Hacker News Reader

> Good god I am so sick of reading comments like this. This view of the world is just lazy.

I think your view of the world is the lazier of the two--you're basically saying "let's not worry about the negative implications of the things we create as long as our intentions are good".

> Who cares? If you don't like these services, don't use them. Nobody is forcing you to use this device . . . If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity. Move to a homestead in the pacific northwest, never use a telephone, never use grid power, grow your own vegetables, grow your own cattle, and keep away from the evil, scary spies at gooooogggllleeee who are trying to...uh...give you better targeted advertisements? Or provide you with better search results?

Here's how your entire comment reads to me: "If you're interested in thinking about the future implications of the new things we're creating, please shut up and go live in the woods, because you obviously hate modernity. I'm really sick of people thinking about the future and how we might be creating things that will eventually hurt us. The market comes before foresight, and commentary isn't welcome; when you have potential concerns for the future, the only acceptable response is voting with your feet. Please do that and don't ruin our fun."

What you miss is that one can object to a single, potentially dangerous aspect of recent developments (personal information collection and exploitation) while embracing technology in general at the same time.

In creating new technology, it's essential that we examine the paradigms we're creating. If no one's doing that, we're almost sure to run ourselves into serious trouble sooner or later. There's a reason you look before you leap.

Which is lazy: choosing not to use awesome new technology because it has some potentially dangerous implications, or just using any new and seemingly convenient thing that people come up with and assuming it's got to be okay?

I think the grandparent's point is to focus on things that are actionable. If you are worried about the information Google collects on you and so choose not to use Google products - fine, that's your right. But if you're worried about the information Google collects on you and so choose to plaster that all over message boards every time Google is mentioned - exactly what are you accomplishing? Do you think the people reading your comment don't already know what information Google has available? Do you think Google's going to change its practices because you complain?

> if you're worried about the information Google collects on you and so choose to plaster that all over message boards every time Google is mentioned - exactly what are you accomplishing?

If you're worried about the information Google collects about /everybody/, and you're posting in /relevant topics/, I think you're accomplishing quite a lot. I think it's really important that when new technology is announced, interested parties discuss both "here are some exciting new possibilities" and "here are some areas for concern". In an impartial discussion forum, a product announcement shouldn't just be an excitement-fest.

> Do you think the people reading your comment don't already know what information Google has available?

This technology will likely result in Google and others collecting and having access to new sources of information about people. I think that many people reading the announcement might not immediately think about some of these implications, and I think it's a great time for review and examination of the topic.

> Do you think Google's going to change its practices because you complain?

I think some engineers and others working on this project and other projects at Google probably read HN, and I think comments here could have an effect on how they build this product and what data is eventually sent to the company. Reading these concerns might be a good reminder to reflect on these things from time to time as well.

> I think the grandparent's point is to focus on things that are actionable.

Action without reflection is a dangerous formula. Google is taking action by building this and announcing it. What we do at HN is learn, reflect, and discuss.

You think the average person is aware of the data companies are collecting on them? I feel like 99% of the world has no idea how their privacy is being invaded. I think it's important to raise some awareness, so people can make an informed decision in the first place.

I also don't believe the answer is simply not using the services. That's like saying if you don't like the government monitoring your phone calls or location, you should just stop using phones.

Well the fact that google is tracking our keystrokes in their search box came as a surprise to me. So the original comment was definitely informative and useful to me (and actionable). It's kind of sneaky no? I'm not making a political statement, I'm just genuinely creeped out a bit at the idea.

Stupid that I didn't see this I should add. Considering I'm a programmer who knows how to do that with javascript, but for whatever reason it never occurred to me to do it or that others are doing it.

How did you think Google Instant works? http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/instant/about.ht...

There's need to store every single keystroke to implement Google Instant.

> Good god I am so sick of reading comments like this.

I suppose your comment has, if nothing else, the virtue of being relatively novel compared against either the comments of those unaware of the privacy implications of much modern technology or those concerned by them. People who are largely aware and untroubled do seem to be in the minority.

> This view of the world is just lazy. Almost as lazy as "remember, if you're using a service for free, you're not the customer, YOU'RE THE PRODUCT!", which seems to get parroted every single time there is any discussion related to google, facebook, microsoft, instagram, twitter, or any other web company that uses ads as a revenue model.

It appears to be, if not 100% correct, a generally good heuristic, and a way of pointing out to people that the costs of participating in nominally free services are often hidden. Perhaps you could explain how this is lazy.

> If you don't like these services, don't use them / If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity.

Whew! Simple binary options. It's all clear now, and anybody who's thinking about this can safely choose one without worrying any further (or being accused of being... lazy, right?).

Or maybe some of us "lazy" people would like to explore the possibility of having a world where we can have the benefits of the technologies and minimize the problems.

> Have you, or any of the other people on HN who repeat this ad nauseum, ever considered the possibility that the people running google are actually just hackers who got lucky enough to have the resources to pursue projects that they think are cool?

I suspect many of them are. My acquaintances who work there seem to be.

But perhaps you are familiar with the aphorism "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" (though perhaps this is something else you consider "lazy"). It doesn't matter what motivated those who pursued a thorough knowledge and practice of various nuclear fission techniques, the fact is that they have various drawbacks (some pretty serious) that aren't a matter of individual opt-in / opt-out. This is true of technologies that extend legibility of personal spaces and activities.

> If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity. Move to a homestead in the pacific northwest, never use a telephone, never use grid power, grow your own vegetables, grow your own cattle, and keep away from the evil, scary spies at gooooogggllleeee

I think I've seen this suggestion before, but less in earnest:

http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-us...

"...ever considered the possibility that the people running google are actually just hackers who got lucky enough to have the resources to pursue projects that they think are cool?"

Given that he said that, yes, he probably has considered it.

You're reacting reflexively here.

There's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with considering the potential problems along with the benefits. In fact, it's extremely shallow not to.

My carrier pigeon just arrived with some TCP/IP/pigeon protocol packets, and I see I've caused someone's head to explode on the Internet.

I'll put down my vegetable hoe and ask you this. Given that these are my friends, neighbors, and former coworkers I'm talking about at Google, is there any information about you that you would be uncomfortable having your friends collect and store in a database for unknown parties to eventually analyze? If there's some limit beyond which you might say, "Well, that's going a bit too far," and that caused someone else to fulminate over your backwardness, what would you say to them?

Oh, well, gotta send this pigeon off and get back to my bunker before the drones catch me out in the open....

that's silly, people at Google don't have access to your data, and even if they did, they would not have your name attached on

Just in case you're not joking: Yes, of course they have access to my data, and unless I delete all Google cookies, sign out from all Google services (gmail, youtube, etc.) and possibly reboot my browser before making a Google query, they add every keystroke of that query to everything they've read in my email, every youtube video I've watched, my contacts and my contacts' contacts (pointing back at me), driving endpoints from Google maps, phone numbers for calendar notifications, and on and on. Of course they know my name along with everything else they know about me.

Even twenty years ago, if you called a mail order catalog company, and it was the first time you'd called them, the sales rep on the phone already had your number (from commercial caller ID), your name (either "Bob Smith" or "Sally Smith"), and your household's credit card numbers before you even opened your mouth. They would still ask you for them for security reasons, to see which of your cards you wanted to use, to double-check accuracy, and in order to NOT freak you out, but companies you had never heard of already knew your name before you ever called them.

But you think Google can't figure out my name?

I think you're misunderstanding what he means. He's saying that Google employees don't have access to that kind of information (due to access controls, logging of access, etc), likely in response to your "would you be uncomfortable with your friends collecting arbitrary amounts of data from you" question.

I'm not saying that his comment was a sound rebuttal to yours or anything; just noting that he was talking in the context of "your friends, neighbors and former coworkers" accessing your data and you're talking about "Google" accessing your data, and those are potentially very different things.

Yes. User data, especially PII data, is very closely watched. If I tried to access something that I shouldn't (assuming that I managed to get the right permissions first), I have no doubt that I'd be fired by the end of the week.

> Good god I am so sick of reading comments like this.

Then don't.

You just lazily suggested to these people to stop using these products/services, so I suggest for you to stop reading comments "like this."

> Almost as lazy as "remember, if you're using a service for free, you're not the customer, YOU'RE THE PRODUCT!"

By the way, what do you think Facebook bought yesterday for $16 billion? Not a product, but users.

I don't think it's laziness. That can be part of it, but I believe the core issue is a specific mentality these type of people have. They see the world in a black and white. "Us" and "them". Their view of the world has these two (or more) sides always in conflict. So, they effectively view Google as an enemy to fight against.

My theory as to why people act this way is that they do so to give their lives meaning. That, or there is something that makes their life meaningful they believe the "enemy" will take away. For instance "Google spying on my children" -> "Google is the enemy". They see Google, the NSA, Microsoft, etc, as a cohesive group that is "after them".

But in absence of this conflict, or the external meaning that is the cause of the (perceived) conflict, they wouldn't know what to do with their own existence. Religion, alcohol, and hedonism may end up filling this gap.

In contrast, those who have a self-defined objective see the world as a massive system of problems to solve (or not solve). There's no singular "enemy", just a huge number of people who all have their own motivations and ideals. "Google" is nothing more than a tightly-bound collection of humans.

> But in absence of this conflict, or the external meaning that is the cause of the (perceived) conflict, they wouldn't know what to do with their own existence

What nonsense.

> "Google" is nothing more than a tightly-bound collection of humans.

Yes, and collections of humans tend to exhibit emergent properties / behaviours which are not necessarily ideal in all respects.

Discussion of these properties / behaviours, and their desirability, is not a bad thing.

> They see the world in a black and white. "Us" and "them".

This is humorous to see in a post expounding a false dichotomy between the "two" types of people in the world.

> Who cares? If you don't like these services, don't use them. Nobody is forcing you to use this device.

I cannot dictate my friends. Should I disallow them entering my house with their shiny toys? Should I nuke their wireless connections to make sure they cannot transmit live? Privacy is a societal issue that cannot be fixed by ignoring it.

> Have you, or any of the other people on HN who repeat this ad nauseum, ever considered the possibility that the people running google are actually just hackers who got lucky enough to have the resources to pursue projects that they think are cool?

Have you considered that making this impression on gullible people has been part of Google's schtick from the beginning?

You are both right, there is no better way to put it.

My problem with the whole thing is that you get sucked in and by the time you realize what's going on, it's too late to turn back.

You get tempted by the amazing gadgets and services, somehow your whole life ends up in Google's computers. You think it's just a bunch of geeks like you. Then Snowden blows the lid on the whole thing and now you're in some Philip K Dick story.

> This view of the world is just lazy.

I wouldn't even say laziness as much as simple-mindedness. Apparently there are a decent amt of people (at least on HN) that actually read stuff like this and the word Google/Facebook/Yahoo/what-have-you is the only thing their brain apparently pulls out of the content. It's staggering in its vacuousness, but I wouldn't go so far as to blame them for being lazy.