Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ajedi32 | Hacker News Reader

The big difference is Google doesn't sell that data to third parties; they just use it for ad targeting. There's a big difference between the company that makes my phone's OS knowing my location, and anyone willing to pay a few bucks knowing the same.

(Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our network sync system, so that data was immediately discarded, and we updated it to no longer request Cell ID".)

View on HN

The difference exists only to the point that Google is an ethical owner of the data. I'm concerned that Google is in the business selling products based on a monopoly of consumer data. These products are likely to become more and more invasive as time goes on.. It's possible that a future Google product will become a larger threat to privacy than geolocation because they have a wider variety of data collected.

In summary, today's Google handles geolocation much better than telecom companies, but the mass of personal data Google collects makes their potential future activity concerning.

The only ethical owner of my data is myself. Whatever Google says now is worthless the second growth stalls and shareholders want to see more.

Given the majority of the voting rights is still with the founders, they may have a bit less shortsighted outlook.

I have no idea where this inherent trust in people comes from. Google has shown again and again that they are just like any other company in this system.

While this is currently true, there is no guarantee this will remain true in the future. What happens when a founder dies?

A bounty hunter can't call up Google and get access to my location. If i were on T-Mobile or Sprint, they could[1]. This is not a theoretical difference.

Being concerned about how Google could potentially in the future abuse all the data they've collected is a completely valid concern, but they're in no way a larger threat than the companies currently actively exploiting that data.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-b...

Right? And why is everyone talking about how bad Google is when AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint are selling our freaking location?!? It's nuts!

If it's easier to become a bounty hunter than a barber in Idaho, then almost anyone can track someones location without their knowledge. Odds are the data's being made available in other ways we're not even aware of. And think about the impact on battered wives, someone on the wrong side of a vendetta, hell even road rage. The possibilities are staggering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/09/09/...

"just" for ad targeting is a big hole in this caveat.

That's pretty much a straw man argument. Any company in the ad business will exploit collected data to the extent possible by law. Whether that data resides solely with one company or with many won't change that. The fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is what a company is allowed to do with our personal data.

As far as the advertising is concerned Google is no different(and so FB etc). Anyone with few bucks will know your location or better said will target you with ads. With Google they won't target only by location because as you said Google makes the OS so it knows pretty much everything about you.

That's just not true. There's a reason the bounty hunters don't use Google Ads to locate individuals but they do use AT&T.

Well, they're going to use whatever is easiest. I don't think this is a strong argument.

Please show me where I can buy thefounder's location data from Google. Which service is that, and how much do I need to pay? I can't find it at https://www.google.com/about/products/

> better said will target you with ads.

The difference between selling location data, and selling ad targeting, is the difference between actively stalking someone, and sending unsolicited spam to "Current resident" at "Every address in a city block".

What harm can I inflict to you, via targeted ads? Some. You can think of some creative ways to do so, but it's not a very effective way to inflict harm.

What harm can I inflict to you, via buying your location data? A hell of a lot.

If you don't trust Google to be a good steward of your data, that's one thing. But let's not conflate selling your data, with selling the ability to mass-advertise to a demographic that includes you.

> selling the ability to mass-advertise to a demographic that includes you.

A while ago there were some fun articles about "how to prank your roommate by creating an audience of 1 and running creepily personalised adverts". What's the smallest demographic you can define on google?

I don't know - which is why I leave the caveat that some creative forms of harm with targeted advertising may be possible.

> What harm can I inflict to you, via targeted ads? Some. You can think of some creative ways to do so, but it's not a very effective way to inflict harm.

Do you see how people have weaponized social media through data? Google ads might not have been used in a nefarious way just yet but that's likely because it hasn't been thought of.

With ratings, on a scale of one to ten, how would you compare the individual harm of someone showing you a demographic-targeted ad[1], to someone having the real-time location data sufficient to start physically stalking you?

What about someone showing you an untargeted ad? Where would that fit in?

[1] Or, if you prefer, a remarketing ad, instead. I have very little patience for those.

The harm to me isn't the harm of someone showing me a demographic-targeted ad, the harm is someone showing everyone demographic-targeted ads designed to manipulate public opinion.

Remember how everyone got very hot and bothered about precisely this thing happening in a recent U.S. election?

Why are cookie-based demographic-targeting ads that manipulate public opinion bad, while demographic-targeting ads on television, in magazines, etc, are fine? Is it because more targeted ad spend is more efficient?

If your problem is that advertising is used to manipulate public opinion - consider - why do we even allow political campaigns and paid speech? Its only purpose is to manipulate public opinion, and to trick stupid voters into voting for bad people.

I'm afraid your position is not entirely ideologically consistent with how we determine what kind of political speech is allowed, and is not allowed.

Unless you are on the run the location data is not really that valuable. I could physically stalk you after all without buying the data from telecom companies. With Facebook the advertising can be quite precise. I remeber I read somewhere that you could actually target specific persons.

I don't think that's the case at all.

As far as I know, advertisers never receive personal information from Google. Google hordes the personal information and shows advertisements (provided by the advertisers) to their users, using their personal information.

It would be rather contrary to their interests if they were to send their user's data to other parties. They'd lose their commercial leverage and their ad network would become less valuable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com