You are, of course, correct. Especially in this day and age, perfect privacy is nearly impossible.
That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of these Google implements.
People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them of what it can cost them.
Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.
Oh, no. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to say privacy is bad, I was trying to say Google has a clear advantage since it knows more about the user. Don't think it's worth to compromise your privacy though.
Another advantage of Google is having the vast resources they have but again, it works because they know who you are.
I also agree with what you said. People just need to be more specific with their search and yes, DDG is going better by the day.
Possibly, but given its google I wouldn’t assume it’s more (or less) respecting of user privacy just because it costs something.
For the business products there may be strong business rationale behind it (it would categorically rule out too many applications), but for a consumer product I doubt that they don’t try making money both ways.
There are three levels of discomfort some people feel with this situation:
1. Concern that a single, third-party entity (Google, in this case) might peer into every aspect of our lives, and/or reverse-engineer an exhaustive catalog of our entire lives, by virtue of data collection.
2. Concern that many consumers will unwittingly opt into such control, unaware of the privacy they're relinquishing, and unable to make informed decisions about the possible applications and consequences of the tradeoff.
3. Concern that the custodian of all this personal data (Google) might use, sell, transmit, or turn over the data in ways we had not anticipated or believed we'd consented to.
Personally speaking, I understand these concerns but also understand the potential upside. I'm not 100% sure where I stand just yet. The aforementioned bullet points are presented without editorial comment; just trying my best to articulate what I believe to be the crux of people's concerns here.
Perhaps. You and I don't care, not yet. I use just about every mainstream Google product/service available. But, we're not most people. Most people are already weary about what they do with their personal information.
There will be a time in the not too distant future when this barrier will be crossed. Giving any large, corporate entity too much information is often perceived as dangerous, because they have a greater ability to utilize/mine/profit from that information than a new startup. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Fair point. I am not a heavy GA user, I just use the basic functionality.
Nevertheless, I don't feel iffy about my Interests profile participating in aggregate data available to the sites I visit. Since virtually all sites are free of charge, giving some of that insight back seems like a fair trade.
That said, having ALL that data available to Google without anonymization is a bit more worrying, although I haven't seen many examples where it hurt someone in real world.
I didn't and still don't particularly care. The arguments to why this is bad always seem to be of the slippery slope / what if somebody does something untoward with the data variety.
The first one is a easily-dismissed fallacy, the second is not limited to Google or any other company. I have yet to see a convincing argument that Google is misusing this data or doing anything bad with it.
On the other hand, a service that knows you intimately enough can provide some very cool things that are otherwise impossible. The cards on Google Now, for instance, rely completely on the search history on your account and the location data from your phone. I get up in the morning and my usual route to work is plotted out with an ETA. I search for a nearby restaurant on my computer and the directions appear on the phone complete with ratings. Things like that.
My philosophy is to deal with any abuses if/when they occur (and mitigate the forseeable ones), instead of walling yourself off from the ever-more connected world. I'm starting to think there's a fundamental shift happening in what "privacy" is, why it's necessary, and what it means nowadays. And as usual, the choices are hop on, get out of the way, or get run over. For better or worse.
Google is a for-profit enterprise. Currently the company has optimized its products for what users want: reliability, security, ease of use. The (sad) fact is that users tend to undervalue their own privacy and data because a single person's data is not very valuable. They don't see the power of aggregate data.
The title is a little misleading because it's not Google who choosing this balance between privacy and convenience. We, the users, are making this choice. This is what concerns me.
If users choose privacy over convenience, Google would happily oblige. I'm confident of this seeing the way that the "organic" movement has taken hold.
The flip side of this is that it makes it harder for you to stumble upon something related, but new, outside of the filter bubble Google is making for you.
There's no arguing what you're describing is useful, but it's nice to keep in mind that there are downsides even if you ignore the privacy argument (which, IMO, shouldn't be ignored).
Personally, the fears around privacy are about harm being done to myself or others with my data. Google would be fine, except that big tech companies like Google sell your data to advertisers, who then use that data to coerce you into buying products and services that you might never have purchased if left to your own devices. That crosses into 'harm' territory.
For a more clear demonstration of harm, think about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the very real and tangible effects that scandal had.
Yes! I find it so hypocritical of people who seems to be extra careful about their personal information. I understand this makes sense for some people, but for most of the others, Google using your meta-data to show things which might interest you and by also helping you with great applications is cool. Not everyone wants to pay for things to get privacy.
It's not so much Google I'm worried about. I can choose to use other online services.
But I should be able to buy a car without the vendor tracking me everywhere I go, or a phone without it becoming a beacon that stores use to follow me around as I do my shopping, or a TV that just lets me watch a show without phoning home to tell the manufacturer all about it. None of the data sharing in these cases is in any way essential to the device I've bought, it's just being added because it can be, as an extra revenue stream at the expense of my privacy and potentially security.
That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of these Google implements.
People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them of what it can cost them.
Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.
reply