamber because their are rewards for self righteous
indignation, and not for making the commonplace observation that people
willingly make tradeoffs without being victims of "false consciousness".

~~~
internaut
Almost everybody screens their cleaners and babysitters in some way. Either
they are connected through well known friends and family, or for the rich they
get checked out for criminality/dangerousness by professional services.

Even then, we have 'nanny-cam'.

~~~
euyyn
Which is why giving your credit card info to Google, Apple, or Amazon is more
sensible than giving it to cheapelectronics.com.

------
aRationalMoose
I have an open ended question-- mostly born out of ignorance; But why is this
a bad thing? Isn't an artificial assistant that not only knows and understands
us but anticipates our needs incredibly useful? In the process, sure they'll
collect your info for better advertising, but short of Totalitarian
Surveillance or Data Breach Concerns (The former is a bit of a reach if you
live in the west, and they can survey you anyway if they really want to, the
latter also seems somewhat unlikely)-- whats the issue here? Genuinely asking
because I'm trying to understand.

~~~
falcolas
> But why is this a bad thing?

Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every
third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to
never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not
_that_ large.

Totalitarian Surveillance is here. In the west. Secure document releases
aside, it's too easy to do to imagine a state actor _not_ doing it.

Data breaches of differing severities occur every day, at nearly every
company. I would have thought Yahoo was big enough and smart enough to avoid
it; but no. Not Yahoo, not Sony, not security contractors, not credit bureaus,
not Apple (a'la celebrity photo leaks), not Google (stories abound of
individual GMail accounts being hacked).

~~~
zardeh
>Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every
third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to
never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not
that large.

(Have worked at google in the past, may in the future, am not currently). You
say this as though anyone at Google (or Microsoft or whatever) can go in and
search for 'falcolas' and look through your GPS history.

I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had
that power. I honestly think that the best thing Google could to is publicize
their internal training and documents on personal information, because the
regulations and such made me a lot more comfortable with giving Google the
sort of amorphous entity my data, because no person is going to be looking at
that data.

>, not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).

One of these is not like the others, unless you're talking about something I'm
not aware of. Hacking an individual GMail account requires guessing/taking
someone's password, which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure (Unlike
the yahoo, sony, apple, etc. examples), its an attack on a bad password.

~~~
falcolas
> [...] which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure

This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm
targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?

> I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had
> that power.

Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data? Could
the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many
external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal
forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable
if their data protection policies change)?

~~~
Klathmon
I'm sorry but if you think that far ahead, then how do you do anything?

Do you go out in public? because if you do, some company could be recording
you on CCTV, and the company that makes the CCTV equipment could sell the
business to Google who could update it to use the CCTV footage in AI learning,
which means that someone could eventually lookup your face and see you were at
a smut store 6 years ago.

At some point you need to draw the line, there is no perfect privacy.

~~~
falcolas
You are, of course, correct. Especially in this day and age, perfect privacy
is nearly impossible.

That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements
creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of
these Google implements.

People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from
correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them
of what it can cost them.

Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I
posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information
gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.

------
nojvek
Here's why I am afraid of Google. Google could have the best intentions, but
its wife NSA that Google occasionally sleeps with doesn't. Everything you say
to Google Home could possibly be recorded. Storage and Computing power for
google is cheap. They can record everything you say in your home. Their
algorithms can connect all sorts of information about you. If trump wants to
create the next Muslim holocaust, Google and FB have the perfect information.

This is what Elon means when he says AI is like inviting the devil. We have
this algorithm in our mushy brain. Its takes about 20 years to train and lives
for about 80 years. Its communication bitrate is pretty low (mostly blabbering
through mouth) and doesn't retain much information. Only patterns.

Now imagine this algorithm from the mushy brain is run on a silicon chip, with
gigabit bitrate, retains almost everything indefinitely and can learn from
entire history of humanity.

That algorithm would just need to deceive us until it was powerful enough to
wipe us in one sweep.

Google already manipulates humans psychologically to click on their ads en-
masse. Giving them more of your personal data is just feeding the devil.

~~~
witty_username
How does Google manipulate humans to click on their ads?

~~~
probably_wrong
The story of how Target discovers and targets recently pregnant women is a
good example [1].

An interesting quote: “we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks
she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that
everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long
as we don’t spook her, it works.”

There's no reason to believe Google isn't doing the same thing. And I strongly
suggest reading the original article[2], if only for the first two or three
paragraphs.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-
targe...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-
figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#598ee2f234c6)

[2] [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-
habit...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html)

~~~
witty_username
Sure, the ads are targeted specifically for you, that's not manipulation,
which would be misleading someone to do something.

I realize there's a grey area though.

------
iamleppert
"AI" is incredibly overhyped. Most of the features and applications I've seen
can be relegated into the "that's neat" category, before they are turned off
and never used again.

Google recently started telling me how heavy the traffic is on my commute
because they've figured out I do it every day, and when I'm doing it. That's
nice, but I don't care. I could already get that information from my car's GPS
and seeing how red the roads were.

I wonder how much infrastructure, fancy pants machine learning and effort when
it to just creating those useless alerts?

Google, as a problem, has already solved the problem they were created to
solve: search the Internet. Now they need to find something for all those
twiddling thumbs to do, so we get braindead features that tell me what I
already know.

~~~
peeters
> That's nice, but I don't care. I could already get that information from my
> car's GPS and seeing how red the roads were.

I guess people have different experiences. Personally, I know how to get home
from work, so I don't feel the need to turn on my GPS every time I drive home.
So I appreciate getting notified when there's notable variances in drive
times, without me having to look for it every day.

~~~
r00fus
How often is it correct? I use Waze infrequently (mostly it's turned off in
privacy) but it often gets things wrong (it's better than Apple's maps or
Google Maps).

I need to get home on time to pickup kids, but mostly just leave a bit
early...

------
swalsh
Imagine you're a something like a muslim in the US, and somoene like Trump is
elected 5 years from now. You've been here all your life, you have a job, you
pay your taxes, you're just a person who happens to be in the wrong place at
the wrong time. Much like a jewish person in Poland in the 1940's. Now even
back then, it was not easy to escape persecution... but it was possible. In a
google world though, there's nothing preventing a corrupt government, or even
a corrupt corporate governence from take over, or leveraging this data to your
disadvantage. Perhaps your car recognizes you, and locks you in until police
come, perhaps you felt safe enough to go to a bar, and that data was
forwarded.

Perhaps an exaggeration, the point is, even if you trust google today. There's
no guarantee that data will always be held by the people who are google today.
We know for a fact the NSA had access to all google data up until at least the
snowdon leaks. To me that's the concern about privacy, you have no idea how it
can be used AGAINST you in the future.

~~~
spiderfarmer
Everytime someone responds with "I have nothing to hide" I replied along the
same lines as you. But I thought about it a bit more and I think the data they
have on you is only a small problem when you look at how technology progressed
since WWII. Imagine how much easier it would have been today for the SS to
extract jews from their hiding places. We have satellites, helicopters with IR
camera's, hell, even radars that see through walls.

~~~
bduerst
Bad actors exist. Hence why with every new technology comes new responsibility
to use it properly - from nuclear fission to robotics to neural networks. That
doesn't mean we need to reference how WW2 Nazis would use it every time a new
technology is developed.

~~~
api
"What would the Nazis do with this?" is not wholly inappropriate. It's
basically a way of looking at the worst case failure mode, like asking "what
would happen to this nuclear reactor if all cooling and backup systems fail at
once?" or "what happens to people in the capsule if the rocket explodes during
max-Q?"

In this case it's "what's the danger of all this lazily deployed insecure
ubiquitous surveillance gear in a political worst case scenario like a descent
into totalitarianism, mafia statism, etc.?" That's not an unlikely thing.
Complex societies undergo bouts of collective insanity or descents into
pervasive corruption with disturbing regularity on historical time scales.

Personally I think the USA is one 9/11 scale (or worse) terrorist attack or
one seriously painful economic crash away from an American Putin or Chavez (or
worse). Which we get depends on which side manages to field the most
charismatic demagogue. If that happens all this total surveillance stuff will
be mobilized against dissenters on an industrial scale and _with a significant
amount of public support_.

You limit things like surveillance to limit moral hazard. Future generations
are likely to look back on the wanton deployment of all this stuff and say
"what were they thinking!??!?"

~~~
bduerst
>You limit things like surveillance to limit moral hazard.

Not quite sure how you got that out of "with every new technology comes new
responsibility". That's neither singling out surveillance nor limiting to
moral hazard.

------
throwaway98237
From the article- "In other words, your daily business is Google’s business."

From Google- "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make
it universally accessible and useful."

One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's
information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information, and then expect
their consumers to give them a pass and not call them to account for how they
privatize user information.

Looking at the information that Google organizes and makes accessible and
useful I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water
temperature history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented
when compared to "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search
history", "an archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via
Nest", "who I associate with via Google's communication suite". Google is
organizing exactly that data which Google can monetize, which is not the
world's data. Not a lot of people want to buy data on deforestation so it's
much more difficult to get Google to put resources into that. How many people
chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll never know, and
Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable data set.

Simply stated, Google needs to stop acting benevolent and start fessing up to
attempting to be omniscient in order to be all knowing about its users, not
"the world's data".

~~~
tantalor
[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation)

~~~
throwaway98237
First off let me put this out there, people that send me "lmgtfy" links annoy
the f#ck-sh#t out of me. I'm proficient at utilizing search engines, thanks
pal.

More directly to the point, I was (clearly) comparing the _relative_ resources
Google invests in some data sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google
invests comparable resources in this type of data compared to the resources it
invests in understanding Google's users' data sets?

~~~
euyyn
Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Earth data for researchers existed
before the Google Assistant was even an idea.

Not sure what your point is, either: do you want to get a notification in the
morning saying "try to leave early today, as an accident has caused increased
traffic," along with another one saying "remember to save to buy an electric
car"?

~~~
throwaway98237
Not talking directly to the awesomeness of each of their individual products,
which I would be the first to admit, they have many. And not speaking directly
to their Assistant product. Before Google Assistant there indeed were those
other products, which, I honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they
aren't exactly great counter arguments. My central point was, Google puts it's
resources best where there is the best return. I did not say, Google never
created anything which makes non monetized information more freely available.
With this being Google's central philosophy and guiding corporate light, it's
a hard sell to continue to paint it as a benefactor to all of humanity.

Gmail was initially a product started by one guy at Google, and was not a
project born out of Google corporate philosophy or business strategy. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail)

Google Books has been mired in lawsuits brought by the Authors Guild and the
Association of American Publishers with the issues including copyright,
privacy, censorship issues. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement)

Re: Google Earth... This one is fully being leveraged for monetization,
especially with mobile's commercial possibilities finally being realized. From
Wikipedia: "Google Earth is a virtual globe, map and geographical information
program that was originally called EarthViewer 3D created by Keyhole, Inc, a
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004
(see In-Q-Tel)."

some more reading on one take on Google books:
[http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-
happene...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happened-to-
google-books) [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-
books-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-
a-lib_b_317518.html) [https://gigaom.com/2013/01/14/google-books-and-the-
librarian...](https://gigaom.com/2013/01/14/google-books-and-the-librarian-
backlash/)
[http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2011/09/the_google_books_projec...](http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2011/09/the_google_books_project_now_t.html)
[https://www.wired.com/2009/05/libraries-warn-of-
censorship-p...](https://www.wired.com/2009/05/libraries-warn-of-censorship-
privacy-cost-in-googles-digital-library/)
[https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_...](https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/award_articles/6.4baksik.pdf)

~~~
euyyn
Again, what's your point? That it's bad that Google tries to make a business
out of organizing the world's information? It's the only way to keep doing it.
You say:

> One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's
> information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information

One wonders what's that 99.9% that you miss. You mention:

> I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water temperature
> history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented

What equal representation do you want? A notification when you arrive at home
telling you "this is some new discovery on dolphin linguistics"? For what it's
worth, even that I'd bet you can get, by letting Google Now know of your
interest in the topic, or subscribing to a science news channel in YouTube.

> How many people chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll
> never know, and Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable
> data set.

Is it even known? Google's certainly not going to do the research; research
isn't organizing. Would such an investigation even get funding from anyone, to
pay the researcher? But supposing it's done, and it's published in some paper
or some book, what's your best chance at finding it? Google Search, Scholar,
or Books.

> I was (clearly) comparing the relative resources Google invests in some data
> sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google invests comparable resources in
> this type of data compared to the resources it invests in understanding
> Google's users' data sets?

> Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I
> honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great
> counter arguments.

Because before Google was investing a dollar in any of:

> "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search history", "an
> archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via Nest", "who
> I associate with via Google's communication suite"

it was already investing plenty of resources in those products I mentioned.

~~~
throwaway98237
Troll?

~~~
euyyn
If you prefer that, instead of answering :)

~~~
throwaway98237
troll.

------
spac
I'm confused as to why in this thread there's very little contrastive
commentary on the different stance taken by Apple and Google about privacy.

Apple has made preserving user privacy a paramount goal, investing in research
and technology to achieve it with minimal loss (however much it is) of
(intelligent) functionality.

I find that a very strong point for the Cupertino based company.

(edited for legibility)

~~~
irq-1
Apple wants (or wanted?) control for themselves. DRM everything; control the
products after sale; wall the garden. They became the thing they hated back in
1984.

After Snowden made Apples collaboration with the government economically
untenable, Apple may now be willing to let users have control. They fought the
FBI to protect privacy on a transparently political charade. They've built
hardware and software key protection into the iPhone.

But this is a change, and maybe it's a lie, or maybe it will change back, or
maybe they just won't succeed. I'm not rushing out to buy a Mac Book.

~~~
isaaaaah
I am sorry, but you still believe apple is safe? I mean id love to believe in
that there still is some part of tech left, that will not be the reason for
reprisals.

------
thr0waway1239
The idea behind so called checks and balances in the political arena is now
needed in the tech arena - more specifically the megacorp arena.

People say, competition will ultimately take care of it. Yet, there really
isn't a serious competitor for Google's search engine. And don't even get me
started about social networking with respect to your private lives, where the
only player is FB as far as I can see.

People say they don't want the government involved, and often for good reason.
But if there is no expectation that these tech giants will self-police when it
comes to privacy, and people don't want these organizations to be policed by
the government either, then how exactly does this play out? How far is too far
before we start demanding more respect for our rights from these
organizations?

Another thing to think about: when dealing with tangible goods, the creative
destruction of capitalism is somewhat reasonable to justify because it is
usually easy to see. How does it work with information? Suppose FB just
completely blew it for a few quarters in a row, and starts tottering towards
its demise, what happens to the "defensible barrier" called data? Does it
belong to FB to do as it sees fit, like the assets of a company about to be
liquidated? Or is FB going to "return" it to the people from whom it got it?
If some other company now got possession of its assets, including data, what
is the expectation around what are reasonable uses for such info? Or, is FB,
with its trove of data about every single person who has held government
office, now just too big to fail?

And all this can be asked just of the data that FB collects from you directly
by asking you to fill it in. What about the stuff that it "infers" behind the
scenes? What about the "connections" it adds to its social graph without your
permission in order to provide a "local marketplace" which apparently gets rid
of the "private information" challenge? [1] Not that Google is any better in
this regards, of course.

I think the time has come for some serious thinking about checks and balances
in the privacy arena.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12628808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12628808)

------
mrgreenfur
This is literally the perfect end-game for an advertising company: total
awareness of need under the guise of 'optimization' or 'AI enhancement'. They
can see what your'e searching for, where you're going, when you run out of
Mayo in your GoogleFridgeAppAssistant. What better way to offer ads than EVERY
time you have a want? It's an advertising utopia!

~~~
corobo
If they tag on a "where the heck did I leave x" search engine while building
out the technology I'm down for the MayoGoogleFridgeAppAss

------
thsealienbstrds
Just a couple of thoughts.

Is the market really so bad that Google needs to invade people's privacy to
this extent in order to grow?

I bet Google's CEO will not use the products himself. Google is almost
behaving like a pusher, promising people comfort at the expense of their
livelihood (the chilling effect).

Perhaps this should simply be illegal. If people want a personalized AI
assistant, why not train the AI on the user's device? I seriously doubt that
it has to know everything about everybody's behavior in order to know some
things about the user's behavior.

------
pmyjavec
You really have to wonder who truly needs / wants AI in their lives? It's
really just being pushed on. Google should be careful not to make themselves
irrelevant.

I've been experimenting spending less time with my devices and it's hard
because I'm addicted, but life is more fun when it's being lived and not
having to even think about technology, leaving devices of all kinds at home
and just sitting in a park is a real luxury.

~~~
ianai
You just answered your own question. A truly awesome AI assistant would be as
minimally present as you prefer. If all you do is talk to AI you don't need to
interact with a tablet screen, for instance. If you figure out how to make
people productive with that then you may have an idea of the next big thing.

~~~
pmyjavec
Yes but the way it seems to have panned out is we need to constantly feed the
machine?

Thing is, I just don't need AI for everyday things. AI to help solve big
engineering, medical problems, great, but to help me schedule my life, not
really.

Even when travelling, things like Google maps and translte just isolate and
distract me in someways. Asking a local about something is really helpful and
you can get more out of the intraction than just directions. It's rare
language truly is a barrier I find.

I'm even questioning how much I really need a smart phone, it is mostly just a
distraction. I remember actually being socially pressured into owning one when
I was 18. Never actually stopped and asked myself if I need one, it's just
some thing has become a "must have".

I know what you're saying about AI being out of the way though, and it would
be excellent, if however; it was completely my data, it worked for me and not
for a third party. For example, kept my data private for me, while paying my
bills, that might be nice. But basically it would work to keep me focused on
the real world, which could be achieved without tech ?

I might sound a by anti-progress here , but It would be nice to just see the
right progress.

------
blhack
I guess, reading through these comments, that I'm the only one who _wants_
this future? Yes, sign me up, google. I'll give you more of my information, if
you can take it. Can I wear an implant that measures my heart rate, body fat
content, blood pressure, glucose level, and brain activity as well? Because as
soon as I can I will be the first in line for it.

What some of you don't seem to realize, (and this happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE
of these threads) is that:

1) AI is not magic. Yes, we call it "AI", but you use words like "know" as if
there is a conscious entity that "knows" something about you. The AI doesn't
"know" anything. It's a computer.

2) Yes, actually you _can_ opt out if you want to. Get a flip phone, don't use
google services, use an adblocker, block javascripts that you don't like,
don't send emails to gmail addresses, etc. Just don't use their services if
you don't want them. Yeah, this might be harder. It might feel like you are
living in the 1990s/1980s, but it sounds like that is what some of you want.

I, however, want a future where an AI can tell me things like "Flights to
Shenzhen are really cheap right now, and you have the discretionary income to
afford a trip there. Here is a possible itinerary for you based on the types
of things I know you are interested in. You could leave this Saturday and
there is nothing on your calendar that you need to be at for the week."

Or

"I noticed that you have been bicycling a lot lately, and based on the
patterns of where you go, I think that the following bike trail would be
interesting to you. The route is loaded up on your phone already."

The other thing: google is an advertising company. Yes, because I know this, I
am able to take this into account when listening to google's suggestions. But
here's the thing: I like being [well] advertised to. I have discretionary
income, that is WHY I HAVE A JOB. I am going to spend that money on things. If
there is an AI that is helping me find the perfect nexus of things I want and
things that I can afford, that is a GOOD thing. That is helping me more
efficiently spend the money that I got.

Yes this stuff is subtle. Yes this stuff is pervasive. No we don't need _yet
another_ "2edgyforme" "if you aren't the customer you're the PRODUCT" articles
about google.

------
lubujackson
I think there are two problems with this suite of crap from Google: the
privacy issues and the fact that Google is putting corporate objectives ahead
of creating useful things.

It's clear Google wants to "own the home" and all their products were built to
further this goal (rather than be useful themselves). This is why Google
bought Nest for 12 jillion dollars. And it's why the iWatch failed and Google
Glass failed - right now, these are niche products that barely have purpose.

Now this stuff may become integral to our lives, as depicted in so many sci-fi
stories, but if they become embedded in our lives and are wholly owned by one
huge company, that should be terrifying to everyone.

Here are some real world reasons why: a virus is installed on your Google box
through your wifi - now house robbers know everything about your schedule and
habits. Your parent goes through your every personal action to make sure you
aren't getting in trouble. A spouse uses the system to track your every
movement and make sure you aren't cheating. And of course, the gov't has
access to all of this data by default. Imagine being a famous celebrity with
every action in your house known and accessible to any gov't peon with access
and a bit of curiousity. This isn't some conspiracy theory, this is exactly
the access Snowden had (and he was a contractor).

It isn't what these products are, it's the direction they represent: complete
surveillance of every personal action, stored and owned by one monolithic
corporation and the government. And not only is this is sort of where we are
heading, it's Google's clearly stated objective.

It reminds me of the 50s when plastics were going to revolutionize
everything... which they did, but we melted off the ozone layer before
realizing the consequences of slapping new technology across the world.
Especially when the benefits are so minimal and the threats are so real -
imagine McCarthy with the type of access and control these devices would
provide if Google succeeds in pushing this across 80% of homes.

------
yodon
When IR remotes hit college campuses, the game was to shut off someone else's
TV through an open door. There's even a one button remote from that era that
shuts off any TV in sight [0]. Voice control is like IR on steroids.

Guest at house party: "Ok google, show naked pictures of [host's ex-
girlfriend]"

[0] [https://www.tvbgone.com](https://www.tvbgone.com)

~~~
VLM
It happens. I've been rickrolled by an acquaintance yelling "Alexa play never
gonna give you up by rick astley" thru a screen window. Its gonna be a
widespread cultural thing once Hollywood inevitably uses it in a movie or TV
show as a joke. I don't watch that stuff, maybe that's where he got the idea
it would be "funny" to team up with Alexa to rickroll me.

I find privacy anxiety to be much like electric car range anxiety. Once you
have the product its not an issue, it drops to zero, but debate on the
internet is extremely hot and heavy right before widespread adoption kicks
off. Enormous amounts of toxic anxiety and paranoia bleeding out all over
stuff that in practice after deployment just doesn't matter. In other online
venues I've been worried about causing heart attacks by suggesting my next car
will be electric, and this topic is about the same here.

------
kbenson
Does anyone else find the tone of this article off-putting? I mean, I _agree_
with the author, but the presentation feels like fear-mongering. Maybe this is
what we need to get people to pay attention to the details, but I
instinctively mistrust things I perceive as trying to appeal to by fear at a
base level, and this triggers that fairly heavily.

I have very conflicted feelings about this article.

~~~
kllrnohj
It reads very heavy on the tinfoil-hattery. Particularly with things like
Google Home's mute button. The single _advertised_ feature of the device is
that it's always listening and the author is somehow shocked or confused by
the fact that you have to push a button to have it not listen? So much so that
they thought it was worth cramming in some stupid sounding snide remark about
"true intentions"? That tone immediately undermines the entire rest of the
piece.

------
davidcgl
Many readers are skeptical about the usefulness of personal AI assistants.
This reminds me of what Jeff Bezos said about disruptive technologies [1],
which I think resonates well among many tech company executives. You (they)
need to be willing to be doubted for a very long time.

[1] [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos-
innovation/](http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos-innovation/)

 _Any time you do something big, that’s disruptive — Kindle, AWS — there will
be critics. And there will be at least two kinds of critics. There will be
well-meaning critics who genuinely misunderstand what you are doing or
genuinely have a different opinion. And there will be the self-interested
critics that have a vested interest in not liking what you are doing and they
will have reason to misunderstand. And you have to be willing to ignore both
types of critics. You listen to them, because you want to see, always testing,
is it possible they are right?_

------
wisevehicle
The reaction to this seems awkwardly negative when contrasted with the praise
that gushed for Amazon's Alexa products. I am having a hard time tracking why
folks seem to feel so differently about google and Amazon having similar
access to personal information.

~~~
sib
People have a very different perception of their relationship with Amazon
(and, similarly, Apple) and their relationship with Google.

Amazon sells you stuff in exchange for money.* This is a clearly understood
type of transaction that people understand.

Google gives you stuff in exchange for being able to "sell your eyeballs" to
third parties. And, most people actually believe that Google sells your data
to those third parties, even though that's not the case, which gets at the
fact that this model is not as well-understood.

As far as hardware design:

Echo provides a clear and prominently-placed button (right on top), with an
LED light indicating when it's muting the microphone; when the button is
active, the entire indicator ring also lights up. This button has equal
prominence with the button that can be used to manually activate Alexa. The
existence of this button was highlighted when Amazon introduced Echo.

Google Home places the button on the back side of the device, when there is
clearly a "front," as defined by the tilt of the top surface. The existence of
this button was not highlighted in the introduction at I/O.

* Yes, Amazon also runs an advertising network. Most people don't really know this. And it's a very, very small part of their business.

------
jklinger410
I'm not worried what the engineers who built this will know about me. I'm not
worried that Google will centralize this data so if someone hacked it and
could drill through the data they could find me.

I'm worried about who Google wants to sell this information to and what they
want to do with it. I'm worried about Google working with intelligence
agencies to try and target me politically, feed me propaganda, or put me on
some list of undesirables.

We can have an ultra-smart AI that does everything for me without worrying
about these things. I don't want to pay with my personal information, I want
to pay with money. I want Google to stay out of my life.

~~~
srean
I am more worried about subpoena on steroids than individual hackers. Big
budget crackers are a different thing.

> I'm worried about Google working with intelligence agencies to try and
> target me politically, feed me propaganda, or put me on some list of
> undesirables.

This.

------
isaaaaah
If 100 people do A after doing B and you are the 101st who does not want to do
A, is it your fault or that of the algorithm? This is no "artificial
intelligence" it is a fitness, a mutation and an evolution function, without
any true randomness or "chaos" prediction (predicting the future...), but with
added Advertising hidden between your reccomendations. Like they can not build
flying cars so they reinvent the hovercraft. Aimed at the Internet of things,
which will be the biggest tech bubble known to mankind. Sorry i have to vent
that somewhere, but all my communication platforms have already been shut
down.

------
daemonk
I am not trying to inject my opinion. I am looking for genuine discussion. The
idea of privacy has always been kind of vague to me. Where do we draw the line
of acceptable information sharing and not? If a company is collecting data on
our behavior and changing their practices accordingly to maximize their
profits, is that immoral? Isn't that essentially A/B testing? The practice of
using that data in a potentially manipulative way might be immoral, but is the
best way to prevent that really to completely not share anything?

~~~
tremon
There is no line saying how much is ok. "Privacy" as a concept is the
embodiment of personal choice. And everyone may choose differently, in
different situations. The only "line" there is, is about whether that choice
is voluntary and informed.

------
losteverything
It's ok Google.

Television was ok, too. I used to watch. All the time. TV was the glue that
kept us together. Now it's the acid that tears us apart. I no longer use a
television.

Google. I love your maps. Your directions. Your free storage. And my earning a
living never requires to use you, Google. Just like my TV.

I do expect Google to become something that I no longer desire. Just like the
TV. And I think Google won't be able to control or predict it either. Just
like tv.

------
usgroup
Prerequisite to personal AI worth a damn is data about you worth a damn.

It'd seem windows 10 is setting Microsoft up for this. Google is following
suite with its own hardware.

Central task is to infer what you want and help you achieve it, but further,
your AI can ask you questions too to work out all sorts of things subtely.

i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or
"raw material" and regulate its extraction and trade as such.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
My problem isn't with the AI having my data; it's with the company that
created the AI having my data. That might be necessary to make an AI assistant
practical using current technology, but it's not an inherent requirement.

~~~
quickben
Arguably, at a scale, it is cheaper for every separate device to process it's
own voice-to-text and automate things.

But, doing it offline, has no incentive for advertising companies.

Universities / home automation companies / etc would be probably be more
incentivized to develop that.

So, any advances in AI, if they come in the 'always online' will come with
strings attached. It is not _your_ AI optimization software, it's somebody's
else.

------
hackuser
It's not just a matter of personal preference. It's well known that mass
surveillance is a powerful tool of oppression.

Oppression is not a theoretical idea and not only an historical problem:
Government mass-murder in the Philippines, the oppression of Muslims in
Europe, of a large religious group in Turkey, of Tartars by Russia (in
Ukraine's Crimean province), of so many people in Syria, of populations in all
the oppressive countries in the world. The U.S. election could result in
oppression of Muslims, Latinos, blacks and others; some U.S. cities already
use 'predictive policing' to identify and harass private citizens - what will
happen if Muslims becomes an open target? And don't forget anyone who has any
interaction with Muslims. Such things have been going on since the dawn of
humanity and unfortunately will continue.

The idea that Google and other commercial mass surveillance will not be used
for these purposes is a dangerous, irresponsible fantasy; it's lazy, head-in-
the-sand thinking, akin to climate change denial: We haven't died yet is the
only argument. These systems are not and will not be kept out of government
hands: Government already has broad access, as is well known (National
Security Letters, NSA spying, Yahoo's recent revelation, etc.). Laws can be
made at any time giving government more access, and they will in climate of
oppression. Many obtain illicit access, as we know, from the NSA to foreign
criminals to antagonistic nation-states. And it assumes that the companies
want to deny access; inevitably, some CEO of AllYourDataCorp will support
government surveillance and be prejudiced against Muslims or immigrants or
blacks. Likely, at least one already is doing it.

IMHO, while it disrupts our plans for IT and wealth, it's absurd to think
otherwise.

------
marwatk
We are in the mainframe/terminal era of AI right now. Just like with early
computing we don't yet have the local resources to do AI locally, so we're
using terminals accessing the cloud. The consequence is our data also lives
there. It will inevitably change and a personal AI and relevant data will live
in your pocket instead (for those that would prefer a limited but more private
version).

------
quickben
Well, they came a long way for an advertising company. Most usually die from
ad-blockers, but they dodged most of these bullets it seem.

Moving to voice-to-text everything android, just seems as a logical extension
to advertise/sell data even more.

Whether is ethical or legal, it doesn't seem to concern them at all when
profits are in question.

------
raverbashing
And that's why I turned Google Now off (but still use some other Google
services)

------
throw2016
Anyone with a passing acquintance of history and the insideousness of
surveillance and will not be blase about privacy or casually trade it in for
trivial conveniences that hardly merit the word ai.

You many not 'personally' need privacy or freedom at this point in your life
but to casually dismiss it out of hand and fail to consider its import for a
functioning democractic society is beyond reckless. Its just one of those
things you don't need until till you do.

And thankfully individuals aren't in a position to trade that away unless they
can write a new constitution and convince everyone to get on board.

All surveillance does is compromise your society in a fundamental way, and in
this case just to add to Google bottom line and ramp up Google's creepiness
factor even more. That's a bad deal.

------
taurath
Here's the thing - we're starting to get into territory where we can actually
add real value for people again in terms of helping them plan their day, and
actually have real AI assistants, computers from Star Trek, what have you. The
value here is pretty easy to understand. The problem is that they're all being
pushed by advertising companies who make all their money by learning and
selling every single bit of information about you.

I want a startup that provides services like this but treats your personal
location, correspondence, and behaviors like tax returns and credit card
numbers. If we can achieve a good measure of safety and privacy in our
messaging apps, we can do it for this sort of data.

------
isaaaaah
If it constantly needs data in order to calculate predictions, then it is no
artificial intelligence. It is plain Software, like a calculator. The only
reason it is called artificial intelligence is because that would be the only
reason to adopt this technology.

Again, it might be neat, having a computer like on star trek, but what if you
oppose your government? What if you oppose anything, and suddenly your toaster
burns down your house, locks you out, locks you in, reports your every move?

Look at Manning, look at Snowden, look at Assange. They opposed and now they
get terrorized by the govrnment and the software they once happily used to
use. Look at how i will be treated right here by others.

Stop this Masspsychosis.

------
boardwaalk
Are there any open source/self-hosted projects that do some of what Alexa,
Google Assistant, Google Now, Siri do?

Even without the manpower/big data/processing power of a big co I'm sure we
could create something that's somewhat useful.

------
rwbcxrz
I seem to remember having a lot of the same feelings during the Apple event
last month. The Nike+ Apple Watch will "helpfully suggest gear" for your
workouts.

Ads have become utterly pervasive, and avoiding using Google's AI isn't going
to protect you from them. My Samsung "Smart" TV has ads for Hulu built right
into the operating system (despite my being a Hulu subscriber at the time).
Windows 10 is basically one big advertisement (at least the consumer edition).

If I have to have ads blasted in my face all the time, I'll take Google's AI-
driven ones that at least stand a chance of being less annoying.

------
optimuspaul
Nobody is seeing the obvious benefits here. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't
have to really think anymore? Google can just tell me what to eat, what to
wear, when to pee, etc. I for one welcome our AI overlords.

------
pmoriarty
People will come to value their privacy more if/when they or their loved ones
become victims of harassment, stalking, blackmail, or identity theft as a
result of their data being abused, leaked, or stolen.

------
KirinDave
What I think is really interesting about this conversation is the _total lack
of conversation_. Any and all data collection is either completely harmless
(from the corporate narrative) or the end of all liberty and privacy (from the
EFF narrative and their leech-like tech rag clickbait headlines, sup
techcrunch, you're still the problem!).

There is no concept of even discussing that this might be a tradeoff or a
shift in what is perceived as private. There is no consideration given to how
we might still do these things that people want while protecting their data.
There's no consideration for how people's lives are changed in different ways
by this tech.

Nope. It's either a total gain or a total loss.

And that is the real problem here. People are applying their political bad
habits to what _should_ be a reasonable and sensitive discussion about the
varying levels of tradeoffs we should be willing to give and what the net good
we can extract from this technology.

A great example is street view. Street view ultimately has enabled extremely
detailed and powerful navigation, complete with a ton of ways to do real time
traffic detection. Most people using apps that benefit from this data would
say that's a net good, and in general as the tech evolves and traffic
distributes more efficiently then urban environments see a similar positive
effect.

Of course, the tradeoff is that I can scan a snapshot of your street and if
you were there playing football with your kid, walking your dog, or publicly
exposing yourself then minus your face I'm going to be able to see all that.

What makes these kind of issues even less clear is that street view enables
self-driving car technology (we need the detailed and constantly updated nav
systems for them). Self-driving car technology has the potential to totally
transform some neighborhoods, has _massive_ potential for assisting disabled
people, can completely change the way we ship goods and thusly preserve oil
and energy resources for generations to come. But it also has the potential to
be a new way for the upper and rich classes of the world to completely cut out
service industries and further alienate the economic middle and lower classes.

Why is this meaningful? Because _if we don 't talk about them then we can't
help shape them_. If we understand the implications as a society and demand
commensurate good from these private industries then it can be an incredible
boon to our societies. If we don't, then one of these extremist sides will win
and all options for a middle ground where we get benefits and have tradeoffs
will be excluded.

That's a terrible outcome.

------
tempodox
> ... your daily business is Google’s business.

I can see the day coming where this is their primary marketing slogan.

------
kafkaesq
_The scope of Alphabet’s ambition for the Google brand is clear: it wants
Google’s information organizing brain to be embedded right at the domestic
center — i.e. where it’s all but impossible for consumers not to feed it with
a steady stream of highly personal data._

Unless, that is, you never buy any of that junk in the first place -- because
like, who needs most, if any of it, anyway? -- and keep going on with your
life. Which was humming along just fine before the IoT came along, after all.

~~~
jwmullally
God I am loving the justified hatred in this thread :D

I agree that in many respects the current corporate push for the Internet-Of-
Things is mainly a wild-west style landgrab for self-serving integration into
our daily lives.

However I don't think the IoT has to be this way.

I want all my IoT devices to _only_ communicate to my home gateway, which
would run open-source drivers for each device to provide the networking
functionality. Problem solved. I don't know why this approach isn't getting
more focus!

------
Nano2rad
It is wrong even to ask us permission to let Google and also Apple monitor
microphone all the time. If that becomes norm, there has to be hardware switch
to disable microphone.

------
abandonliberty
This is the future.

To remain competitive people will adopt new technologies. Google
assistant/cloud, self driving cars, CRISPR. Consider what people gain and lose
with each new technology, such as the ability to drive, a bio-engineered kill
switch, or control their own hardware (windows 10).

All new technologies can be compromised. The ability to process the extreme
amounts of data we are generating is already at previously unimaginable
levels. Political dissidents or those who interfere with corporate interests
can be identified and silenced with false evidence (pedophilia!); media
control; and personally targeted DoS of finances, cloud services, etc.

This is the ability to control the world. The corporate world is
disincentivized from doing anything about it, and governments don't really get
it as evidenced by their hoarding of zero-days [0].

There's a war going on right now. It's terrifying, and awesome. Throw in some
global climate change and our next 50 years are going to get interesting.

When the end comes I'll be that crotchety old guy who knows how to DRIVE A CAR
and use a general purpose computer.

Hack the planet!

Here is what was possible in 2011:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528544)
[0][https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/the_nsa_is_ho...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/the_nsa_is_hoar.html)

------
Waterluvian
I was pissed when Google suggested I take pictures of the restaurant I was in
and submit them.

------
AJ007
Something to think about -- making the assumption that in the future, a bunch
chunk of things currently done with search engines and forms are done by voice
command:

Ok Google, order new toilet paper -- order is routed to any ecommerce provider
which outbids everyone else to fulfill the order.

Alexa, order new toilet paper -- order copies previous toilet paper order and
goes to merchant with lowest advertised price that reports to have that
specific product.

Hey Siri, order new toilet paper -- ?

~~~
gok
Siri supports a limited version of this today. "Siri, get me a ride" will show
which ride apps are available (say, Uber, Lyft and Curb, if you have those
installed)

It's interesting you assume that Google will route you to the lowest bidder.
When I search for "New toilet paper" on Google right now, the top 6 results
are advertisements. Why would they want to anger their customers and allow you
ignore them?

------
MichaelMoser123
Imagine the storage implications - i mean they have a hard time to store every
click we make with the mouse, now they will have to store every noise and
breath we make as well. I see a data store with the size of Canada.

Also how do they plan to make money besides the initial cost of the gadget?
Can they push adds while driving? would be too intrusive, or is this supposed
to be based on monthly payment, or a tax? Google for government! Wall-E might
be needed to clean up the mess after them.

i didn't know that Sting said in 1983 that his song is really a nasty song
about surveillance; at least they have an anthem for promotion purposes.
[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=548](http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=548)

Now i really don't think that personal assistants are going to be a success.
They do descriptive modelling based on what you do, there is no way to
evaluate if the suggestions are any good. Without such an evaluation they
can't do reinforcement learning. Also they might suck in too much data - that
would make it harder to make meaningful suggestions.

------
leecarraher
I'm always confused by articles bemoaning the AI and tech revolutions, written
in magazines that expound new tech revolutions.

I understand Apple and the EFF are staunchly against merging products
databases involving the same user's data, but for me this is an essential
feature of the google ecosystem. I can ask for traffic and have directions
appear on my phone while driving, play movies on the tv that i am looking at
instead of my phone, audibly alert me to meetings while at home or work, and
turn the lights on and off in the place that I am.

I don't think they are misleading people, the mute button pretty strongly
implies the duality that you can't hear and un-hear things post-hoc. In
addition they dont hide the fact that you are talking to a computer at a
company by obfuscating it with some quasi-futuristically named caricature. As
is often with these article "always listening" is far more misleading, an
embedded keyword processor is listening for keywords, and only if they match
the phrase "ok google" are they sent to google servers. otherwise it just sits
there sharing nothing.

~~~
kstrauser
I'll note that my iPhone can do all those things but without my data leaving
my own hardware (or at least not unencrypted). You don't _have_ to ship all
your data offsite for the functions you enjoy. It's just that Google would
rather examine all your data in-house, presumably for their own benefit and
not for ours.

------
mark_l_watson
With faster multi-core CPUs, much more RAM and SSD, smartphones are probably
powerful enough to run a privacy respecting AI assistant locally: watch your
web access, phone access, location, and do all processing locally with no data
leakage. Ideally it would be open source, or at least from a trusted company
that made money only from selling the app, and not off of our personal data.

------
Kevin_S
So I see both sides of this privacy/AI debate going on and am wondering, what
is the solution? Is it technically feasible to create a useful future AI
without compromising privacy? Because if not, I fear for our future. While I
agree with what everyone on the privacy side is saying, I believe in the long
run the consumer value AI will win, leading us down this path.

------
lima
The new assistant in Allo which automatically suggests message replies to
images by detecting what's in the image... it scares me.

------
JustSomeNobody
Ok, so no personal assistants and high-tech homes for anyone. Done. There, you
happy now? Because if Google isn't being fed all that data, it can't provide
those things. You either have it or you don't.

Edit: I've made this point before, but your data is a currency. Spend it
wisely (or even not at all). It's up to you.

------
grandalf
It's fascinating to think about how exciting this technology is -- passive
monitoring by helpful AI that can drastically increase convenience and
efficiency.

But we've seen that Google is happy to turn over massive amounts of customer
data to government without a warrant and without alerting customers to the
practice, which makes the technology seem ominous.

First the GPS, then the microphone, then the camera, accelerometers, 3D touch
sensors, etc. Gait, affect, and all sorts of factors will be able to predict
criminal behavior before it happens.

Let's hope the next generation of tech giants will take customer privacy and
freedom seriously and avoid the dark patterns and privacy violations of the
current era.

Only now, when it's likely too late, can we actually get a glimpse of the sort
of Orwellian dystopia that so many have warned about in decades past.

------
anondon
The idea behind ZeroDB might be applicable here.

All data generated by a user is encrypted and stored in the cloud with the
decryption keys on the user's device. This way, the service provider (eg
Google) can't read your data. The major advantage of this approach is that the
user is in complete control of the data. The drawback is that service
providers and AI systems will be starved of data that enable targeted
ads/recommendations.

A good middle ground might be to offer users an option : 1) Give us your data
2) Pay up and we will not collect _any_ data.

Thinking deeply about the state of the internet, I think we have to move
towards a model where users pay for services they use if privacy is a concern.
As it stands, a lot of services offer free services in exchange for our data
which is monetized through ads.

------
jamoes
What I'd like to see is some good open source software that can compete with
Google Assistant, Siri, and Alexa. It looks like there are some promising
projects, but nothing turn-key yet. I'd like to be able to simply apt-get a
package, and have voice recognition on my box.

~~~
sib
Voice (technically speech) recognition is relatively close to being doable at
acceptable quality with open source tools.

The hard parts of the Assistant, Alexa, etc., are basically everything else.

------
azinman2
I think it's right for people in the know to be concerned. The direction has
all kinds of possible disastrous consequences. But it also has lots of amazing
dual-use possibilities for making our lives more fluid, and technology more
magical. You can't deny both.

Trying to take some big stand against it I don't believe will work. Look at
all those who took a stand against the 2nd Iraq war -- they were drowned out.
And now everyone thinks the opposite. Culture/society always pushes a
particular direction until there's a very big disastrous reason to think
otherwise. Until something clearly really really bad happens this is the track
we're on, like it or not.

------
tobbe2064
Reading this brings the thoughts to Kahlil Gibrans book the Profet. The
section "On Houses" reads:

...

Or have you only comfort, and the lust for comfort, that stealthy thing that
enters the house a guest, and becomes a host, and then a master? Ay, and it
becomes a tamer, and with hook and scourge makes puppets of your larger
desires. Though its hands are silken, its heart is of iron. It lulls you to
sleep only to stand by your bed and jeer at the dignity of the flesh. It makes
mock of your sound senses, and lays them in thistledown like fragile vessels.
Verily the lust for comfort murders the passion of the soul, and then walks
grinning in the funeral.

...

------
jimkri
I was really against getting updates about where I usually travel or other
notifications that are constantly tracking me. But after a while I really like
some of the tracking and notifications. Now I love when google reminds me to
leave for a appointment and gives me directions, it really saves.

I do hate being tracked, but I have slowly started to like the connivence of
it. Having all my information on Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram, and everything
else privacy has really gone down. If my Nexus 5x can save me time, I will
sacrifice some privacy.

------
pmontra
> We are excited about building a personal Google for everyone, everywhere

Not a problem if it run on an appliance at my home, disconnected from all the
other appliances in other people homes. That would be a truly personal Google.

------
hhsnopek
The trade off here is technological advancements in AI for lose of Privacy.
Everyone can have their own opinion on this but in reality, consumers are the
best for collecting data. The great thing about the grand scheme of it all is
that if you don't like the privacy you're giving up, don't use it. There's
always going to be the lesser known alternative that doesn't track any of your
data. I don't see why articles like this arise as it's clear as day that
without tracking and getting analytics, AI won't improve.

------
piyush_soni
From the article: _So the actual price for building a “personal Google for
everyone, everywhere” would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere._

That has no basis. It is completely possible to do what they are doing by
keeping everyone's individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's privacy
policy, that's exactly what they are doing. And I think it's in their best
interest to keep it that way, because the day it comes out in public that our
privacy is not safe with them, everyone will stop feeding them more data.

~~~
daenney
> It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's
> individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's ToS, that's exactly what
> they are doing.

Could you give examples of how that can be achieved and how the ToS goes about
stating that they are doing this?

~~~
a_lifters_life
Also, how do we know they haven't?

~~~
piyush_soni
We don't know for sure if they are violating their privacy policies. But as I
said, if they are doing it, and it comes out by any means, it will be the dead
end of their business. So it's in their best interest to not to do that and
only improve upon users' trust. So yes, there's certain level of trust I put
into them, just like the trust I put into big food product companies that
they'd respect the ingredients list, and have a certain level of quality and
hygiene. All of them can break my trust, but it will be detrimental for them
if it comes out.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> if they are doing it ... it will be the dead end of their business.

I wish I could share your confidence about that. It seems to me we've seen
corporate data leaks, deceptive practices, huge hack attacks, etc and all that
happens is the corporations get a temporary PR black eye -- and then spring
back into action as powerfully as before.

In the case of Google, if it came out that, say, Russian hackers had breached
a bunch of gmail accounts, how many customers would just up and walk away from
Google? And what company could even come close to filling the void to replace
google for all of us consumers?

Like I say, I wanna believe what you believe. But it just doesn't seem like
that's what happens in the real marketplace.

~~~
a_lifters_life
Im with HillaryBriss here. There aren't enough repercussions for leaking pii
data.

~~~
DanBC
UK regulators recently fined TalkTalk £400,000 for a large data breach.

[https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-
bl...](https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-
blogs/2016/10/talktalk-gets-record-400-000-fine-for-failing-to-prevent-
october-2015-attack/)

That's not company ending, but it should get the attention of directors.

~~~
a_lifters_life
400k is nothing for a lot of companies in USA

------
ianai
How much hardware would it take to keep 80% or 99% of the data local?

~~~
quickben
Internal SSD?

~~~
ianai
I'm talking as much local computation and storage as possible to minimize
uploads.

------
sidcool
Thus article is rightful in raising concerns for privacy. But it's just
repeating and rehashing same things. Google had been devouring data for long
time.

------
Beltiras
I've long since given up hope that I can achieve any sort of privacy. Even
were I to do my utmost I will still be on the periphery of others using tech,
visible through their actions. The only thing I really want is for the content
of my messages to be private. This can be achieved through end-to-end
encryption. I push everyone around me to install and use Signal instead of
Messenger or Google Talk.

------
thght
I would love to have personal devices that collect my private data and apply
AI for my personal benefit, but only then if all data stays inside the device
under my exclusive supervision. As soon as this data is sent to some cloud
service beloning to a company in the business of generating wealth and power,
I totally lose my appetite.

------
danso
I'm considering purchasing a Home. I already have an Alexa, which I really
like, but based on what I know of Google's data and AI (and their service
APIs, which I assume/hope will be extended to Home), I can't imagine it not
being significantly better than Alexa.

That said, I agree with the OP's takeaway: people should be asking questions.
I mean, people should have been asking these questions long ago, even as just
search users questioning how Google manages to return such geospatially
relevant results. But most people don't even stop to think about it, as that
kind of thing is just taken for granted as the thing computers just do.

Maybe with Google's data and AI in the form of a physical, listening bot (I
don't know many people who use OK-Google on their phones) will be the thing
that clues people in. I'm mostly comfortable with Google's role in my life
(though not comfortable enough to switch to Android just yet), but I'm aware
of what it knows about me. If AI is to have a trusted role in our lives and
society, people in general need to at least reach the awareness that the OP
evinces, if not her skepticism.

------
mellis
One thing that I think is lost in a lot of the comments here is that, to a
large extent, privacy is experienced, not factual. That is, in many cases, the
breach of privacy is the act of mentioning something that should be private,
not whether or not the system (or the person) knows that thing. This is
something we tend to intuitively understand in our human relationships, but
one that somehow seems to be forgotten in the design of these systems (or, at
least, the conversations about them). We need good ways to tell the Google
Assistant that something is private (or for it to figure it out for itself) --
even if it still possesses the underlying data.

(There are, of course, situations in which the actual existence or not of
specific data is what matters, but I think those are less relevant to the
success of something like Google Assistant than the perception of privacy --
and that perception is important, regardless of the underlying data.)

------
contingencies
_Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private
manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes
and ears and nerves, we don’t really have any rights left._ \- Marshall
McLuhan

------
mkhpalm
I seriously wonder if this article would have a different tone if all the same
products and vision were presented at an Apple Keynote with Apple branded
devices.

Would it be different? My gut says this article would have had a different
title.

------
owly
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_\(Eggers_novel\))

------
mankash666
How's this different from Apple or any other company that wants to stay
relevant? AI is the future, like it out not.

------
b34r
Many software companies have been trending toward on-device AI though that
largely avoids these privacy issues.

~~~
aRationalMoose
Would you elaborate for me, maybe toss out an example?

~~~
natch
[https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy-
co...](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy-collecting-
data/)

------
xuomo
Why is everyone so incredibly paranoid?

~~~
tingol
You can't seriously be asking this question in a post-Snowden world.

------
hans
in WAZE they went ahead and dropped the "while using the app" option for gps
privacy. it has become rude actually, so now i turn off location services
instead of micro-managing the unmanageable.

------
api
I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an
advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash
and cures cancer.

~~~
zevyoura
What about an Android phone?

~~~
wyager
This is the predominant reason I use an iPhone. I don't like a lot of Apple's
policies (mostly closed source, although that's where stock android has been
gradually headed too) or their silly politics (Getting rid of the gun emoji?
Really?), and I would rather go with Google on those grounds, but Apple's
incentives with regard to privacy actually align with mine. In particular,
they are a product company, not an advertising company. I appreciate their use
of high-quality security technology in their phones.

~~~
arkem
What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since
both make products and sell advertising.

Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at
what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product
company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold?

Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what
makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.

~~~
quickben
More money coming from advertising than products?

90.4% revenue from advertising for Google

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-
reven...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-
google/)

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=0CD1V_HpCsO3jwT-
nL_ABA)

vs Apple: [http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-
stor...](http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-store-
lifetime-revenue-hits-71-billion-183953)

~~~
arkem
Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company.

If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product
company?

Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?

~~~
quickben
It's probably more on the lines of could a company survive without the
advertising revenue?

For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.

------
phycodurus
cat <that article> | sed -e s/data/your data/g

------
carapace
Star Trek or North Korea? In the limit that's the choice.

------
Shivetya
well my iPhone and my navigation systems both will tell me how far I am from
home/work/parents depending on my location all without my asking.

------
fiatjaf
I'm waiting for the barbarians.

------
Thaxll
That's the big difference between Apple and Google, Apple just want $$, Google
want to know everything at a more deeper level.

------
hota_mazi
tl;dr: Google wants your data on its servers.

As opposed to all the other companies out there I guess?

------
Yhippa
I'm willing to sacrifice an amount of privacy now for future potential
improvements to my life.

~~~
quickben
How about for potential risks? What if thieves/criminals get a hold of that
data? 'Oh he goes to the pool every day 2-3 and lives alone with no home
alarms'.

~~~
dmamills
I'd be amused at the concept of a hacker who also likes to perform break and
enters. Once I arrived home and discovered all of my privacy invading
electronics stolen, I'd probably pull out my phone and say "Ok Google, call
the cops."

~~~
quickben
Eh, probably it will be like the credit card and identity theft scams. One
group steals it, another one uses.

------
Hydraulix989
So because Google makes phones and hardware (like it has been already for
quite some time), there's somehow an even greater threat now on our privacy? I
don't buy it.

N.B.: I don't work for Google.

------
intrasight
I've come to believe that there is nothing that humans can do to resist the
privacy encroachments of our machine overlords. Don't blame Google - it's a
universal inevitability.

~~~
ionised
On the contrary, humans have done plenty to resist it.

------
NickVst
I'd be completely fine with sharing most of my data with Google, really.
Personal and Private interlock a lot with each other, and if Google wants to
give me a personal experience they're going to have to use some of my private
experience.

