Hacker News Reader

Do you really have a choice to not use them? If so:

- You must not use android and have Google know your location for traffic purposes (and other ad-related data-mining)

- You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association

- You must block every single ad that originates from the Google ad network (and which is eager to learn your browsing habits)

- You must never fly on an airline belonging to Star Alliance, as Google bought ITA Software (formerly known as Sabre) to get a hold of all the airline reservations done for those airlines

- You must never send an email to someone with a Gmail address

This is a case where choosing to not use Google is a bit more complicated than choosing to not drink Coke.

"You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association" -> Posting pictures about someone is iirc illegal in plenty of places without their consent, or at least borderline legal.

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, can be photographed and that photo can be used by its owner in any legal way they see fit.

Wow, do you know the laws of all countries?

Not in Quebec, ftr

Regardless of legality, you probably can get your friends not to post pictures of you. But it's a hassle.

You must never fly on an airline belonging to Star Alliance, as Google bought ITA Software (formerly known as Sabre) to get a hold of all the airline reservations done

For the record, this is false.

ITA Software was an independent company established in the late 90s, which built flight search technology that powered (and still powers) some of the leading flight search websites including Kayak.

It has always been completely independent of Sabre, which was formed in the 1960s and is one of the major travel reservation systems.

Google did aquire ITA, but that only got them flight search technology, not reservation data.

Sabre remains a standalone company.

Oh thanks for the correction! I find that reassuring.

> - You must not use android and have Google know your location for traffic purposes (and other ad-related data-mining)

I use Android without a Google account (although I'm unclear on whether or not there is also a device ID that Google sees from some interactions).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Cloud_Messaging

I guess you're referring to the GCM Registration IDs?

Do we know whether Google's own apps that don't use an account or notifications make use of this mechanism?

> - You must never send an email to someone with a Gmail address

You can be sending to gmail without knowing. Many business use gmail enterprise. I've been told that their EULA states no mining on private data, but that's very hard to believe.

Even my personal email goes to a GApps account, grandfathered from when it was free for individuals.

And if they don't use Gmail enterprise, they probably use Office 365.

The second-hand FB thing is the one I'm having the most trouble with lately. I just casually try to avoid being in any group photos because I know they'll end up on instagram/facebook but I still appear on some. The whole thing must be kind of pointless by now :(

> We all have a choice not to use them and I think this is the point he's missing (or the article is omitting).

Moxie Marlinspike has a great talk on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aom3JonbcZU). The problem isn't the choice -- but the constantly widening scope of the choice, back when Facebook was a brand-new thing, the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever.

Today all of the photos albums my friends have taken are in one place: Facebook. All of activities people plan together are posted in one place: Facebook. When you meet someone new the nearly first thing they do is: check your Facebook. Facebook has broadened to assimilate the scope of activities and actions which were formerly independent aspects of life and to not have Facebook now - one pays a significantly higher social cost.

>the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever.

I manage to have the same social life I've ever had, without Facebook. I can't be an outlier. I mean, really, you have no way of seeing what your friends are doing without logging in Facebook? No one can call/text/email/stop over to tell you? That's hard to imagine.

Maybe there's a specific demographic that is affected in this manner?

I think social networks like Facebook cover the case of when you want to broadcast your information or activities at once to hundreds possibly thousands of people.

A single friend can call/text/drop in to tell me about something, but what if that friend wanted to lets say inform a 100 of his contacts of this without having to send 100 texts/call/emails and keeping track of all of them for responses?

And social networks aren't just restricted to people but there are plenty of groups, organisations and clubs that want to reach out to not only all their members but potential audience too. Of course they can publish articles/ads in papers/magazines/TV, stick-up posters, send unsolicited email/calls etc., or they can have a Page/Group on Facebook.

> A single friend can call/text/drop in to tell me about something, but what if that friend wanted to lets say inform a 100 of his contacts of this without having to send 100 texts/call/emails and keeping track of all of them for responses?

I think that the key lies in forgetsusername's precise wording (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11888033): "I manage to have the same social life I've ever had"—not necessarily the same one you've ever had. I, too, have the same social life that I've ever had without using Facebook. My answer to how I keep up with the plans that my friend broadcasts to 100 people only through Facebook is that I don't, and never have, participated in events that require notifications of 100 people. If I want to hang out with my friend, I do so; if my friend wants to host an enormous party, then I will wish him or her good luck, and see him or her later when we can have some time to ourselves.

(This means that my social life is probably pretty dull by the standards of those who participate in those parties, which is fine by me!)

Thanks for these thoughts. I rarely see the difference between extroverts and introverted people so clearly examplified. Or at least people who do not like the see massive party things.

> I mean, really, you have no way of seeing what your friends are doing without logging in Facebook? No one can call/text/email/stop over to tell you? That's hard to imagine.

I've had trouble with missing out on social events because of not being on Facebook -- mostly party invitations (like birthday or housewarming parties) and cases where people are going out with a small group to see a movie, concert, etc. They could e-mail or text me, but they generally don't. So I still get one-on-one invitations to dinner and so on, but I think a lot fewer large and small group invitations.

I think even one-on-one invitations may be affected somewhat because people may be reminded that they want to see people by interacting with them on social media. "Oh, there's an update from x; we should get dinner sometime, shouldn't we?"

> Maybe there's a specific demographic that is affected in this manner?

Future demographic(s) will be impacted, due to not-knowing and/or not caring about it

"I don't have a problem with Google, Facebook and Twitter dominating the web as such because I don't have any accounts with them: They are commercial entities filling a need. Capitalism at work I suppose."

1. It's not pure capitalism when there are political mechanisms in place to subsidize entire sectors of the economy and protect, through the arbitrary application of laws and regulations, some companies but no / at the expense of others.

2. Capitalism, on its own, by which I'm assuming you mean the market mechanism for price discovery and resource allocation, does not solve problems like the tragedy of the commons, it does not concern itself with things like civil rights or labor rights, it does not opporate satisfactorily in many sectors and circumstances such as building out public transportation before it is needed or financials panics or war time.

3. Neither whether or not you personally have a problem with them and whether nor not they are filling a commercial need are social issues. One is a personal issue. The other is a commercial issue. Perhaps you should consider the issue for a societal perspective.

Apologies for grammar / spelling. Typing on mobile phone, and this app I'm signed into doesn't allow for editing my comments.

Capital is extremely concerned about labor rights, in particular their suppression and elimination.

I am looking at the market as a tool to fulfil my needs, e.g. I need X and company Y springs up to provide it.

I understand the political aspect of companies like google and the security nut in me says that they are in collusion with various other parties (I include governments in that) to give them access to their data (I have no evidence of this, I just think it's the case!)

We all have a choice not to use them

we, as in the more 'tech'-savvy ones, sure do. But if you don't even know about alternatives or don't realize what happens with your information, and I'm sure there's a ton of people like that, then you don't really have a choice.

That's even one step further then your family and frinds who say they can't be bothered: at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action.

I have no idea how this can best improved in practice though. A start could be that schools teach this: incorporating information about privacy, other search engines and whatnot in lessons given to the youngest ones already seems like a good first step.

"at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action."

If nothing else comes of his courageous actions, Edward Snowden saved me from a few years of 'that look' when I try to inform people why all those 1/2 trillion dollar tech behemoths are giving so many services away for "free".

Their marginal cost is free.

You don't need to use their services to be tracked by them. Especially Google tracks people all over the internet, whether those people want to use their services or not. I've heard estimates that Google Analytics is deployed on about 70% of webpages. And their doubleclick-ads, Google+-buttons, JavaScript-APIs, CAPTCHAs, Custom Search Engines etc. are all over the web as well, and you'll have a hard time finding a webpage which does not use a Google service without asking you about it.

I used to agree with this but it is easier than ever before to seriously reduce your footprint on the web: I use a VPN, UBlock Origin and NoScript and although it's not perfect it stops all third parties tracking me with their stuff. Dead.

It can be tedious at times, like hitting a link on HN to a site that requires JS... do I let them in or not? But it can be done.

I don't know what size my footprint is online but I reckon it's tiny compared to, say, my mums.

The thing that worries me is when someone puts everything together, i.e. Facebook data, Google data, Twitter data, government sites data etc... that's worrying.

Maybe, but.. I bet you exchange emails with people that have a Gmail account and you are in photos with people that have a Facebook account.

Of course but my point is that no one is forcing me to do that. Sure, it sucks that they are harvesting stuff from me even though I am not part of their conclave but, as much as it pains me to say it, I could decide not to send or receive any emails from gmail.

Facebook is a bit harder to avoid I admit... not sure what you do about that although I have had a few people lately ask me if it is ok to put a picture of my son on Facebook... never had that before.

Inconvenient and incredibly tin-foil-hatty but possible.

Imagine if we only had a state-owned ISP and VPNs were banned... that's what we need to watch out for.

Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!

" no one is forcing me to do that"

Strictly speaking they are not, but they are forcing your hand when it's not practical to do different. Concretely Google have elevated that to an art.

"Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!"

All true. Sadly, you can be sure that their databases are going to be around forever..

I think it's a bit more nuanced than "we all have a choice to not use them". I don't have WhatsApp because I refuse to create a new account on a closed system. This means I'm not in groups where plans are made between my friends and family. If I did not have Facebook or Google+ either, I wouldn't have been invited to parties etc ...

Alas, wasn't Facebook collecting information about people not having an account these days?

Probably. When their business model is to exploit people then it wouldn't surprise me that they are collecting on an epic scale, even from those without an account.

I assume that's what the Facebook buttons on websites all over the place are for but I use NoScript and UBlock Origin so I don't exist as far as they are concerned.

Yes, the only thing they need to track information is an IP number. If you use the internet, FB and Google know what you're doing.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't NoScript w/ Goog & FB removed from the whitelist solve this problem? Granted, using Goog services unlogged-in(?) puts you in their cross-hairs, but the sea of analytics and adservers can be avoided using NS(better w/ adblocker & user-agent spoof)to profoundly reduce your signal on the line. IP's addy's are unique, but unless you specifically requested 'static', yours is changing w/ varying frequency, as well.

Unless you are using tor or something similar you are still giving your IP address out.

Yes, but if you're blocking your browser from making connections to Google and Facebook-connected servers when on other websites, you're not giving it out to Google and Facebook.

Oh don't get me wrong I use noscript etc. I just recognise that they don't give me privacy - they give me better security though.

Added security is paramount. I also realize I cannot win the privacy war, but I will mitigate my losses as far as I can without spiting my needs or pissing off my unavoidable associates(insurance, gov, telco). For fun and guerilla tactics, I feed mis-information as often as possible.

> say either "I'm not bothered" or "They would get bored looking at my stuff".

In the past, we could have been indifferent to this massive trove of information collection because we relied on security of our personal lives through obscurity, or "needle in a haystack" philosophy.

But with the advent of bots, we have opened the door for artificial intelligence by providing it a playground of information that it can run and develop algorithms on. This massive trove is not so massive anymore. And we should come to accept the doors of privacy have been virtually blown fully open now.

The big question that remains is "What's next?" Self-imposed ethics? Thought police? Enslavement to an all-knowing being? Big brother?

> I feel that something monumentally bad will happen in the future related to the information these companies have amassed, something epically bad and the public will (perhaps) say "Enough is enough" but it will be too late...

What's an example of something monumentally/epically bad happening involving this information?

I'm not sure to be honest: It's the tin-foil-hatter in me that is saying this but perhaps something like Google gets hacked and no one finds out for a couple of years giving someone plenty of time and data to do what they want, e.g. perhaps "out" a pile of prominent public figures or just plain extortion.

I am not sure but we have seen breach after breach and no one is really batting an eyelid about it so it would have to be a massive breach leading to a massive problem.

Their embedded scripts and ads on 3rd party sites are still tracking you.