Hacker News Reader

> The advertisers never actually get to see "person X has attribute ABC", more like the advertiser says "target people with ABC" and they trust google to show it people like that.)

Only if you never click. Once you click they know.

> because Google doesn't allow you to create an account with age less than 13

Actually you can - you create the account under FamilyLink.

See here: https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103338

TIL

> Google never really "sells" your data. That would loose their monopoly on their most valued asset. It's more like they rent it out, but allowing advertisers to target you.

I think most people understand this, it's just that it doesn't make the situation much better.

I very much doubt this. Often deletes are just soft deletes, and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies.

They might not use it for advertisement directly, but I am 100% convinced they’ll build up your profile and use the profile for advertisement instead.

>Often deletes are just soft deletes

It probably is, with purges (including backups) happening a few months later. Otherwise they're setting themselves up for fraud lawsuits (see also: the recent incognito browsing lawsuit which arguably has less merit than a straightforward "we told you we'd delete it but didn't").

> and they have to provide all data they capture to intelligence agencies.

1. Source?

2. If your threat model is intelligence agencies operating extrajudicially, you probably shouldn't be trusting googles delete functionality at all. At the very least they can pull up a copy that they captured before you deleted it from google?

1. Prism and the snowden leaks, and EU regulation which prevents the transfer of EU citizens data to the US specifically because all of it is being harvested under PRISM and FISA. 2. Very true, which is exactly why all EU data had to remain in the EU and could not be transferred to the US, until recently, with the express statement that US intelligence would still have access.

AFAIK the Snowden/PRISM leaks only revealed that tech companies were part of the program, but not whether they were compelled or voluntarily gave the information up.

I didn’t state if they gave it up willingly or compelled.

There are also reports of the US buying lots of data from data brokers, as well as hackers.

I mean, I would too, if I were an intelligence agency.

It just means I’m more careful about which data I put where

"If your student has a google account created by the school using Google for Education, then their data is not being used for ads" - then how do they make money? Is Google classroom free for schools?

Yes, but there are enterprise-y tiers that are paid.

Yes it's free. And yes it's not making money. They do have phenomenal education resources for teachers that are paid, though.

It's about getting them baked into the google ecosystem. Microsoft did this in the 90's, but with businesses instead of schools (and not for free to be honest).

Get them used to Google so they use nothing but Google when they're adults. Then monetization happens.

And Apple in the 2000s! The iMac G3 and eMac was everywhere in classrooms.

You should check out the Apple II…

> then their data is not being used for ads

maybe, just maybe this is half true as in: they do not use this data _directly_

What are you implying? In other words what non "direct" ways is google using such account data for advertising?

I bet they somehow analyze it to learn something. And then they use that knowledge to make money.

Google for Education accounts don't see any ads at all, so there is no indirect usage for ads either.

They surely do not use this usage data, no way :)

> their data is not being used for ads

Bullshit. Even if that were true they still collect the surveillance data to funnel it to another arm of the government.