Hacker News Reader

Comment by dskhatri | Hacker News Reader

His point is more about not putting all your eggs in one basket; you certainly don't tell your barista about an upcoming physician's appointment, or that you are in the market for a house. Your barista is also disconnected from parties who may leverage the information you provide him/her. Similarly, you don't tell your broker that you prefer Ethiopian coffee. Google offers so many services that it has a much broader insight into who you are. To the privacy-conscious, that's an unacceptable fact. Nothing to be pained about.

View on HN

Except the author then proceeds to toss all his eggs into Apple's basket. No, it's not about putting all the eggs in one basket, it's about paranoidly avoiding Google at all costs for some unknown reason.

What are you talking about? Of 12-14 services he listed, 4 were from Apple (iOS, Mobile Safari, Apple Maps for directions, and iCloud for Calendar sync).

And quite likely, he is not paranoidily avoiding Google, but partly experimenting as he is running one of the very few companies that are directly trying to compete with Google in search.

Just going from your examples above:

- Safari/iOS will let Apple know you're in a market for a house - Safari will let Apple know you like Ethiopain coffee - Also it will probably allow them to track your searches - Along with Calendar sync and maps Apple knows both where you are currently and where you'll be next

While not all of his eggs are in one basket, there's an awful lot of them providing an awful lot of "tracking" information to one entity.

Sure, if he's experimenting with replacing Google's services that's a valid reason.

Hang on, safari/ios report back to apple your entire search and browse history? Really? I'm genuinely asking here.

You gotta be kidding me here. You don't explicitly have to login to any Apple service when you are using Safari. However, when you are using Chrome - somehow if you login to Gmail you are logged in to the browser. You login to gmail on Safari, you are logged in only to gmail. There's a difference. Sorry I don't mean to be offensive but this aspect shouldn't be overlooked.

> somehow if you login to Gmail you are logged in to the browser

What do you mean? Can you be more explicit?

Lets say you login to gmail in chrome. You open another tab and there are you are signed in again. This is the google+ crap I guess. The only option is to use an incognito window.

The only difference is that Apple is not an advertising company. Google explicitly uses your information to advertise against you. Apple is not yet in that vertical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd

iAd is a mobile advertising platform developed by Apple Inc. for its iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad line of mobile devices allowing third-party developers to directly embed advertisements into their applications. Announced on April 8, 2010, iAd is part of Apple's iOS 4, originally slated for release on June 21, 2010, the actual date was changed to July 1, 2010.

Safari has 3rd party cookies turned off by default. And how many iAds have you seen?

Also iAds have quite strict requirements as to what kind of identifying information they receive from the device.

Google/Android doesn't have any qualms about giving every bit of information they can get to the advertisers, that's the main source of income for Google. Also, 3rd party cookies will not be turned off by default in any Google product ever.

since when is advertising strictly an adversarial arrangement?

Websites such as real estate websites are basically just ads, yet it still offers a service (namely discovery). trailers for movies are also ads but I still like watching them.

There's a lot of disgusting/misleading behaviour in advertising, but it's not strictly an Us vs. Them proposition.

Real estate websites feature the product obviously, the real estate. With Google's website, your eyeballs on adverts is the product, and it's in Google's interest to know what you like to give you relevant adverts.

When you are a visitor to a website, it's whether you are a customer vs product proposition.

This unknown reason is probably because he runs DuckDuckGo and hence wants people to not use Google, worry about their privacy and use it instead.

He's pretty biased. A healthy biased in his vested interests :]

Actually it's more like going to your Dr appt and realizing they have a barista onsite... of course you're not going to tell the barista why you're going to the Dr, and the barista isn't going to know your full medical history, there is a pretty large separation of concerns there. Same applies to big companies. There are really big barriers up between services like there are between the Dr and the on site barista.

To further this analogy, what if you went to the onsite barista and when you ordered your coffee the barista told you that you're allergic to one of the seasonings. That's helpful and relevant and I think this is where most people start panicking but if the Dr has a Lot of accountability which is what the top comment is suggesting is the main concern, then you will know that the Dr isn't sharing full medical history but rather just what is relevant, your allergies. This is convenient, and in my imaginary scenario just saved the person from a lot of trouble. Also in this imaginary scenario the patient opted-into this sharing of knowledge.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, please share why instead of down voting me. I'm eager to learn and a down vote won't help me :P

There is no separation at Google anymore -- though there used to be. That was torn down to build Google +.

http://www.wired.com/2012/04/opinion-singel-google-walls/all...

That may be true of doctors with coffee bars, but it is absolutely NOT true of Google. Google is an advertising company, period. All of the thousand things they do are for one purpose: to sell advertising based on getting better and better at knowing the customer and targeting ads you're likely to click on.

Even if Google does say that some app is firewalled, the implied follow up is "...until customers stop caring" or "...until the law allows us to use it". Everything they do is intended to facilitate advertising, even if not yet.

Exactly. I was surprised by Youtube yesterday when it recommended some videos related to some Google searches I had just made... Creeped me out a bit.

The video on deman service for UK "Channel 4" has coke-cola ads that take my username (from the 4OD login) and superimpose text on a bottle image.

It's really creepy, even though it's obvious and trivial.

It's also counter productive - I haven't used 4OD for ages precisely because of that creep factor. Even though I knew they were doing it before the ad.

This is such a reductionist argument it can be applied to any action done by any group of people.

"Anything any company does is in the end goal to make money" is basically this argument. "Anything a university does is to get grants".

You're reducing the agency of people who work there and their personal objectives to nothing. Google has many different projects which aren't just about pushing ads . How are driverless cars selling ads? The cost of Google Fiber largely outweighs the advertising revenue. etc.

The issue under debate is not profit but rather the use of private data. Americans do not begrudge anyone their right to free enterprise. But many (including the OP) do care about the uses of their personal data. Google's activities are all oriented toward using and learning from personal data.

In the hypothetical doctor's office with attached coffee bar to which I was responding, we can see how it would be money-making but there's no good reason to assume that there would be a misappropriation of personal data between the two parts of the business. In Google's case it's the opposite: by default everything they do is oriented toward collecting and using data, as personal as possible. Sensible people would assume that if Google hasn't yet used the driverless car to find a way to better target advertising, they've got top minds thinking about how to do it.

This goes both ways -- the sheer amount of personal data that is entrusted to Google requires that they maintain a basic level of trust with their users.

If they were to flip a switch and turn Gmail-mined data into a dating site, or something, users would leave en masse. And good luck trying to entice new users with an expectation that their information would be misused.

They won't "flip a switch", they'll just wait until the relentless march of time lowers users' expectations.

And Google has already misused their trust with Google+ and the YouTube "real name" integration. As the integration becomes more complete, the ramifications of subtle changes become more problematic and hard to predict.

See, I don't get the whole furor over this. Most people just seem to be using it to join the Oh Noes, Google is Evil crowd without actually explaining how it negatively affects them personally.

I've always just used my real name online - so instead of having an email address like sexy_asian_chick88@hotmail.com, I just used my name. It's a little less embarrassing when you have to give it to people, and I sort of got over those sorts of email addresses in grade 5.

Sure, that means people can link what I write online, but it's hardly worse than if they just searched for my nickname, and did some legwork. And really, what am I writing online that is so private and secretive that I need to firewall it from my actual identity? I wouldn't be having such discussions on a public forum online - I'd do it offline. If

Now, sure, if I was living under a oppressive regime, and had to get data out - but let's be honest, as a percentage, how many of us HNers fall into this category?

And even then, would you really be doing it on YouTube? YouTube is a bastion of stupid (but funny) cat videos, parody videos, movie trailers and music covers.

I'm fairly sure a whistleblower would be using something a little more appropriate, and where privacy was actually a feature.

And quite frankly, considering the awful quality if YouTube comments, I'd applaud any attempts to make people even slightly accountable for the awful and often hateful c*ap they write on YouTube comments.

Great - it works for you. But you go further and claim that it must then work for everybody.

> I've always just used my real name online - so instead of having an email address like sexy_asian_chick88@hotmail.com, I just used my name. It's a little less embarrassing when you have to give it to people, and I sort of got over those sorts of email addresses in grade 5.

You can't see the value of bob@corp.example.com and barbera@mytransself.example.com for someone to blog about the widgets their company makes and also about the best places to buy clothes?

> sure, if I was living under a oppressive regime, and had to get data out

People are beaten every day in the US for being gay or trans or whatever. Sometimes murdered. Often discriminated against. While I feel Brandon Eich's opposition to gay marriage is abhorrent I kind of feel sorry for him being kick out of a job for it.

> And really, what am I writing online that is so private and secretive that I need to firewall it from my actual identity? I wouldn't be having such discussions on a public forum online - I'd do it offline.

There are so many reasons people might want to talk about something in a public forum but not want to tie it to their identity. At least, they may start wanting to keep it private before they reveal their identity. Why deny them that choice? But here's a list:-

- battered women

- battered men

- victims of sexual abuse

- members of the glbt community, especially if they're preparing to disclose to family members etc.

- people with "embarrassing" diseases.

- people who face stigma - being religious or not religious in a not religious or religious area; having severe and enduring mental health problems, etc.

This is just a partial list! There are very many more!

> And quite frankly, considering the awful quality if YouTube comments, I'd applaud any attempts to make people even slightly accountable for the awful and often hateful c*ap they write on YouTube comments.

Have you read comments under newspaper articles recently? Real names, horrible comments.

Improving comment quality is important. So far it seems that you need to set expectations and have some kind of moderation. This can work even with anonymity. See, for example, early /R9K/ (at least when they had the robot image) for an example of not terrible commenting without real names. But some people really strongly prefer real names - http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/UseRealNames

You've just listed several groups of people who are discriminated against. I certainly feel for these people.

However, this appears orthogonal to the issue of whether YouTube (a public forum) requires posters to use their actual name, and not a fake name.

I mean, think about it - is a public forum the sort of place that you would want to be posting private content you don't want linked to you?

If I was an oppressed person, and wanted to talk to somebody - friends, family, counsellor - there are other mediums available. I mean, gosh, I could meet up in person? Or I could pick up a telephone? (Assuming my enemies weren't the NSA.) I could write them a letter? I could send them an encrypted email. The list goes on.

What benefit do I possibly gain from publicly outing myself on a public forum, fake name or not? Why not use a private forum?

If I was an oppressed person, and I wanted to vent in my own community - there are private gated ways I could do this. There are real life meetups. We could meet in a coffee shop. There are private discussion forums, where you control the servers. There are Usenet groups etc.

I really don't get people's obsession with posting everything publicly by default. It's like people posting every time they do a poo on their Twitter feed - why?

Or let's look at one of your examples - people with embarrassing diseases. Is this where people with symptoms refuse to see a doctor, but would rather post on a online forum, so that anybody can chime in with their opinion? Have you seen some of the idiocy that's spouted in these forums? shakes head. Dude, go see your doctor, seriously. Firstly, it's guaranteed to be confidential, and secondly, this is somebody you're paying for their professional opinion, as opposed to some guy in their mum's basement having watched too many episodes of House M.D., and posting under the alias Dr_John_Hopkin_MD.

Or say you were filing a victim's report. The police aren't exactly going to say to you - oh, you need to file a police report? Gosh, you should do it in a...YouTube comment! You will go into a police station, and fill in a paper report.

The world would be a better place if people learnt to live a little less online, and didn't default to public-view on everything.

....

I don't see how this is related

If it's public, it's public. Eventually, it will probably be linked back to you.

If they want to talk among their communiti

"I mean, think about it - is a public forum the sort of place that you would want to be posting private content you don't want linked to you?"

So, "subversive", against the status quo ideas, should only be limited to my neighbor? So that there is not enough exposure and they just die out? How cute.

"so instead of having an email address like sexy_asian_chick88@hotmail.com, I just used my name. It's a little less embarrassing"

Nice, loaded example. Strange you didn't use "I'm a naive idiot" as an email example, to "explain" why using your real name would be better. ..And, btw: Sexy asian chick? Pics or it didn't happen.

"And really, what am I writing online that is so private and secretive that I need to firewall it from my actual identity?"

You may be boring, unimaginative, and a herd follower, but that doesn't mean everybody else is.

I'm not sure if that's an ad-hominem, but I'll bite.

Yes, I am boring - I'm not afraid to admit it.

I am just another of the 6 billion or so souls floating in this rock in space. I don't think of myself as a special snowflake, or as some secret government operative, or somebody who's smarter than all the plebs around me. And I sleep perfectly fine knowing that =). You use the word herd follower as if it's some kind of grave insult?

I'm not an anarchist, nor am I V from V for Vendetta. Ergo, my argument, I don't really have any issues with people seeing what I post online, since most of it's just banal rubbish. You're not going to get any national secrets from reading all of my online postings.

I have friends who are paranoid with security/privacy - and I respect them for that, I just don't understand it. I'm more likely to be the target of an online spammer or phishing attack, than a government agent trying to see if I am against the Party.

However, _if_ I were an anarchist, do you really think I'd be posting my secret plans to overthrow the US government on a YouTube comment?

This is precisely my point, everybody seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Who cares if Google makes you actually identify yourself when you comment on the 50 billionth cat video.

There are other things besides youtube, and there are other things besides cat videos.

Google+ dropped the real name policy a long time ago.

The policy was dropped 7 weeks ago.

Seven weeks is a long time on the internets.

If knowing that I prefer Ethiopian coffee helps my broker better serve me, I'd tell them in a heartbeat.

What if knowing you prefer Ethiopian coffee would make your insurance company charge you more because statistically these people are more prone to medical issues? Would you tell them in a heart beat?

The pendulum swings both ways, and this is the reason why all of this should be opt-in.

Should insurance companies charge smokers more because statistically those people are more prone to medical issues?

Uh... yes? Obese people as well. And alcoholics. It works with cars, why wouldn't it work with humans?

Like many here, you are pretending that happens, and it doesn't. Too many are living that lie.

Just because something isn't currently happening doesn't mean that it won't. You're ignoring the fact that the data isn't transient. It persists into the future, at which point these things can (and probably will) happen.

It's like arguing in favor of a monarchy just because the current ruler is just, competent and benevolent; while ignoring the possibility that the next ruler will be violent and vicious.

Just because something isn't currently happening doesn't mean it will either. You're ignoring the fact that, if Google started abusing your information, people would stream away from them in droves and Google is more than aware of that.

Your monarchy analogy doesn't work either because, in a monarchy, you don't have the choice of leaving it other than leaving the country. With Google, and every other internet company (they all track you), you can leave on a whim.

> Just because something isn't currently happening doesn't mean it will either.

I never said that there was certainty that it would. Only that it is possible. You can't hand-wave away possibilities with "it's not currently happening now."

Well, you're hand-waving that it can so it works both ways. Again, you're ignoring that people can walk away from this and nobody else is doing the exact same thing.

"if Google started abusing your information, people would stream away from them in droves and Google is more than aware of that"

I, like you, also get a daily email notice of what google is actually doing and planning, every morning. Larry also, sometimes, attaches sexy pics of himself. /sarc

Except maybe your barista happens to know a real estate agent and will get you an amazing deal on a new house. Something you might not have gotten if you didn't tell them...

Sure sucks for the real estate agents who don't network with baristas, though.

If the intention is to avoid putting all the eggs in one basket, then one doesn't need to avoid any use of google services.

Actually, I do tell my broker I like Ethiopian coffee, if I like it, there are probably many more like me, find me some shares in a company that deals in Ethiopian coffee!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com