Google Ends Privacy

[Eóin]

Can you say: criticize your employer or the government and later face repercussions - and then wonder how they knew? Especially since you only did so in an email sent to your best friend?

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 03:00 PM)

That's slightly conspiracy-ish. But at the same time, anyone having potentially damaging conversations over someone else's network pretty much deserves to be caught IMHO.

[worstje]

It is so amusing how people are mad about Google's continued reluctancy to stop their data misuse but don't see a reason to just stop using Google services. Oh well... people are stupid.

(Written without Google.)

-Tuxman (January 27, 2012, 04:22 PM)

^ That is why I have decided to move all correspondence I truly care about away from Google since the new year. Gmail will only get what it already has, and stuff will be moved away from it too. Nice as it is, it simply isn't worth the price of having my life become someone elses commodity.

If you don't want 1984 to happen, you need to take your own measures. The Holocaust is what happened when people noted their religion and/or race down on paper; I truly dread what will happen when we get another Hitler in the digital age. And get one, we will. The question is simply when, where, and how well prepared we are to deal with it.

[40hz]

Can you say: criticize your employer or the government and later face repercussions - and then wonder how they knew? Especially since you only did so in an email sent to your best friend?

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 03:00 PM)

That's slightly conspiracy-ish. But at the same time, anyone having potentially damaging conversations over someone else's network pretty much deserves to be caught IMHO.

-Eóin (January 28, 2012, 11:02 PM)

Ah yes. Once again the "blame the victim" mindset reveals itself. And not for the first time.  

Ok  i guess if somebody is so stupid as to speak their mind in private, they obviously "deserve" whatever happens by way of payback. Any rational and even slightly moral adult couldn't help but reach any other judgement.

Very sad.  No wonder we have the world we do.

And BTW: Hardly conspiracy-ish. My company and I stopped dealing with private investigators some years back after watching how they operate. And what they're being hired to dig up. And by whom.

And I'm going to have to stop here. Because I'm too disgusted for further words right now.



 

[Renegade]

Can you say: criticize your employer or the government and later face repercussions - and then wonder how they knew? Especially since you only did so in an email sent to your best friend?

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 03:00 PM)

That's slightly conspiracy-ish. But at the same time, anyone having potentially damaging conversations over someone else's network pretty much deserves to be caught IMHO.

-Eóin (January 28, 2012, 11:02 PM)

Ah yes. Once again the "blame the victim" mindset reveals itself. And not for the first time. 

Ok  i guess if somebody is so stupid as to speak their mind in private, they obviously "deserve" whatever happens by way of payback. Any rational and even slightly moral adult couldn't help but reach any other judgement.

Very sad.  No wonder we have the world we do.

And BTW: Hardly conspiracy-ish. My company and I stopped dealing with private investigators some years back after watching how they operate. And what they're being hired to dig up. And by whom.

And I'm going to have to stop here. Because I'm too disgusted for further words right now.
 

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 11:57 PM)

+1

I would encourage people to actually look into this a bit more. Find out what is actually going on out there. Find out what people like Kissinger and other world-power-brokers have said about these things.

Here's the short version ---

Yes. There is a conspiracy.
No. It is not a theory.
Yes. It is well documented in countless places.
No. It is not well reported on in mainstream media.
Yes. It is in both government documents and other sources.

Quite simply... The road to tyranny is paved one brick at a time.



Here's something fun you can post anywhere:

Google Ends Privacy


And one for Facebook:

Google Ends Privacy



Now please. I would encourage everyone everywhere to go out and commit thought crimes!

(And yes -- there are thought crime laws on the books... look it up.)

[tranglos]

anyone having potentially damaging conversations over someone else's network pretty much deserves to be caught IMHO.

-Eóin (January 28, 2012, 11:02 PM)

Foresight is a good thing, yes. But *every* network is someone else's network. Just like every land-line is someone else's, yet we expect privacy of our (analog) phone conversations. Or used to, anyway.

[Renegade]

anyone having potentially damaging conversations over someone else's network pretty much deserves to be caught IMHO.

-Eóin (January 28, 2012, 11:02 PM)

Foresight is a good thing, yes. But *every* network is someone else's network. Just like every land-line is someone else's, yet we expect privacy of our (analog) phone conversations. Or used to, anyway.

-tranglos (January 29, 2012, 07:11 AM)

I think a lot of these boil down to reasonable expectations for privacy and the like.

Like, you wouldn't expect to have your dinner conversation recorded at a restaurant. That's just wonky. (Though, I think it will eventually get there if we continue down this path...)

You're paying for a service (one way or another), so... That portion of the network during its use belongs to YOU.

[Tuxman]

Nice, Godwin's Law.  @ above

[Renegade]

Nice, Godwin's Law.  @ above

-Tuxman (January 29, 2012, 08:04 AM)

But accurate.

[40hz]

Just to get in some outside (although hardly unbiased) comment and opinion, courtesy of gHacks website. (link to full article here):

Microsoft’s Guide For Gmail Users To Switch To Hotmail


Google recently revealed the plan to merge the privacy policies and terms of service for most of the company’s products. This move gives all Google services direct access to all user data. Google search for instance can take into account what kind of emails a user gets in Gmail to personalize the search results based on that. This even goes further for Android phone users, who may now reveal their favorite restaurants, shops and locations to all other Google services.

A new post by Microsoft employee Dharmesh Mehta on the Inside Windows Live blog highlights core reasons why users might want to switch from Gmail to Hotmail, before explaining the actual steps that migrates their email account to the Hotmail email service.

Note: gHacks does point out that significant differences between Hotmail and GMail (i.e. Hotmail's lack of IMAP support and 2-step authentication) doesn't make moving to Hotmail a simple swap since you're dealing with 'apples and 'oranges' comparisons between the two services.

Something to keep in mind.

[tranglos]

Nice, Godwin's Law.   @ above

-Tuxman (January 29, 2012, 08:04 AM)

But accurate.

-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 08:20 AM)

Yeah, Godwin's Law should be properly called Godwin's Theorem. Then we could avoid the common misunderstanding when it gets interpreted as a law-that-you-get-punished-for-breaking. It's merely a statistical / social observation. It does not (or was not meant to) regulate discussion.

[TaoPhoenix]

Most disturbing is the retention of private user generated message content, which has no value whatsoever for Google's marketing - but which is very valuable for fishing expeditions conducted by various parties. Can you say: criticize your employer or the government and later face repercussions - and then wonder how they knew? Especially since you only did so in an email sent to your best friend?

A simple information request made as a favor - or through a subpoena - would be sufficient. Big Brother doesn't exactly watch you. But he does record every single word you utter and log every thing you do for later recall  - and evaluation.

It's called data mining. And it works.

Right now, these things have been perceived as fairly benevolent. Largely because egregious invasions of personal privacy have remained relatively rare - and were downplayed when reported.

But that's only because those who could most benefit from stripping privacy from all walks of personal life haven't felt sufficiently pushed against the proverbial wall to move on it. And the unfortunate truth is there's no guarantee they'll continue to feel that way in the future.
...

My biggest concern, with the heightened and heated level of rhetoric we're hearing in political circles, is the very real chance of us seeing our government switch into "wounded rhino mode." That's where the large and lumbering animal feels threatened, or becomes wounded, and lashes out with deadly and indiscriminate fury at anything and everything around it.

It's a very real concern...

Especially in an era where government sanctioned "shock & awe" is becoming the preferred response to everything: from a full-bore terrorist attack, all the way down to a local arrest for a minor felony.


No matter what town or city you're from in the USA, you'll see ninja-suited heavily armed police units responding any time an arrest is expected to be made. And that includes arrests for some of the most minor offenses imaginable.

Guess they need to do something to justify all the spending on "homeland security" training and equipment that's been used to militarize US local police forces in the last ten years.

The problem with tech like that is, once it's out there, it begs to be used. And often creates justification when justification can't be found.

So it goes.

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 03:00 PM)

The Copyright-Terror brigade is already in Wounded Rhino mode. Let's briefly flashback to the '80's. It was a nice compromise, that assuming you didn't open an entire business selling bootlegs, you were left alone. Your buddy made you and 7 other people a copy of the kewl new tape, and you got a month's fun out of it. Yay.

Now look at this - the **AA have practically become our government. Pick all the industries that could benefit from foul play, and suddenly it's the media ones and the telcos hooking up to pwn government. And Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook *combined* can't do anything about it?!

[TaoPhoenix]

Sorry to double post, this is a different topic.

I wanted to say that 40hz made a crucial point that "Big Brother doesn't (and doesn't need to) *Always Watch You*. They can pass three laws and collect all info forever, then go dig it up *when they feel like it*.

So all those services that try to "bury your history in fake searches" don't work, because a real data miner operative would sorta "triple-cubed sort" your data, so that after only a few clever transformations your real data falls out anyway.

[tranglos]

I think a lot of these boil down to reasonable expectations for privacy and the like.

-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 07:20 AM)

I'm not sure about that. I've seen "expectation of privacy" bandied around on Slashdot for over 10 years now and used like it settles the score. I disagree. For one thing, expectation of privacy is highly sensitive to place, time, culture, etc. But laws are the same everywhere, and not just within a single country or state anymore. When Google does something, it affects everyone the same way. Ditto when ACTA gets passed. The only sensible thing one can say at that point is that there is no expectation of privacy at all, so as such the concept becomes meaningless.

For another thing, I don't think we could even agree on what it meant in the first place, back when it might have still applied. Again from my slashdot experience, there was a fairly common understanding that you have no expectation of privacy out on the street. I always thought it was silly. Downtown in a city of a million people, you have nothing *but* privacy! Everyone can see you, sure, but absolutely no-one knows who you are, what your name is, what you do or what you think. A small village is a different thing, to be sure. But I'm putting this forth as an example of how unstable the notion of "expectation of privacy" is. It sounds reasonable, but I think it only serves to obscure what might really be significant disagreements in how we understand privacy.

[Renegade]

I think a lot of these boil down to reasonable expectations for privacy and the like.

-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 07:20 AM)

I'm not sure about that. I've seen "expectation of privacy" bandied around on Slashdot for over 10 years now and used like it settles the score. I disagree. For one thing, expectation of privacy is highly sensitive to place, time, culture, etc. But laws are the same everywhere, and not just within a single country or state anymore. When Google does something, it affects everyone the same way. Ditto when ACTA gets passed. There only sensible thing one can say at that point is that there is no expectation of privacy at all, so as such the concept becomes meaningless.

For another thing, I don't think we could even agree on what it meant in the first place, back when it might have still applied. Again from my slashdot experience, there was a fairly common understanding that you have no expectation of privacy out on the street. I always thought it was silly. Downtown in a city of a million people, you have nothing *but* privacy! Everyone can see you, sure, but absolutely no-one knows who you are, what your name is, what you do or what you think. A small village is a different thing, to be sure. But I'm putting this forth as an example of how unstable the notion of "expectation of privacy" is. It sounds reasonable, but I think it only serves to obscure what might really be significant disagreements in how we understand privacy.

-tranglos (January 29, 2012, 09:02 AM)

I would be happy with an absolute minimum of information gathered. i.e. If it is possible to not gather information, then don't. e.g. It is possible to remove "security" cameras in public places.

Fun Fact: Security cameras DO NOT decrease crime. That is just BS propaganda put out by the security industry. (I've done work in that sector and I've read the research.)


Sometimes it is necessary to gather information, but those cases are RARE.


Meh... Doesn't matter. It all just gets rammed down our throats (or up elsewhere) no matter what.


I believe that it's possible to run government and do business in non-evil ways, but it's kind of hard when you're surrounded by hordes of demons. So, in many ways it's kind of hard to blame businesses for getting swept up by the hordes.

[Eóin]

Ah yes. Once again the "blame the victim" mindset reveals itself. And not for the first time. 

Ok  i guess if somebody is so stupid as to speak their mind in private, they obviously "deserve" whatever happens by way of payback. Any rational and even slightly moral adult couldn't help but reach any other judgement.

-40hz (January 28, 2012, 11:57 PM)

I said deserve to get caught, I didn't say people deserve any and all consequences thereafter. For example complaining about your employer to your friend over "private" email doesn't justify them firing you.

But relying on the likes of Google or Facebook to help keep you safe is plain naive. It's laws and regulations that have to step in and prevent such things being used against you, which in in Ireland at least they do. An employer would face unfair dismissal cases if they sacked you over something like that.

[40hz]

But relying on the likes of Google or Facebook to help keep you safe is plain naive.

-Eóin (January 29, 2012, 10:16 AM)

Apparently Twitter feels the same way about it and is saying as much. Once again from gHacks:

In other Twitter news the company behind the hugely successful micro-blogging site has today announced that they have developed a way to selectively censor tweets on a country by country basis.  In it’s blog they said they could now “reactively withhold content from users in a specific country”.

It is curious as to why Twitter, a company that has always encouraged free speech, would make such a move.  Social networks were used extensively in the uprisings in Egypt and the middle-east last spring, and were widely hailed for helping protestors galvanise such huge crowds of support.

Having the ability to censor specific types of tweet in individual countries could potentially prevent this type of thing from ever occurring again.

As justification the company said “that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression” going on to cite France and Germany for banning pro-Nazi speech.

Gee, isn't that wonderful? Even if it is a pretty obvious dodge attempting to invoke that old 'banning pro-Nazi speech' bromide as part of your justification.

And which, if you think about it, is a rather silly argument...

Unless, of course, Twitter's management refuses to see the fallacy of mentally equating blatant hate speech with public demands for reform of government corruption, and its cessation of vindictive and brutal oppression against those who ask for it.

Hmm...I was just thinking...

But never mind.

If someone can't see the moral and logical problem with arguing something like Twitter is arguing - and using that as their excuses - well...they're beyond hope and not worth the bother.

I'd have had a lot more respect for them if they just came out and said: Look. We're looking for market domination. And we'll do whatever we have to do - and go along with whatever we have to go along with - to get where we want to be.

But public candor is an increasingly rare commodity these days.

About only place you do find candor any more is in hate speech.

Funny how the pro-Nazi crowd can find it in themselves to show more backbone than companies like Twitter.

 

[40hz]

That's slightly conspiracy-ish.

-Eóin (January 28, 2012, 11:02 PM)

Yes. There is a conspiracy.
No. It is not a theory.
Yes. It is well documented in countless places.
No. It is not well reported on in mainstream media.
Yes. It is in both government documents and other sources.

Quite simply... The road to tyranny is paved one brick at a time.

-Renegade (January 29, 2012, 01:58 AM)

Speaking of government documents, this too from gHacks (who is on a roll this week. Go gHacks! )

The FBI is looking to develop an emergencies early warning system that works by “scraping” information in real time from social networks.  The US policing and intelligence bureau has asked contractors to suggest possible solutions and to come up with ways in which this might work.  In a post on the Federal Business Opportunities website called “Social Media Application” they say…

    The Federal Bureau of Investigations is conducting market research to determine the capabilities of the IT industry to provide a social media application. The tool at a minimum should be able to meet the operational and analytical needs described in the attachment.

This is actually harder than it might appear.  On the face of it such a program would scour Twitter, Facebook and other websites for key words.  However disasters can never be predicted and, as such, determining the language people will use at the time is extremely difficult.  Even harder would be to determine where an event is taking place.

In theory such a program would also be able to highlight major crimes when people mention them online.  People have until February 7th to submit their ideas to the bureau.

Download a copy of the actual document at this link.

It's a good read. Eye opening too. It comes right out and says it's looking to gather data from realtime and cached social media sources using a scrape and mash-up approach.

Like I said earlier: It's called data mining.

And it works.



And if all this is starting to sound exactly like something the 'conspiracy yahoos' have been worried about, please don't be alarmed. It's only a superficial and unintended resemblance. Trust me!

 

[tranglos]

There's a thread on Google's privacy killer on Dave Farber's "Interesting People" mailing list. Though somewhat tangential, I highly recommend this reply from Tim O'Reilly (yep, *that* Tim O'Reilly).

(And I should say I disagree with his first paragraph. Whether or not Google goes and does evil stuff with the data it gathers is almost immaterial; what's important is being at their mercy. You just don't give someone the ability to do evil and count on them being kind enough to never use that ability. So I strongly disagree with that part. But the real payload of O'Reilly's response comes in the paragraphs that follow.)

[40hz]

Whether or not Google goes and does evil stuff with the data it gathers is almost immaterial; what's important is being at their mercy. You just don't give someone the ability to do evil and count on them being kind enough to never use that ability.

-tranglos (January 29, 2012, 12:47 PM)

And saying you'll "do no evil" while washing your hands of what somebody else may do, using the tools you've created, is one of the oldest acts of moral evasion known to mankind. Right up there with all the weapons scientists who deny any responsibilty for what their work gets used for. Nations have been trying to make that same argument about warfare for as long as wars have been fought.

The following soldier/taxpayer infographic sums it up far more neatly than I can. Click to expand it:

Google Ends Privacy

[Deozaan]

Though somewhat tangential, I highly recommend this reply from Tim O'Reilly (yep, *that* Tim O'Reilly).

[...]

But the real payload of O'Reilly's response comes in the paragraphs that follow.

-tranglos (January 29, 2012, 12:47 PM)

I'll say!

If you want an example of a company that is doing "evil", consider Apple. I was horrified, when I heard Mike Daisey, author of the one-man show "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," talking on This American Life about working conditions in the factories that make the iPhone and iPad, and Apple's tepid monitoring of those conditions. When a company has $98 billion in cash, and profits of tens of billions of dollars each quarter, does it really need to squeeze every last cent out of manufacturing costs.

The account of how Apple's factories substituted n-hexane, a neurotoxin with well-documented long term adverse health effects, for alcohol to wipe those shining screens clean, gaining a miniscule advantage in drying time but exposing workers to a lifetime of disablement nearly brought me to tears.

That's evil. Of course, Apple never promised to do no evil, so they get a free pass.

Journalists should listen to this episode, and then write about that, please:

http://www.thisameri...nd-the-apple-factory

 

[bob99]

I have an Android phone. How does this affect me?: Because you have to sign in to your Google account to do anything except for browse the Web and make phone calls, Google will be able to track practically anything you do on your phone using Google services.

So even on the phones, it's limited to what you do while logged in, and apparently you can browse and call without that happening.
Troubling news, but not unexpected, and seemingly easily circumvented.

-Edvard (January 26, 2012, 05:24 AM)

The great thing about Android is that you don't have to use the Google services, you can use any of the plethora of alternatives. In fact if you go a step further and install a ROM like CyanogenMod you can opt to not have a single Google app installed on the device to begin with.

[edit] Also people should checkout - http://www.google.co...B/privacy/tools.html

There you can opt out of search personalisation, targeted ads, etc.

-Eóin (January 26, 2012, 09:27 AM)

Though I'll be doing it, why should I have to go through these hoops to opt-out of a service I don't or won't use?  Or should say my wife doesn't use a phone for.  I'm in the process of re-activating my old Android phone for her to use.  Her flip phone was acting up plus she wanted something that displayed photos better than the flip and so she could occasionally check her (non-gmail) emails on.  But, until she signs up for a gmail account, my account is the one assigned to the phone.  I've turned off the background sync so it doesn't mess with her contacts but it won't be her phone until she signs up.  Plus we had to add a data plan just so she could use it.  But that's a different story.

How is this considered an opt-in?

[kyrathaba]

Scary stuff!

[Deozaan]

Plus we had to add a data plan just so she could use it.  But that's a different story.

How is this considered an opt-in?

-bob99 (January 29, 2012, 01:45 PM)

On older Android phones it was required to sign into a Google account before you could even use the phone.

The only Android device I've owned is one that has such a requirement, so I can't personally verify the following, but based on what Eóin has said newer Android devices (or perhaps only custom ROMs) don't require you to sign in to a Google account use the device.

[PhilB66]

Europe Wants Google To Freeze Its New Privacy Policy
(@40hz thank you for recommending paidContent  )

[40hz]

Europe Wants Google To Freeze Its New Privacy Policy
(@40hz thank you for recommending paidContent  )

-PhilB66 (February 03, 2012, 08:02 AM)

My pleasure. Be sure to spread the word. It's a great site.