[kccqzy]

As a former Google employee, I had witnessed first hand how powerful the internal privacy working groups were and how much they were able to push back against product teams when they not only demanded more privacy on new features but also invented many of the privacy techniques that made things possible. It’s frankly not even hard to find Google authors of RFCs that meaningfully contribute to Internet privacy.

No matter what you think, no stranger on the internet can convince to ignore my own lived experience.

[palata]

Have you heard of Meta opening a port in the Facebook and Instagram apps and sending them tracking data from the browser [1]? Would you say it meaningfully contributes to Internet privacy?

Or Google being fined for abuse of their dominant position [2]?

Do you think that when you make an LLM request, it uses full homomorphic encryption not to disclose your information?

I guess I don't even have to give an example for Amazon, do I?

> It’s frankly not even hard to find Google authors of RFCs that meaningfully contribute to Internet privacy.

Well I didn't want to say that Google employees are malevolent, or that Google doesn't create good technology. But Big Tech (including Google) clearly regularly abuse their dominant position.

Back to "Google knows everything". Would you say that Google Search is built in a way that the Google servers cannot associate an IP to its search requests? Would you say that Gmail is built in a way that the Google servers don't have access to all the emails? What about calendar, documents, drive? Google maps requests? How does Google offer information about what's happening "nearby" without knowing the location of the device?

And now back to the location in particular: what about the "Find Hub" / "Find my device"? You can go on the website and ask Google where your device is, after you click a popup that says you allow Google to retrieve this information. Doesn't this obviously show that Google has access to it? They could access it without asking the permission, couldn't they?

So to the question: "do we need to develop a new WiFi technology and deploy it in order to have the technical capability of mass surveillance?", the answer is "no, we have the technical capability already". And by "we", we mean "Big Tech".

[1]: https://cybersecuritynews.com/track-android-users-covertly/ [2]: https://www.techspot.com/news/109360-eu-fines-google-35-bill...

[kccqzy]

> Have you heard of Meta

Irrelevant.

> Or Google being fined for abuse of their dominant position

Also irrelevant. You are talking about antitrust. I’m talking about privacy.

> Do you think that when you make an LLM request, it uses full homomorphic encryption not to disclose your information?

Irrelevant. I never said anything about LLMs. No one has made LLMs work with homomorphic encryption, but at least I’m glad you know this technique and it is very close to being used in other Google technologies.

> Would you say that Google Search is built in a way that the Google servers cannot associate an IP to its search requests?

I never said anything about Google Search either.

Look, at this point I just stopped reading your comment because it’s a mumbo-jumbo of irrelevant facts.

[palata]

I can try with fewer words. You say:

> It is tired and lazy to argue that just because some Big Tech has the capability of doing something bad therefore they must already be doing it.

Irrelevant. The comment never said it was "doing something bad", they just said "they know already". Which is most likely to be true. When the user sends a list of nearby WiFis to Google and Google responds with a location, then Google knows where the user is.