Half the data Chrome collects is harmless, and the other half is up to the user to give up:
- Location data: you are asked and must approve for Chrome to use (at least on macOS) - Financial data: you must enter it manually and click "save for future use".
Could it be better? Sure! But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
Also, none of that data is harmless.
> I think DDG is exaggerating here
Google shouldn't be basing advertising off of individualized browser histories in the first place, I don't think it's an exaggeration to call that a massive privacy issue. It's a single category, but one that encompasses basically everything you do online.
And while you can technically turn this off in Google settings, doing so will break a large number of Google products and features in other apps because Google ties access to browser histories and app data into other products in a way that is impossible to disentangle from normal functionality.
Back when I used to use Google Maps, turning off location-based advertising disabled my ability to save locations. Like, I couldn't mark a place on the map as my home on my local device unless I gave Google permission to advertise to me based on my location. Every time I wanted to navigate there, I needed to type in the full address. Even weirder, turning off web history took away my ability to use voice commands with my contact list on Android phones. I couldn't tell my phone "call mom", because that feature required access to my search history.
So this phrase "we're not that bad" creates this impression that Google isn't perfect but is still basically respecting privacy choices everywhere, and that any violations are just accidental -- when in reality trying to opt out of these systems is met with outright hostility from Google products, and giving an inch in any area is often interpreted by Google as permission to use that data in any way they see fit.
The system is a lot deeper and more deliberate than the parent comment suggests.
Does location data even help with relevance?
During road trips in 2018, location relevant results were turrible. Too many times I'd have to manually add my current location. eg "dog parks albuquerque nm" Sorry, no, I don't care about Dog Park Pub and Office Supplies in Duluth MN. Absolutely enraging.
e.g. a search for "home depot" turning up the close ones with location turned on.
I vividly recall wanting to pick up some flowers while driving north of Phoenix. Google was useless. No local businesses. Just national chains and stuff from other time zones. Infuriating.
Wait, why do you say that? There's nothing inherent to the way that assistants work that mean that they need full access to everything in my life.
Human beings are "AI complete", but when I go to the library and ask them to help me find a book, they don't demand that I show them my phone contacts first. Data access and intelligence are separate concepts.
And Google's voice assistant could figure out what phone number I mean when I say "call mom" without doing anything involving AI at all, because I actually explicitly put that information into my address book in machine-readable, labeled fields. The assistant doesn't need to have an advanced AI to solve that problem, and it certainly doesn't need to look at my search history.
If true, that still doesn't negate the other half that is not harmless.
More importantly, how about I get to choose what I consider harmless, rather than having a Silicon Valley advertising agency do that for me?
Also, there's no way of knowing what Google shoves into the "other" category. Sunlight disinfects, even in Mountain View.
But beware, Chrome's lead on render speed is most likely thanks to the performance data they collect. Any other browser you may choose might not collect that data, but don't be surprised if it halves your battery life and takes twice the time to render stuff (such as Firefox in macOS about 6 months ago, don't know how it performs now).
There are reasons for data collection, and I don't think everything is used for malitious intent, which is DDG's point.
That is not DDG's point at all. Their point is right in the linked tweet - "Spying on users has nothing to do with building a great web browser or search engine."
Clearly the fix is collecting even more performance data! :)
This is literally what Chrome does on a MacBook, the battery drain is insane
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/13/google-lo...
Also, why must all the services attempt to guilt me into turning it back on?
Disc: Googler.
Enable it, then set home and work. Then disable it.
So this is not your GPS data but most likely IP based city/metro.
Also it says "may" everywhere. AFAIK DDG may be doing all of those things too.
From a technical POV this looks such a huge FUD that it's sad.
Except that DDG explicitly says they are not:
When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address.
Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all. This is a very unusual practice, but we feel it is an important step to protect your privacy.
If they don't store IP addresses then (I believe) they can't use wifi-router-based methods to find your location. Your browser also doesn't get a popup asking to give ddg your location.
So yeah I stand by my link and my interpretation of it.
At this point, I think mine is more of a nihilism towards this as I cut everything at the only reliable level: the network. But even then, I've hammered myself way too much over privacy, and it didn't make me any happier, since, at the end of the day, if anyone wants to track you, they'll track you.
I also think that data that might be harmful to a user because it could record them breaking a law should be thought of differently than data that could be harmful when used maliciously by a third party. Even allowing for the often oppressive and unfair application of the law, data that is harmful to the user when sent to the authorities should be considered differently than other data because there is obviously a balancing question around relative harms to different parties. If you witness a crime, reporting it might be good, but it isn't always.
[1] Personally I feel like providers should be legally barred from doing anything other than responding to warrants for information related to a real person and they should, in that case, be prevented from including any information linked through statistical imputation.
Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?
https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&typ...
A little far fetched, but if you're employed by one of those agencies, your boss (or bosses boss etc) can access _your_ data, find out how often you're googling basic information and use that information against you.
as the tumblr kids say, satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize.
This isn’t true. The risk is currently low of actually being targeted but that doesn’t mean people are not at risk.
Also law enforcement is not the only problem by a long shot. Civil suits, family court, etc, all routinely use browsing history data.
"Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared details."
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...
(In case anyone thinks google sells search history retail: this is a joke...at least for now).
When presented with a screen that's hiding a silly cat picture they would just instinctively would click "I agree" 99 times out of 100, and at that moment, and maybe most, they really don't care...
Is there anything that _cant_ be better? I'm sure as engineers we can all come up with proposed improvements on pretty much anything. :)
>But I think DDG is exaggerating here. We're not _that_ bad.
The point (that DDG is making, paraphrased here) is spying on the user is not necessary to build a great browser/search engine. Do you disagree with that? I don't.
That said, I have to make a conscious choice to avoid Google data collection wherever I can, but I still end up using many Google products. I was more accepting when data collected was silo'ed in individual Google services. Now that those barriers are down [1], it will probably take government intervention to re-isolate key platforms (like Chrome, Android, Youtube, Search, Ads, Maps, etc.)
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2016/10/google-changed-a-major-...
Now if only we could take away Apple's ability to create a walled-garden...
Alternatively, if only people who don't like Apple's solutions would just go away and leave those of us who do alone.
I'm assuming by your use of the word "we're" that you work for Google?
It's a complete violation of privacy.
Until it's not. Meaning, we don't know if there's a way yet to harm users, or we don't know if anyone is actually using it to harm users.
If it's harmless, don't collect it.
The reason Chrome is so fast, is most likely thanks to the performance (harmless) data it collects. Firefox may be proud of not collecting as much data, but (at least on macOS) they spend twice the battery to render twice as slow.
Not saying you shouldn't be able to choose what data you're collected (which, you are) but there are reasons (not necessarily evil) to get that data to the devs.
What makes it the absolute leader is the void left by a dismal IE, and a completely lost Firefox, a few years back. Today's lead is coasting. I don't know OSx, but perceived performance in Linux/Windows is not any better than today's Firefox/Chromium derivatives, if any at all.
You keep saying "harmless", and keep missing the point. If you don't want data to be used against users, don't collect it. And use explicit opt-in for everything.
This argument is like the classic _well, if you haven't made anything wrong, why do you care if the state collects that much info about you?_. The problem is not being harmless today. Is that, when the moment of being harmful come, then it's too late.
The browser itself is trivial to separate from Google, which is why (completely ungoogled) Chromium exists, but to get yourself out of the Google services web is very, very, hard.
"Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared details."
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...