[incepted]

This is the usual privacy hysteria knee-jerk reaction: "Watch out, the big companies are going to get data on you!".

And people are going to react exactly like they've done before: if the service is worth it, they'll be happy to trade a few bits of privacy about themselves in exchange for the benefits.

Also, I'm not sure the author of this piece understands what encryption is about since he laments that most people don't search with https on. Er... what? If you want Google to search something on your behalf, they have to be able to read the words you type. Encrypting these words so Google can't read them would be comically useless.

[coldtea]

>This is the usual privacy hysteria knee-jerk reaction: "Watch out, the big companies are going to get data on you!".

Whether you care about privacy or not, I don't see anything "hysteric" about it. Indeed, big companies ARE going to get data on you (and they already have too many).

That said, not caring about privacy seems to me a first world privilege. And only because most people are so boring. Sure, if all you do is work, sleep, buy stuff from Amazon, Whole foods and Costco, go for the occasional holiday, watch some Netflix, rinse and repeat, who even cares if the government has data on you?

Try being an activist of any kind however (even someone like MLK who had tons of enemies at the local and big government level, and volumes of FBI files), rubbing the police the wrong way (e.g. being in some group against police violence etc), or even a regular citizen with some democratic views in any place from Egypt to several shady Latin American "democracies", and see what happens...

>Also, I'm not sure the author of this piece understands what encryption is about since he laments that most people don't search with https on. Er... what? If you want Google to search something on your behalf, they have to be able to read the words you type. Encrypting these words so Google can't read them would be comically useless.

No, but encrypting these words so third parties can't read them would be extremely important (that said, Google has https on by default IIRC).

[1stop]

That's a strange arguement.

That's like saying it's not hysterical to say everyone needs Kevlar, because try being a soldier without Kevlar!?

It makes no sense.

People who need to hide things have encrypted options. People who don't, also have options. I don't see the problem.

[Cau5tik]

> People who need to hide things have encrypted options. People who don't, also have options. I don't see the problem.

This viewpoint is tricky. This basically turns encryption use into a big target on a user. If only people who have something to hide use encryption, then everyone using encryption must have something to hide.

Also, your argument makes the assumption that everyone grasps the value of all of their information. Not everyone understands how much of their life can be found out through their Google Maps history.

I prefer to look at it from the perspective of my life not being anyone else's business. If my local MP came up to me and asked me who I'd talked to and where I'd been for the last week, I'd tell them to sit and spin. Why should passive surveillance be any different?

[colbyh]

the author doesn't seem to know much about how the internet works, quite frankly. they assume that there's some inherent level of privacy in any chat that isn't e-to-e encrypted. for instance, with FB:

"With M, you are speaking one-on-one with a bot, the bot isn’t monitoring every single thing you say to your friends."

how is that even relevant in this context? you're not comparing Allo to M in isolation, you have to compare it to both M and the Messenger product. in that case, FB is obviously harvesting data from your conversations. even if it is just to train M on how to communicate (a very big if) they would be insane not to.

the author doesn't understand much about the ecosystem as a whole (and considers Allo to be a market leader before launch). lazy reporting, and quite disappointing.

[LeeHarveysGrave]

"the author doesn't understand much about the ecosystem as a whole (and considers Allo to be a market leader before launch). lazy reporting, and quite disappointing."

I've noticed over past year that internet security / privacy has become something of a clickbait topic for media outlets with no reputation for writing about it. Usually after reading one paragraph that becomes all too apparent. Sadly that doesn't prevent the headline from becoming mythological truth in internet time.

[pacala]

Of course you have to send Google search queries. Of course it would be a whole lot more elegant on their part to have a simple SLA: "We use the search queries for the express purpose of answering your queries. We do not hold on your personal information for more than XX minutes, neither in personalized nor in aggregated form." It's not that hard, a 30 people organization can pull it off, https://duckduckgo.com/about.

Even better if there were a law that would require internet service providers to provide such a guarantee for people that want it. Make the tradeoff between a few bits of privacy and the benefits realistic, not "either you surrender your privacy, or live as an Amish".

[edanm]

But most people don't want such a feature, and prefer that Google store the history. And there is already a great mechanism for providing different options, as you yourself use: the market. There are different products, one of which people who want this feature can use instead of Google. Why would we need to bring the government into this?

[vthallam]

And in this case, what do you think would be the motivation of companies like Google who uses data to monetize for any innovation and provide better service? Companies have to sustain and the only way to be sustainable at that scale as Google is to monetize using the data. You can always go incognito.

[coldtea]

>And in this case, what do you think would be the motivation of companies like Google who uses data to monetize for any innovation and provide better service? Companies have to sustain and the only way to be sustainable at that scale as Google is to monetize using the data.

How about we don't allow companies to monetize any other way than directly? E.g. by having paying customers for their services?

Killing all ad-supported BS will make the internet so much better.

[yomism]

For rich people at least...

[coldtea]

Poor people are the one's who suffer the most from advertising.

First, it's calculated that a hefty sum of most product purchases is there to cover its advertising campaigns.

If you're rich of course those are peanuts -- what's 10% or 20% more on your groceries and other such purchases? Instead of, say, $40,000 you'll spend $45,000 but no big deal, since you make $1,000,000 per year anyway. But for a poor person, $500 vs $600 is a much bigger deal.

Second, most people (even if they think otherwise) would buy less stuff, and less pricey stuff, if it weren't for advertising. That's what sells a $2 dollar bottle of water that's basically glorified tap water over a 50 cents one, or even regular tap water. Without ads, it's mostly buying what you need, and based on utility, not rushed purchases because some ad hit some subconscious emotional strings.

Let's put it this way: if you're worth $N dollars to Google, those are $N dollars (and more) that Google ads will get you to spend. Advertisers (and companies getting advertised) are not doing it to lose money.

[fisherjeff]

> if the service is worth it

It will only become worth it once the size of the network reaches a critical mass. It could have all the cool features in the world but still be completely useless if you can't use it to reach your friends.

And the article is not talking about using HTTPS when searching, but rather "Incognito Mode", which dissociates some of your personal data (e.g., Google account) from your searches.