[jamroom]

I see big time indirect revenue - with all of a sites actions/users moving through Google, they can gather way more (potentially private) information about a user - all the better to sell targeted ads on. Call me cynical, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.

[workhere-io]

Call me cynical

Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.

[Volpe]

Wi-fi networks aren't private, you can stop a "broadcast" of the SSID, otherwise you "broadcast" it (publicly).

It's the equivelant of the the Streetview car capturing 'public property', if you want 'privacy', put up a big fence and don't broadcast your SSID.

As for the NSA issue, I'm not going to defend google too much there, but you've seen what happens to providers who didn't comply... I would put that down to more a 'The US govt is pretty hostile to privacy' more than "Google is evil".

On the scale of 'evil shit' happening in the world. Google collecting my Wifi network name ranks about similarly to 'J-Walking'...

[workhere-io]

They didn't just collect wi-fi names, they also collected other forms of data, some of which could be considered private. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/googles-wifi-wireta...

[packetslave]

Please provide a source for your "fact" that Google "gave NSA direct access to their systems"

As opposed to the multiple vehement denials of that "fact" from Google's executive officers (see David Drummond's interview in The Guardian, for example)

[workhere-io]

Here's a Snowden video in which he explains it (scroll to the bottom of the article): http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2108923/usas-spioner-overvaage...

[thrownaway2424]

There's Snowden flapping his lips, yes. No argument there. The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all.

The other problem is your worldview is not falsifiable. Everything Snowden says is true to you and everything Google says is false because Snowden said they would lie about it.

[piggity]

I guess the main issue is that the timeline of events has gone like this:

Snowden/Guardian: NSA is doing X Govt/NSA: We are not doing X Snowden/Guardian: Here are some slide/proof Govt/NSA: Ok we are doing X, but it's for your own good.

Rinse and repeat each fortnight.

So each denial means less and less, and tips believability towards Snowden even where the proof is inconclusive in some cases.

[workhere-io]

The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all.

The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was compelling.

[saraid216]

The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was worth publishing. This is the same media circus we decry for unfounded false controversies and double-dealing, such as over the recent US government shutdown.

Not sure what makes you think that journalists are a legitimate authority to make appeals to.

[XorNot]

Yeah I mean all those people who were broadcasting unencrypted information loud and clear to literally any device that receives wi-fi packets in the immediate vicinity, they have no culpability in this whatsoever!

[workhere-io]

Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it.

The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.

[andylei]

copying isn't the same as stealing.

[hsod]

This brings up an interesting point.

When referring to "content," (TV, movies, music) it is common for people on HN and Reddit to refer to digital information as something that should be freely exchanged, that ownership is a meaningless concept in a world where creating a copy of something is essentially free. It is common for those who seek to lock down or restrict access to digital information in the form of entertainment media to be referred to as "dinosaurs" who are desperately clinging to an outdated business model and refusing to move into the modern age of free and ubiquitous data sharing.

Then, of course, there is the idea that online privacy is a fundamental right, and that guarding our personal information from both nation-states and corporate interests is of the utmost importance. In this context, those who seek free access to digital information are cast as villains and reviled for using modern technology in a way that doesn't fit with our classical understanding of privacy rights.

I understand that there are multiple people on HN and Reddit and they don't think as one, but I think it's fair to say that both of these opinions fall on the same side of the political spectrum.

I wonder if there's a contradiction here? There's clearly a difference between downloading Game of Thrones episodes and reading everyone's e-mail. But is it a qualitative difference or a quantitative one?

[freehunter]

In terms of personal information, it's a lot closer to stealing than copying. Consider the harmful effects of someone having your account login information or personally identifiable information (government ID number, etc).

[jacalata]

Yea, so when you give a restaurant server your credit card and they copy all the details off it to use later, it's a) your fault and b) not wrong anyway?

[gohrt]

Copying the CC isn't the main issue, using it is.

[mcantelon]

Private citizens don't have IT staff, so their security is often unaudited. The law considers authorized access via a vulnerability to be similar, conceptually, to trespassing.

[XorNot]

Except its not a vulnerability in the normal sense. It's the functional equivalent of playing a private recording with your speakers turned to maximum and the windows open - just in the EM spectrum.

I'm not contending that using that information wouldn't be a crime, but accidentally collecting it certainly should be held to a different standard.

[valas]

Wow, Google is trying to provide DDoS protection and you figure it must be evil.

Can you think of one thing Google could do for you to think that they are not evil?

[Dirlewanger]

Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for.

But they won't. Continued and uninterrupted profits are too important.

[valas]

They do to an extent they can. They fight for more transparency (http://gigaom.com/2013/08/22/google-and-microsofts-plea-on-n...) and fund organizations such as EFF.

You have to understand how US law works. If you are not an injured party, you can't sue the government for it. In other words, Google cannot sue the government for the injury government is causing to you. What they can do, however, is claim an 'injury' on First Amendment grounds, reasoning that their free speech is limited when they cannot disclose that John Doe is being surveilled (and thus John Doe is being injured). They do that with the hope that with transparency John Doe will have the information necessary to sue the government.

[Ygg2]

Yahoo! did try to fight. If they can attempt I'm sure Google could put an even bigger fight. Not to mention they have money for lobbying in Congress.

[balabaster]

Their obligation to their shareholders actually means that their uninterrupted profits are too important.

[nl]

Google's share structure[1] means this isn't actually the case at all.

[1] http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/13/new-google-stoc...