[5l]

> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions

So far, but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free.

> Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data

They use it for exactly the same purpose. To sell ads. Neither platform has, or likely ever will, sell our data outright. That is absolutely the last thing I'd be worried about.

Of course, like the government, you don't know who will be in charge tomorrow or what their intentions might be.

> These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique.

All institutions will try and do terrible things if you set up the wrong incentives.

> Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google

We are paying for this with our privacy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get. Improvements to Google's index used to cost us nothing. Now they cost us our data. The more data they collect, the more money they will make. That sets their interests squarely against ours; yes, true, we want good search results. We also want the government to arrest all the terrorists. I'm not prepared to live my life as an open book to achieve these results.

> to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost.

You've asked me a lot of questions, let me ask you some. What happens when the benefits no longer outweigh the risks but Google tell you sorry, our profiling isn't finished yet. What if through some change in your personal circumstances the data they hold suddenly becomes damaging to you. What will you do if they go too far? Will you know straight away? Will you have time to make a decision? Will you be able to tell them to stop? How will you get Google to delete your data if you want them to leave you alone? Are you expecting the government to step in and help even though they're directly benefiting from all this data collection? Are you perfectly happy that they have access to it all? Would you so willingly hand over the same data to them directly?

[joebadmo]

> We are paying for this with our privacy.

I agree, and my point is that it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion. Credit card companies already have way more (and maybe more important) information about people than Google does, and sells that data with absolutely no compunctions. I think data is only going to get harder to control in the future.

But back to the point of the thread: I don't think data collection is evil in and of itself, and so I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil.

[5l]

> it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

To heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would give up privacy to obtain moderately more relevant search results, deserve neither privacy nor relevant search results.

Privacy is freedom, knowledge is power, convenience is safety.

> Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion

It might well be, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for in the meantime. I don't believe human society is evolved enough to handle a complete loss of privacy quite yet.

> Credit card companies [...] [sell our] data with absolutely no compunctions

You've just reinforced my earlier point. This is precisely why we don't want Google to profit from our personal data. I want Google to stay on my side.

> I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil

I didn't. But as I said earlier, if they allow themselves to enter into a situation where they're either forced to do "evil" or can't tell if what they're doing is "evil" or not, they are not adhering to the spirit of their motto.

However I think at this point we should call it a day and agree to disagree as we're starting to go around in circles. I did very much enjoy the discussion though and it gave me much food for thought.

I'll leave you with this:

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. [...] Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people. (Bruce Schneier)

...and the last word, if you want it!

[joebadmo]

Fair enough. And to be perfectly honest, I do go back and forth and the issue of privacy. It's certainly a complex and important issue, and I'm glad that there are reasonable people on both sides of it.

On a meta-level, I find that while I'm rarely swayed in the course of an argument, I often internalize some part of the opposing argument and at some later point find myself with a more nuanced, if not completely different position.

So, thanks again for the great discussion! I also enjoyed it quite a lot, and it definitely gave me plenty to think about. It's always a pleasure to have an intellectually honest discussion, and for all the lamentations about declining quality of discourse on HN, I find myself having plenty of great ones like this.

My name's Joe, and you should let me know if you're ever in Portland, Oregon so we can get some coffee or something!