What Google Just Announced Is a Bombshell
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
What this is, as far as I can understand, is a creepy, invasive ‘service’ that for the benefit of alleviating the users of the need to select whatever text they are interested in finding out more about and pasting it into a search-box will cost them an eternal window into their behaviour in the context of whichever app they are using.
Also, it seems to me that this is the ultimate defeat for Google, not a stunning advance: retreating to the God Of The Gaps.
I might be wrong (I usually am), but “oh wow” was not the first thing I thought when I heard of this, it was more along the lines of “oh yuck”. For how much longer will Android/Google users realise that they are the product and that all these actions are simply aimed at mining them more deeply?
Will 3rd parties also be able to user the same hooks that given them access to every other app's text? Wouldn't that turn into a nasty free-for-all where every app tries to steal as much data as possible, now that they can bypass the few restrictions Android imposes?
If access is limited to Google - that is, that this is some "OS feature" instead an app that uses features available to any developer, isn't this effectively the same issue as United States v. Microsoft Corp.?
I'm guessing Now on Tap doesn't scan content, until you activate it.
They promise[1] not to abuse the software that just happens to require hooking into the OS in such a way that they could spy on everything. Google's pattern has been to introduce products that people find useful, then log everything they can get access too once they have a large enough market share (usually taking advantage of the general ignorance about what can be done with the modern networked computer).
To suggest that somehow this time Google will act differently is to ignore the last decade of history and their publicly stated business plan.
[1] ...actually, I haven't seen such a promise, just people assuming so. Maybe I missed something.
What would it take to convince you? Nothing. There is literally nothing anyone could say to convince you.
Which one of us has a position based on reason?
===
And as to the "spying" thing...
If you find Google's tools useful, then use them. If you don't, then don't.
I get an email about my flight, and my hotel. Google Now pops up to let me know it's time to leave for the airport, and reminds me where I parked my car. When I get close to the airport, it lets me know my flight is delayed, so I take it easy. It tells me what gate my flight is leaving.
If you say it's "spying" on me to provide me that service...? You and I just flat-out disagree about what "spying" is.
If I had a secretary as useful as Google, I'd give that secretary praise and raises. Why, when it's a company providing software instead, do you automatically attribute malice to it?
Source code in all cases would be a good start. Earning a good reputation over time would be the real way. The fact that it is harder for Google to regain reputation is their problem, not mine.
> Proof
Gmail. google-analytics. Chromebook, Android and everything else Google has that specifically designed to send all your data to google under the guise of "cloud storage" and "single sign-on". I doubt you have somenow missed the last few years of drama over how much data Google collects.
> scraping apps
If you mean emulating the Tap behavior, that was clearly somethging I claimed they would eventually do. You seem to think this behavior will continue into the future, contrary to everything else Google does.
> There is literally nothing anyone could say to convince you.
Projection and/or lies. See above.
> Which one of us has a position based on reason?
Using someone's record as a heuristic about their future behavior isn't based on reason? Do you also get angry with people who stop going to a particular store after being ripped off or sold a lemon?
Not all corporations provide all source code to everything. If you don't trust any of them, that's one thing. If you specifically select Google for your ire, I say that's irrational.
> Earning a good reputation over time would be the real way.
I think they're the most valuable corporation I've ever interacted with. I also trust their employees' competence and desire to protect my privacy more than any other company.
> The fact that it is harder for Google to regain reputation is their problem, not mine.
We're not talking about their reputation. We're talking about your opinion of them, and whether it has a rational basis.
> Gmail. google-analytics. Chromebook, Android...
I understand the data Google collects, how it protects my data, and how it does business... I approve. You want to talk about disapproval? Target. Anthem BCBS. Sony.
> Projection and/or lies. See above.
The only example you've given is to release all of their source code. That's not a reasonable expectation.
> Using someone's record as a heuristic about their future behavior isn't based on reason? Do you also get angry with people who stop going to a particular store after being ripped off or sold a lemon?
If you're citing GMail, Google Analytics, Chromebook, and Android as examples of BAD behavior on Google's part, then yes, I think you're reading their past behavior entirely wrong.
I said it before, and I'll say it again - you don't like the value proposition of their products. That's fine. You seem to think others are crazy for making the informed and conscious choice to use them.
Would I be crazy to hire a personal secretary who can read all of my mail and emails, and make suggestions to me about which products I might enjoy?
While I question how "informed" those choices are, that wasn't my argument. I'm suggesting you're crazy for disregarding the pattern in Google's past behavior, that says that just like all their other products, they will eventually use it as a tool for mass collection of personal data ("spying"). To argue that this is not their intention is to ignore the years of public statements Google has made about how they operate.
If you want to use Google products anyway, that's your choice. Your opinion that they make useful products and services (they do) is entirely off topic. I was replying to the "...but that doesn't mean that's what they do.", which is about Google's behavior regarding spying on and recording personal information. Their past behavior says "that's what they do", even if the first version doesn't implement that part yet.
This is entirely about the reputation that Google - and only Google - has earned for themselves. BCBS and Target get to earn their on reputations, which is also off topic.
Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with trolls and/or fawning fans of spyware.
To agree that it's a pattern, I'd have to agree that any single instance that you've listed is in fact "spying." Since I don't agree that any single instance is "spying," it is inaccurate to state that I'm "disregarding a pattern."
Would a personal secretary, paid to be going through my mail and email for me, sorting it, prioritizing it, making suggestions, be a "spy"? OF COURSE NOT.
Imagine I showed my secretary a text from my wife, reading, "Can we eat at Fogo de Chao, and then go see Mad Max?" I ask my secretary where the closest Fogo is, to help me book a reservation, and then to find showtimes and ratings for the movie. You'd call that "spying"?
> Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with trolls and/or fawning fans of spyware.
Someone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll or "fawning." They can't possibly have a reasonable position that disagrees with yours. Got it.
How does this sound?
I'm unaware of an analogous situation.
> What if your secretary shares your mail and emails with the government without your knowing?
The government spied on Google, much to their harm. They're the victim. Here's a typical Googler reaction:
https://plus.google.com/+KentonVarda/posts/DFQQH9sFQMJ
> What if your secretary receives rewards from companies and other individuals to make subtle suggestions to you?
In lieu of pay? If they're good suggestions, sounds good.
> What if your secretary has compiled a secret dossier about all your habits and little quirks and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder?
Without actually identifying me? Wow, sounds like she knows my preferences well, and is valuable in helping connect me with products I might want.
> How does this sound?
Like the cheapest, fastest, most effective secretary ever. Sign me up.
You act like I don't understand what Google does.
I understand you're uncomfortable with having an automatic secretary. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending I don't understand the trade-offs I'm consciously making.
It is a quite bold assumption and as such a wrong one. I am uncomfortable with a tool (any tool) over what I do not have control and whose main objective is to benefit somebody else at my expense (1). I am (well, would be) perfectly fine with a personal automatic secretary.
> Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending I don't understand the trade-offs I'm consciously making.
I do not think I was insulting you. But you are free to feel insulted.
I was just trying to extend the discussion that was driven in my option into too innocent looking direction and as such my reply was left mostly for a third random reader and not directly for you.
We could probably continue this discussion but I think that an intelligent and critically thinking readers can find counter arguments on their own.
But about conscious trade-off making, I find that you are assuming too much trust in a organism without ethics but with much power. I think that you are also assuming a status quo - that it would stay most profitable to continue to use information about you as it is (to your knowledge) used at the moment.
(1) as a small remark - I see that we are moving from an age of tools that were built to benefit the owner into age where the tools are built to exploit the owner and this raises the question of trust - not only that can I trust my computer or mobile phone but can I trust my thermostat or my fridge? How is the collected data about me used and will it actually benefit me or it would be actually in most of the time used against me (in the longer run).
Mortgage. Insurance. Credit Card.
You've rejected all of these things, or are you just picking on Google?
> assuming too much trust in a organism without ethics but with much power.
Organizations are made up of individuals. Like this:
https://plus.google.com/+KentonVarda/posts/DFQQH9sFQMJ
> I think that you are also assuming a status quo - that it would stay most profitable to continue to use information about you as it is (to your knowledge) used at the moment.
Yes, I think people are already very hard on Google, and that if they pushed the "creepy" factor too far, it would be massively harmful to them. I've seen people BLAME Google for being spied on by the NSA, for example.