Comment by sridca | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sridca | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> ask yourself if you’d be ok with [your browsing history, email, location and search queries] ever being exposed publicly.

I already did, and the answer was "Yes, I'd be okay" (although the likelihood of that happening is extremely rare).

> Ever googled something embarrassing?

Use incognito mode.

> Perhaps a medical condition or symptom?

I have only one medical condition, which I'm not embarassed to talk about publicly (I already do it).

> Sent a very personal email?

I rarely send "very personal"/ intimate information over email in lieu of just talking over phone.

> Visited a less than savory location,

Never in my life.

> or lied to an employer about your whereabouts?

I never had to do it (why would I?).

> I’d be willing to bet most people have some data that could be weaponized for blackmail.

If--note "if"--I were to engage in an activity that could potentially be used to blackmail or harm me in any way, I would of course be doing it in as private manner as possible. However it would be silly to spend the rest of my normal life cowering and being phobic to technological advances.

> Surely many people (especially the ignorant) will find Google’s products and services “worth using” but privacy concerns are anything but overblown.

You confuse being naive (in its original sense of the word) with being ignorant. But I guess that's what fear does to one.

>Use incognito mode.

All this means is that it's not stored on your computer/history. This doesn't mean Google doesn't still have everything from those periods.

Google does not track your incognito history and cookies unless you actually sign-in to your Google account in the incognito window of course.

Of course they do.

Do you have evidence? Or is it all just fear mongering?

Here is a recent article suggesting that that's at least somewhat true:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18124718/google-search-re...

Somewhat true, but not actually true.

This is a flawed study by a Google's competitor (the for-profit organization called DuckDuckGo). FTA:

> Following the study’s publication this morning, Google told The Verge in a statement that it found the methodology flawed and the findings misleading. “This study’s methodology and conclusions are flawed since they are based on the assumption that any difference in search results are based on personalization. That is simply not true,” a Google spokesperson said. “In fact, there are a number of factors that can lead to slight differences, including time and location, which this study doesn’t appear to have controlled for effectively.”

and:

https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1070027261376491520

Facts won't change being facts no matter how many times you downvote them. :-P

Yes, they are likely tracking users in incognito mode. You're still loading google analytics or doubleclick resources on many, many sites. Merely making that request (or any request to a google property) gives them your IP which is static enough to identify a household or corporate complex based on previously gathered data. From there these javascript libs phone home every bit of data they can from your browser, including UA string/browser minor version, plugins, resolution (fingerprinting). This can further narrow things down to an individual device you have used before, especially if you're just popping in and out of incognito.

Google also operates some of the most popular DNS services 8.8.8.8,8.8.4.4 which can capture domains you query from your IP.

There are various measures you can go through to stop this to some degree, like DNS blocking, client-side ad/tracker blocking, VPNs etc. but to go all-out is very cumbersome and I'm not convinced that it would even be 100% effective. Google's business DEPENDS on collecting your data and tracking you, and they are very, very good at it. I highly recommend reading "The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism".

It is a shame that you are being downvoted. I (like a lot of people here) disagree with you, but you have a point of view shared by a lot of people. It's an important point of view to consider and engage with because my impression is that it's the majority view from the population - based on their actions, they don't care about their data privacy if it gets them gmail for free.

For a lot of people they possibly hold that view due to a lack of understanding about the situation, but some people like you understand the situation and still are OK with it. That's an entirely reasonable point of view which should be eagerly debated with.

> It is a shame that you are being downvoted. I (like a lot of people here) disagree with you, but you have a point of view shared by a lot of people.

People are notoriously bad at acting in their own best interest. I recall reading a forum, where a guy asked for medical advice, because he was diagnosed with fibrosis (his lungs basically got scarred all over). His work required him to continuously inhale toxic exhaust, and he wanted a way to avoid further health complications (but keep a work!) because "the pay was good".

Fibrosis causes you to cough non-stop and significantly increases probability of dying from lung infection. Compared to that, using Google's products does not result in any visible long-term effects on health. Therefore, it is natural to conclude, that using Google's sites and services is safe, healthy and should be widely encouraged. It does not matter, that Google uses anti-competitive practices to monopolize market, restrict user freedom and lead us to future, when we won't be able to refuse shoehorned "services", shoved in our face, right?

Please stop with those creepy "understanding" antics. Encouraging self-harm is bad, and wishing to view advertisements is definitely a form of self-harm.

This is such a patronizing point of view.

You are essentially deciding for me that what I choose to do with my technological choices is "a form of self-harm" (when in fact I only experience total pleasure).

Is it really that hard to comprehend that, when one does not share the alarmist feelings of the crowd, they will make intelligent choices based on personal preferences?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com