Google in, Google out(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Google in, Google out
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/21/google-in-google-out/
10 comments
I'm developing a web app that can be installed via the G Suite Marketplace. They also have an 'Integrate with Google' button that we can put on our website so users can just install/grant permissions from there - sounds great - in principle. Except the users don't have any way of choosing which account it uses. So if they happened to log into their personal Gmail account before their work G Suite account, well, then they're just shit out of luck and can't install. I asked about a fix (e.g. a 'select account' box like you get when logging in) on StackOverflow and filed a report on their developer support site - of course, this being Google, there's been no answer more than a month later, and I doubt there ever will be...
Anyways, in the meantime, the only thing we can do is pretend that button doesn't exist and instead direct users to the marketplace to install. Except, since our app is only installable by G Suite admins, if you happened to log into your personal Gmail account first, our listing is not even visible...
Google's whole account situation is a dumpster fire - and don't even get me started on the APIs they have on G Suite, that seem to have grown organically out of an 'admins would like to script a bit with the data'-use case and only added 3rd party apps as an afterthought. I wonder if the G Suite team is just chronically understaffed and underfunded or if they just don't realize how broken the whole thing is.
Anyways, in the meantime, the only thing we can do is pretend that button doesn't exist and instead direct users to the marketplace to install. Except, since our app is only installable by G Suite admins, if you happened to log into your personal Gmail account first, our listing is not even visible...
Google's whole account situation is a dumpster fire - and don't even get me started on the APIs they have on G Suite, that seem to have grown organically out of an 'admins would like to script a bit with the data'-use case and only added 3rd party apps as an afterthought. I wonder if the G Suite team is just chronically understaffed and underfunded or if they just don't realize how broken the whole thing is.
>filed a report on their developer support site - of course, this being Google, there's been no answer more than a month later, and I doubt there ever will be...
Don't lose hope, we filed a similar request and then forgot about it. Several months later, we got a response and the issue has now been resolved. Good luck!
Don't lose hope, we filed a similar request and then forgot about it. Several months later, we got a response and the issue has now been resolved. Good luck!
This probably isn't much consolation, but as a workaround, separate Chrome profiles for work versus home is a good way to avoid account switching bugs. (Or use two different browsers.)
The google OAuth flow rolling out now has a more conspicuous account choose. Before when installing/authorizing the app selecting the account was virtually hidden.
It took me bloody ages to find the toggle that allows Google Now to be used on an Android device tied to a G Suite account. We don't even manage our devices.
Turns out it's something to do with enabling support for the activity log or something. That was a fun few hours.
I also love how no matter what Google site I'm using, it's signed into the wrong account. It's almost comical.
Turns out it's something to do with enabling support for the activity log or something. That was a fun few hours.
I also love how no matter what Google site I'm using, it's signed into the wrong account. It's almost comical.
> "One account, all of Google", not if the account isn't a Gmail account.
Having recently been burned by this, I can wholeheartedly agree. The list of features that don't work if your Google account is not "@gmail.com" has caught me out so many times. The problem is even worse if you are an Android user and have a bunch of app purchases tied to a non gmail google account - as I recently discovered when trying to add my old Google Apps (custom domain name) based Google account to our Google play family plan.
The lack of documentation on what works/doesn't work is staggering as well.
Having recently been burned by this, I can wholeheartedly agree. The list of features that don't work if your Google account is not "@gmail.com" has caught me out so many times. The problem is even worse if you are an Android user and have a bunch of app purchases tied to a non gmail google account - as I recently discovered when trying to add my old Google Apps (custom domain name) based Google account to our Google play family plan.
The lack of documentation on what works/doesn't work is staggering as well.
Looking at it from an engineering and legal perspective each one of Google's products and new features is a minefield of new and un-proven tech that would be outright dangerous to enable for a work or education account (which you have even though you originally had it for personal use and it was grandfathered in). They do slowly roll out features as they mature and the legal implications are ironed out but Apps accounts are never going to be bleeding edge and for good reason.
It's identical at Microsoft. Your Office 365 AAD account does everything, unless it needs to be paired with a Microsoft (live, xbox, skype, outlook.com/hotmail account)
> Each Stack — bar Facebook, for now — offers the same awkward bargain: commit wholly & wholeheartedly to our ecosystem, and we will better your life.
However, the stacks (ecosystems) need not be mutually exclusive. For example, Microsoft's ecosystem includes dozens of apps for iOS and Android, and it has supported Macs for as long as Apple. It also has Linux options for Windows 10 and Azure.
Apple mainly supports Apple hardware, but it still has iTunes and iCloud support for Windows.
However, the stacks (ecosystems) need not be mutually exclusive. For example, Microsoft's ecosystem includes dozens of apps for iOS and Android, and it has supported Macs for as long as Apple. It also has Linux options for Windows 10 and Azure.
Apple mainly supports Apple hardware, but it still has iTunes and iCloud support for Windows.
> Android TV seems to lack integration with Photos (which I assume is because of my G Suite account but maybe it's just crappy).
That's not your account, the google photos app doesn't support AndroidTV natively, only casting is supported.
That's not your account, the google photos app doesn't support AndroidTV natively, only casting is supported.
> And yet. Like every I/O attendee I received a free Google Home device as part of the I/O experience. (I attended as an engineer, not as press.) But I don’t want one; I’ll be giving mine away. Sorry, Google. It’s not that I mistrust you. It’s just that I don’t want to have to trust any profit-driven megacorporation quite that much. Not Apple, not Amazon, and not even you.
It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.
Almost everybody carries one of both in their pockets or in their purse. However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay for this guy, but consumer satisfaction is quite high for these devices. I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.
If it's about babies or security (door bells) it is also fine.
Augmented stuff on your phone seems a necessary predecessor before Google glass can come out for people like this.
It's some kind of anti-sensor attitude that seems to erode over time. I don't think it's about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where's the button on that thing!?
It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.
Almost everybody carries one of both in their pockets or in their purse. However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay for this guy, but consumer satisfaction is quite high for these devices. I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.
If it's about babies or security (door bells) it is also fine.
Augmented stuff on your phone seems a necessary predecessor before Google glass can come out for people like this.
It's some kind of anti-sensor attitude that seems to erode over time. I don't think it's about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where's the button on that thing!?
> It is very interesting to me why certain microphones and cameras are fine, while others are not.
If you film yourself during sex that's one thing. If I film you during sex without your explicit consent that's a completely different thing.
> However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay.
Building is not the problem, usage is. People don't complain about the new features but about the people who use them without consideration for others' privacy.
> I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.
No? Absolutely not. Neither is sending any data about my car to any other party (like manufacturer or insurance).
> I don't think it's about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where's the button on that thing!?
You are right if with "that thing" you refer to the user who is violating my privacy. Controlling my own devices is easy: The button is my wallet which simply does not open for devices that spy on me.
If you film yourself during sex that's one thing. If I film you during sex without your explicit consent that's a completely different thing.
> However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses. Building a mic into a speaker is not okay.
Building is not the problem, usage is. People don't complain about the new features but about the people who use them without consideration for others' privacy.
> I guess to have mics and cams in your car is fine as well.
No? Absolutely not. Neither is sending any data about my car to any other party (like manufacturer or insurance).
> I don't think it's about privacy, it seems to be about control. Where's the button on that thing!?
You are right if with "that thing" you refer to the user who is violating my privacy. Controlling my own devices is easy: The button is my wallet which simply does not open for devices that spy on me.
The deeper question then is the following: Why is it so hard to have people care about privacy enough?
If there would be such a strong gradient towards privacy-favoring products and services, why does society so slowly adapt?
+ It might be that the risks are not yet understood. As argued here: http://laoutaris.info/index.php/2016/09/11/oh-but-people-don...
+ It is politically a much stronger move to act upon feelings of fear than on more abstract risk calculations. Advocated here: https://openmedia.org/en/why-it-so-hard-convince-people-care...
+ From our bubble we might think privacy is valuable, but this might just not be shared broadly. Rich people admire privacy: http://www.businessinsider.de/wealthy-people-care-about-priv...
+ People might not want privacy, but something slightly related: they do not want surprises. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/people-dont-....
I don't know how many business models are based on privacy, but my assumption is that it's much more likely to succeed with your startup on betting that people will share what you didn't think they would share, then to build a security minded niche product or service.
If there would be such a strong gradient towards privacy-favoring products and services, why does society so slowly adapt?
+ It might be that the risks are not yet understood. As argued here: http://laoutaris.info/index.php/2016/09/11/oh-but-people-don...
+ It is politically a much stronger move to act upon feelings of fear than on more abstract risk calculations. Advocated here: https://openmedia.org/en/why-it-so-hard-convince-people-care...
+ From our bubble we might think privacy is valuable, but this might just not be shared broadly. Rich people admire privacy: http://www.businessinsider.de/wealthy-people-care-about-priv...
+ People might not want privacy, but something slightly related: they do not want surprises. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/people-dont-....
I don't know how many business models are based on privacy, but my assumption is that it's much more likely to succeed with your startup on betting that people will share what you didn't think they would share, then to build a security minded niche product or service.
Because the benefits of giving up your privacy are certain and immediate, and the drawbacks are uncertain and in the future. Humans are really bad at evaluating tradeoffs of this kind; see global warming, poor rates of retirement savings, etc.
Here's my theory: most people don't actually understand what having access to your data means. I learned this some years ago when I wrote a little tool that surveyed the people connected to my uni's computer lab (using ssh and who).
The whole project was just for fun, and one of the things I did was logging the names and times of everyone who started a session. I then told about this to some friends, who were like "cool!". But when I showed them the actual data (rows and rows of "this person was on this machine from this hour to this hour"), with real names, they freaked out. Showing them the data they didn't learn anything new, since I had already told them exactly what I was doing. But it wasn't until they saw with their own eyes the real names and times that they actually understood the implications.
And this wasn't your run of the mill facebook user, it was computer science students. So I can understand perfectly why people don't care about online privacy: people just don't get it by being told about it. They have to see it.
So show them their usage logs, and they will understand
The whole project was just for fun, and one of the things I did was logging the names and times of everyone who started a session. I then told about this to some friends, who were like "cool!". But when I showed them the actual data (rows and rows of "this person was on this machine from this hour to this hour"), with real names, they freaked out. Showing them the data they didn't learn anything new, since I had already told them exactly what I was doing. But it wasn't until they saw with their own eyes the real names and times that they actually understood the implications.
And this wasn't your run of the mill facebook user, it was computer science students. So I can understand perfectly why people don't care about online privacy: people just don't get it by being told about it. They have to see it.
So show them their usage logs, and they will understand
Always on cameras, always on mics, that's a new low even for Google. Technically they are not yet uploading everything into the cloud, but who in his right mind is trusting Google on privacy anymore? From Google Maps the other day "New! share your location with your friends for an hour". Oh, by the way, give Google Maps permission to always track your location, forever. Wtf.
Camera and microphone on the mobile phone activate when I press the button to activate them. Furthermore, the photos and sound are ostensibly owned by me. Pics go to icloud, voice goes to the people I talk to. Not to a corporation that built a global web specifically designed to suck up every bit of personal information that they can possibly suck. "To provide me a better service", haha.
Mics and cams are OK in cars, because the car is not connected to the Internet. The data stays in the car. Baby monitors are OK, because they are not connected to the Internet. The data stays in the house. Notice a pattern there?
Camera and microphone on the mobile phone activate when I press the button to activate them. Furthermore, the photos and sound are ostensibly owned by me. Pics go to icloud, voice goes to the people I talk to. Not to a corporation that built a global web specifically designed to suck up every bit of personal information that they can possibly suck. "To provide me a better service", haha.
Mics and cams are OK in cars, because the car is not connected to the Internet. The data stays in the car. Baby monitors are OK, because they are not connected to the Internet. The data stays in the house. Notice a pattern there?
>Camera and microphone on the mobile phone activate when I press the button to activate them.
Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for just a moment and remind you that, should Google want to, they could just turn on your microphone and camera without letting you know. Would they? Probably not, but they certainly could, and unless you're in the habit of regularly checking your network traffic, you wouldn't know.
Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for just a moment and remind you that, should Google want to, they could just turn on your microphone and camera without letting you know. Would they? Probably not, but they certainly could, and unless you're in the habit of regularly checking your network traffic, you wouldn't know.
Also, if VW can figure out when their cars are out for test, I can't convince myself that google couldn't do a damn good job of hiding the network traffic, if they wanted to.
Like most in this thread, I am not _actively_ paranoid about this, but a constant low-grade paranoid.
Like most in this thread, I am not _actively_ paranoid about this, but a constant low-grade paranoid.
Not if you don't use Android.
Yes if you use Android, and in particular yes if you've given an app camera access.
Proof: my phone (unrooted, OEM Android) can shoot photos whenever I want it to, even if it stays locked, without anyone noticing. It's a trivial Tasker job I set up myself (think e.g. shooting rear-camera selfies using your smartwatch), but it nicely demonstrates that any app with camera privileges could do that too.
Proof: my phone (unrooted, OEM Android) can shoot photos whenever I want it to, even if it stays locked, without anyone noticing. It's a trivial Tasker job I set up myself (think e.g. shooting rear-camera selfies using your smartwatch), but it nicely demonstrates that any app with camera privileges could do that too.
> the car is not connected to the Internet
Except, of course, that they are.
For example, OnStar has been around for ~20 years and there are documented cases of FBI using it to eavesdrop on their suspects.
Except, of course, that they are.
For example, OnStar has been around for ~20 years and there are documented cases of FBI using it to eavesdrop on their suspects.
That's also true for baby cams. Worse than that, a lot are actually sending the video over the internet and watching it "locally" actually goes through the cloud.
I believe pacala was talking about regular mics in cars and baby systems that are not connected to internet (I have products like that).
Of course there are different products that are constantly connected to the Internet, we hear a lot about them on HN's front page.
Of course there are different products that are constantly connected to the Internet, we hear a lot about them on HN's front page.
On somehow related note uber's location tracking when app is not used without an opt out option is the biggest wtf so far for me :( Why as an user I don't have ability to narrow it down to "when app is used only" is beyond me. It gives this weird feeling that you're just a bundle of a product and a consumer glued together to make few at the top rich.
It's funny because I believe that people would not mind sharing this kind of info if it gave the feeling of contributing to the community - to make the service better; to make the data available to researchers; to make it available to the user itself - i wouldn't mind to peek at data from last year to see how much of my life was wasted in transport, at work, how much time i spent in parks etc.
IMHO we'll need more and more openstreetmap/mozilla alikes. Modern AI had a good start but my fear is that's only because nobody was truly cashing on it yet, now you can feel it's closing more and more into black-boxes and benefits few black-box owners where data is flowing in.
It's funny because I believe that people would not mind sharing this kind of info if it gave the feeling of contributing to the community - to make the service better; to make the data available to researchers; to make it available to the user itself - i wouldn't mind to peek at data from last year to see how much of my life was wasted in transport, at work, how much time i spent in parks etc.
IMHO we'll need more and more openstreetmap/mozilla alikes. Modern AI had a good start but my fear is that's only because nobody was truly cashing on it yet, now you can feel it's closing more and more into black-boxes and benefits few black-box owners where data is flowing in.
> On somehow related note uber's location tracking when app is not used without an opt out option is the biggest wtf so far for me
This is not true, at least for the iPhone.
This is not true, at least for the iPhone.
Uber's location settings on iPhone are "Never" (and the app stops working) or "Always".
They removed the "when app is in use" option a few months ago because ... not really sure.
They removed the "when app is in use" option a few months ago because ... not really sure.
I think Uber is on Apple's shit-list ever since the device ID tracking incident where Cook dressed down Kalanick directly. I imagine their app updates get extra scrutiny and probably something like this would be caught and denied.
> Technically they are not yet uploading everything into the cloud
Don't they upload every "Hey, Google!" command to their cloud?
I assume they would upload some background sound to train their algorithms against background noise.
Don't they upload every "Hey, Google!" command to their cloud?
I assume they would upload some background sound to train their algorithms against background noise.
Sure, you can review and delete everything here: https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_so...
(I work for Google)
(I work for Google)
Right. opt-out vs opt-in. http://danariely.com/2008/05/05/3-main-lessons-of-psychology
PS. Kindly explain why Google Maps really wants to stalk my location even when not using it actively. It's been forced down Android users a few years ago via a "Yes/Not now" dark pattern, it's coming on iPhone under the guise of "share location with your friends".
PS2. Kindly explain why anyone would ever trust Google to not expand their data acquisition behavior once the sensors are in place. For example, GPS, but always on mics and cameras in the future.
PS. Kindly explain why Google Maps really wants to stalk my location even when not using it actively. It's been forced down Android users a few years ago via a "Yes/Not now" dark pattern, it's coming on iPhone under the guise of "share location with your friends".
PS2. Kindly explain why anyone would ever trust Google to not expand their data acquisition behavior once the sensors are in place. For example, GPS, but always on mics and cameras in the future.
explain why Google Maps really wants to stalk my location even when not using it actively
Turn by turn navigation. It's called out as a use-case for this on the Apple docs for this service. https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Us...
(I don't need or use that; so I turned it off)
Turn by turn navigation. It's called out as a use-case for this on the Apple docs for this service. https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Us...
(I don't need or use that; so I turned it off)
Did you knew Chromecast refuses to register in your network unless Google has your exact GPS coordinates?
Try setting up one from a phone with GPS turned off and see what happens (assuming the wifi AP you are using is not already in their location mapping database)
Try setting up one from a phone with GPS turned off and see what happens (assuming the wifi AP you are using is not already in their location mapping database)
The obvious answer is to target location based features in Google Now and ads.
Sure, but is it actually deleted? Or is this still stored somewhere in Google ready to be retrieved if needed?
It's actually deleted, though it can take some time for deletions to propagate through various Google systems and backups - we can't violate the speed of light and we wouldn't want a bug in the deletion code to result in a catastrophic loss of things users wanted us to keep.
But what if my data has already been used somehow. For example to train next generation speech recognition AI.
What will happen to that information?
What will happen to that information?
Note that if you opt out of Google keeping this history, I believe Google still keeps all your voice recordings, you just lose the ability to review and "delete" them, and they aren't tied to your account anymore.
This is one of the crazier notions I've seen in a privacy dark pattern: "Let us track you or we'll keep your data forever".
This is one of the crazier notions I've seen in a privacy dark pattern: "Let us track you or we'll keep your data forever".
Source?
Google.
"When Voice & Audio Activity is off, voice inputs won't be saved to your Google Account, even if you're signed in. Instead, they may only be saved using anonymous identifiers."
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?p=accoun...
Ergo, Google is going to collect your voice data no matter what you do, the only question is whether or not it's connected to your account, where you can manually go in and delete it.
"When Voice & Audio Activity is off, voice inputs won't be saved to your Google Account, even if you're signed in. Instead, they may only be saved using anonymous identifiers."
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?p=accoun...
Ergo, Google is going to collect your voice data no matter what you do, the only question is whether or not it's connected to your account, where you can manually go in and delete it.
So the question now is, if you opt in and later delete your data, does the data actually get deleted, or just disconnected from your account and left only with "anonymous identifiers"?
That is the big question.
I actually had this argument out with a former Googler who expressed with incredible strength how importantly Google addressed deletion of data users said to delete. And so his argument was that if you deleted it from your history, it'd be deleted, but if you turned off your history, you'd have no way of telling them to delete it.
I actually had this argument out with a former Googler who expressed with incredible strength how importantly Google addressed deletion of data users said to delete. And so his argument was that if you deleted it from your history, it'd be deleted, but if you turned off your history, you'd have no way of telling them to delete it.
jankey, if Google had any respect for my privacy this information would never have left my phone in the first place.
Out of curiosity, how do you see technology advancing to the Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without always-on microphones?
This is not a technological issue. This is a policy issue.
The total size of Wikipedia text is 12 GB. The total size of a state-sized chunk of maps.me is under a GB. The total memory of an iPhone is 32GB - 256GB. I can store the entirety of Wikipedia + the entire geographical data of my state and neighbouring states on my mobile phone and have a Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without ever uploading a single byte into the cloud. It won't have pretty pictures. I'm happy with that.
The total size of Wikipedia text is 12 GB. The total size of a state-sized chunk of maps.me is under a GB. The total memory of an iPhone is 32GB - 256GB. I can store the entirety of Wikipedia + the entire geographical data of my state and neighbouring states on my mobile phone and have a Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without ever uploading a single byte into the cloud. It won't have pretty pictures. I'm happy with that.
Good luck asking Wikipedia what's the weather today, what's your first meeting in the morning, and which route of your commute has less traffic at the moment.
I don't ask for those things anyway, precisely because I don't want Google to have that much information about me. I'd love to have a local-only, offline map system.
Asking for weather is an API issue, it totally does not require uploading your voice.
It requires uploading where you are. And it requires uploading the voice for processing if you want it to distinguish "what's the weather today" from "tonight", "tomorrow", "this weekend at <place X>", or "back at home".
In theory, voice processing could be done locally, and then you'd only have to upload coordinates and/or place name, just as every non-voice weather app.
You could easily anonymize the location up to, for example, a 50x50 miles rectangle. Or you could state in your EULA "we don't keep the location your device sends to our servers for more than 30 minutes."
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Neither of those changes would leave the data in much of a state to improve the product. For example, the fine-grained location data is fed back into flow-analysis to determine if there's a traffic jam on roads that aren't monitored by other systems (like highway traffic counters).
https://www.ncta.com/platform/broadband-internet/how-google-...
This sort of data cross-pollination is done all over the place in the Google software ecosystem. It's not that it's easier to collect the data than not; it's that Google software literally wouldn't be as effective without the massive amounts of data it has access to analyze across use cases.
https://www.ncta.com/platform/broadband-internet/how-google-...
This sort of data cross-pollination is done all over the place in the Google software ecosystem. It's not that it's easier to collect the data than not; it's that Google software literally wouldn't be as effective without the massive amounts of data it has access to analyze across use cases.
It is a technological issue. Without the real-world audio samples to use as training data, the system cannot be improved enough to work reliably.
"We need real-world audio samples" does not entail "let's collect audio [and behavioral] data from one billion users". There are less intrusive ways to collect data. How about paying specific individuals for their data. For example, there are about 5000 Nielsen families, http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question433.htm.
For a company that supposedly is employing the best minds in statistics, the inability to effectively use statistical samples is, uhm, intriguing.
For a company that supposedly is employing the best minds in statistics, the inability to effectively use statistical samples is, uhm, intriguing.
With the inception of digital cable boxes, many cable providers no longer need the Nielsen data because the cable box tells the provider what channel it's tuned to (a technical necessity if the box is using switched digital video). It's much easier (and safer for the end user) to passively collect usage data via the application you provide than to trust some third-party to (a) collect a statistical sample unbiasedly and (b) collect the sample securely while protecting user privacy.
Even if Google is using statistical sampling, it's still something they'd want to collect directly through the app, not via a third-party.
As for paying individuals for their data, Google does that too. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and.... But if your argument is "They should be paying everyone they collect passive samples from during use of their products," that's an argument over price-point, not over whether the collection itself is right.
The rightness question seems to me to look a lot more like "If you can collect data from a billion users without doing any harm to the users, and that data is going to be more useful than a statistical subset of that data, why should you not collect it?"
Even if Google is using statistical sampling, it's still something they'd want to collect directly through the app, not via a third-party.
As for paying individuals for their data, Google does that too. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and.... But if your argument is "They should be paying everyone they collect passive samples from during use of their products," that's an argument over price-point, not over whether the collection itself is right.
The rightness question seems to me to look a lot more like "If you can collect data from a billion users without doing any harm to the users, and that data is going to be more useful than a statistical subset of that data, why should you not collect it?"
> The rightness question seems to me to look a lot more like "If you can collect data from a billion users without doing any harm to the users, and that data is going to be more useful than a statistical subset of that data, why should you not collect it?"
In this particular case (speech recognition), one harm done to the users is tying the product to the Internet, and thus requiring what should be closed-loop tasks to go through vendor's servers.
In this particular case (speech recognition), one harm done to the users is tying the product to the Internet, and thus requiring what should be closed-loop tasks to go through vendor's servers.
"Should be closed-loop" is an interesting assumption that I'm not convinced aligns with the reality of the technology. To what extent has speech recognition been improved by being able to feed it through a constantly-updated set of open-loop ML infrastructure?
Probably a lot; open-ended voice recognition with no prior training is hard (though I'm not convinced it can't be made to work off-line now that the models are there). Still, a lot of devices don't need open-ended voice recognition (structured grammars greatly simplify the problem), and if you allow for users having to pre-train their devices for few minutes, off-line processing becomes easier.
My impression is that the main driver behind cloud-first voice processing is business, not technology.
My impression is that the main driver behind cloud-first voice processing is business, not technology.
I built an off-line voice recognition system 10 years ago using Microsoft Speech API and I guarantee you it worked quite well. There's nothing in base voice recognition that would require uploading everything to the cloud. You only have to be willing to read out some text for few minutes, once, to train the model.
> You only have to be willing to read out some text for few minutes, once, to train the model.
I guess that's what kills it as practical in the real world.
I guess that's what kills it as practical in the real world.
Laziness is competitive advantage. There are costs to it though - in this case, we pay for it with our data. Small bits of our souls, if you will.
I don't expect these technologies to appeal to people who think of the data their behavior generates as "small bits of their souls."
For everyone else though, there are some neat families of features in all the major tech stacks.
For everyone else though, there are some neat families of features in all the major tech stacks.
I'm least offended by the door bell type devices. They are on the outside and offer no more information than someone could gain by snooping at my house from the street. The benefits of being able to pretend to be present at home when the doorbell is answered is significantly better security of my personal goods against casual burglary. The downside is someone could remotely harvest a profile and recordings of who enters and leaves my house, which can be viewed from the street and offers me no tangible loss of personal privacy over what someone who wanted to watch me could already do.
Most outdoor security cameras would fall under this classification as well.
The value proposition is just poor. Not that people love the idea they can be monitored, tracked and recorded anywhere, they just tolerate that, because it is pretty hard to have phone conversation without a mic.
Putting an always on telescreen into your home that offers nothing really is a whole different game.
Putting an always on telescreen into your home that offers nothing really is a whole different game.
>Putting an always on telescreen into your home that offers nothing really is a whole different game.
You're just being difficult. Voice commands are great.
You're just being difficult. Voice commands are great.
Consumers tolerate it partially because they don't understand technology. They would not tolerate it if they really knew how it worked and had knowledge on how to fix the problem.
And then there's people who do understand but have friends who don't. As everybody should. I can self-host my email all I want, if I communicate with anyone in a corporate silo, the silo records it.
Yes, and there are many dark patterns that companies use to get your data from your contacts, even if you don't use those companies' products.
I think you over-estimate the public's sensitivity to the risk model.
I know plenty of people (myself included) who know how it works and cheerfully embrace it, because the benefits outweigh the risks.
I know plenty of people (myself included) who know how it works and cheerfully embrace it, because the benefits outweigh the risks.
I know many technical people who understand the technology side of things, but they don't fully understand the political and societal implications.
That may not be true in your case, and you may have some new arguments that I haven't heard, but I've never found a convincing argument for being careless about privacy, and I've been following and debating the issue fairly closely for about 15 years.
It's a very complex and difficult problem. The answer isn't "we absolutely must have 100% privacy" or "they already have all of my data so it doesn't matter." But arguments along the lines of, "I don't mind if they have my data if it helps me find products that I like", tend to arise from "consumer" mentality rather than "architect" mentality. So I would revise my above comment to say, "Consumers tolerate it partially because they don't understand [the full implications]."
That may not be true in your case, and you may have some new arguments that I haven't heard, but I've never found a convincing argument for being careless about privacy, and I've been following and debating the issue fairly closely for about 15 years.
It's a very complex and difficult problem. The answer isn't "we absolutely must have 100% privacy" or "they already have all of my data so it doesn't matter." But arguments along the lines of, "I don't mind if they have my data if it helps me find products that I like", tend to arise from "consumer" mentality rather than "architect" mentality. So I would revise my above comment to say, "Consumers tolerate it partially because they don't understand [the full implications]."
So what risks does the architect mentality warn you of regarding giving a large chunk of data to a company?
I'm personally very much in the "I don't mind if they have my data if it helps me find products that I like" camp. More specifically: I want the capabilities these technologies afford me, and if the requirement to use them is I fork over my data, sign me up. Because there isn't an alternative out there that works as well that isn't collecting a lot of data to power that functionality.
I'm personally very much in the "I don't mind if they have my data if it helps me find products that I like" camp. More specifically: I want the capabilities these technologies afford me, and if the requirement to use them is I fork over my data, sign me up. Because there isn't an alternative out there that works as well that isn't collecting a lot of data to power that functionality.
> However, it is a no no to embed a cam in a pair of glasses.
If someone is holding a phone up and taking a photo of you to post online, you can object. If someone is wearing glasses with the little red indicator light turned off, you can't.
If someone is holding a phone up and taking a photo of you to post online, you can object. If someone is wearing glasses with the little red indicator light turned off, you can't.
Interestingly enough, if you're wearing a pair of glasses without microphones and a camera but with a display, people still ask the question, "are you recording me?"
I think it's more of a general Luddite / anti-tech paradigm. Historically, strange things were dangerous and/or poisonous. Tech people probably recognize these devices from science fiction books / movies / stories, so they don't get scared, but the rest of the world has no context to place them in and hence treats them like unexploded ordnance.
By framing this as "luddite/anti-tech" you do not address the fundamental question: Do you really want your life to have such high dependency on a single corporation?
I am in no ways anti-tech, but the history has shown that putting your life in the hands of a single corporation is not a sane decision.
I am in no ways anti-tech, but the history has shown that putting your life in the hands of a single corporation is not a sane decision.
And a secretive organization at that. That's one of the big issues, the same as with the NSA - not just privacy, but the privacy differential. When an organization is able to learn everything about you, but you are able to learn little about them.
This is huge. I can't even count how many times I've argued about privacy with Googlers and run into "trust me, we take this very seriously, but I can't say anything about it". We're asked to share everything with them, but these tech companies are incredibly, incredibly secretive, all under the guise of protecting their interests from competition.
People in support of these companies running people's lives are all in favor of transparency and sharing on the Internet... until it gets turned around on them. For all it's other faults, The Circle movie captured this perfectly with one line from Tom Hanks: "We are so f###ed."
Maybe I wouldn't be so bothered by Google knowing where I am every five minutes if I could track Larry Page and Eric Schmidt in near realtime too.
People in support of these companies running people's lives are all in favor of transparency and sharing on the Internet... until it gets turned around on them. For all it's other faults, The Circle movie captured this perfectly with one line from Tom Hanks: "We are so f###ed."
Maybe I wouldn't be so bothered by Google knowing where I am every five minutes if I could track Larry Page and Eric Schmidt in near realtime too.
If you don't trust Google to broker your data, you can definitely build your own system to do it. You are then merely faced with two challenges:
1) You'll be recapitulating years of work by dedicated, paid teams to do the sort of data-brokering Google will give you for free. 2) If you want your work to be useful (because as we know, the real value of shared data is in the sharing), you'll need to convince your friends (and friends-of-friends) that your data-sharing solution---your "tracks you every five minutes, but you can see where everyone else being tracked is"---is safer and more trustworthy than Google's.
But nothing's stopping you from trying to solve (1) and (2).
1) You'll be recapitulating years of work by dedicated, paid teams to do the sort of data-brokering Google will give you for free. 2) If you want your work to be useful (because as we know, the real value of shared data is in the sharing), you'll need to convince your friends (and friends-of-friends) that your data-sharing solution---your "tracks you every five minutes, but you can see where everyone else being tracked is"---is safer and more trustworthy than Google's.
But nothing's stopping you from trying to solve (1) and (2).
As you just pointed out, the latter thing is, in fact, exactly what prevents you from simply building your own system: The network effect. It's why it's very unlikely anything but large governments like the US and the EU are capable of restraining Google's behavior. (Smaller governments are not able to, as Google would simply refuse to operate in those localities until the government caved to public pressure to stop "banning Google".)
I'd also caution you from describing Google's services as "free". The cost is huge, it's just not a cost you pay in dollars.
I'd also caution you from describing Google's services as "free". The cost is huge, it's just not a cost you pay in dollars.
Enumerate the cost and I can reduce it to dollar-equivalents based upon my experience and preferences.
I suspect it's pretty close to free for me.
I suspect it's pretty close to free for me.
Exactly because I like tech I don't like how the persons it's shaped by and the reasons they shape it for. (particular things I dislike are symptoms of that). Consider the thoughts of Konrad Zuse or Joseph Weizenbaum with just about anyone who ever worked at Microsoft, Apple, Google or Facebook in any sort of leading role.
Technology can empower, it can give people room, and it can "capture the imagination" and "change the way we think about trivial thing X or Y". Or take the constant "we want to help people do X"... I'm really tired of the sleaze, the pretend-awedness and how we accepted filler language and filler personalities, more than I have a problem with the size of success of any single corporation per se. Maybe these things go hand in hand, maybe mass societies can't be human societies, but I'm not convinced, IMHO we're not even really trying so far, we just pretend being kind of dorks is "the future" and "modern".
Technology can empower, it can give people room, and it can "capture the imagination" and "change the way we think about trivial thing X or Y". Or take the constant "we want to help people do X"... I'm really tired of the sleaze, the pretend-awedness and how we accepted filler language and filler personalities, more than I have a problem with the size of success of any single corporation per se. Maybe these things go hand in hand, maybe mass societies can't be human societies, but I'm not convinced, IMHO we're not even really trying so far, we just pretend being kind of dorks is "the future" and "modern".
I think the topics of privacy and tech monopoly should be separated out a bit more in discussions. Different people object to different issues.
Referring to "the history" is just wrong, there are always conflicting perspectives and facts. See http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/in-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173396; there have been plenty of (presumably sane) people who depended on a single corporation. It's not clear whether they're better off for it, and there is a slippery-slope argument, but monopolies and lock-in are not intrinsically evil.
> It's not clear whether they're better off for it, and there is a slippery-slope argument, but monopolies and lock-in are not intrinsically evil.
They are only not intrinsically evil if you make the assumption that they will never harm you (act in a way you didn't bargain for) or disappear. A company which does either has given you no way out of a service you now depend on and are fucked if it doesn't work for you anymore.
Given the churn on technology companies, acquisitions and a general lack of ethics, I would not put a lot of trust in claiming that companies are going to uphold either of those requirements. Thus, I would argue that effectively all companies will do evil inevitably and thus are intrinsically evil.
Not to mention that companies are psychopaths by structure. They definitely don't care about you (hell, they don't care about their employees on the whole).
They are only not intrinsically evil if you make the assumption that they will never harm you (act in a way you didn't bargain for) or disappear. A company which does either has given you no way out of a service you now depend on and are fucked if it doesn't work for you anymore.
Given the churn on technology companies, acquisitions and a general lack of ethics, I would not put a lot of trust in claiming that companies are going to uphold either of those requirements. Thus, I would argue that effectively all companies will do evil inevitably and thus are intrinsically evil.
Not to mention that companies are psychopaths by structure. They definitely don't care about you (hell, they don't care about their employees on the whole).
> fucked if it doesn't work for you anymore.
There are plenty of responses: sue them under antitrust statutes, break in and steal their tech, go the politics route and seize it via eminent domain, etc.
It's true though, a lot of those are impractical. But in the end you're pretty much back where you started before you began a relationship with the company; fucked is a relative term, when you should be thinking on an absolute scale of reference.
> all companies will do evil inevitably and thus are intrinsically evil
I guess it depends on your philosophy of evil. Sure, corporations are like hungry tigers, in that if you're in the same room as them without protection you're likely to get killed and eaten eventually. But does that make tigers (or corporations) evil? Consensus seems to be "no" or "mu": https://www.quora.com/Are-tigers-lions-and-hyenas-evil-creat...
(mu being defined as in http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/mu.html)
There are plenty of responses: sue them under antitrust statutes, break in and steal their tech, go the politics route and seize it via eminent domain, etc.
It's true though, a lot of those are impractical. But in the end you're pretty much back where you started before you began a relationship with the company; fucked is a relative term, when you should be thinking on an absolute scale of reference.
> all companies will do evil inevitably and thus are intrinsically evil
I guess it depends on your philosophy of evil. Sure, corporations are like hungry tigers, in that if you're in the same room as them without protection you're likely to get killed and eaten eventually. But does that make tigers (or corporations) evil? Consensus seems to be "no" or "mu": https://www.quora.com/Are-tigers-lions-and-hyenas-evil-creat...
(mu being defined as in http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/mu.html)
There are many problems with Google's dominance.
1. The Filter Bubble. The idea that you can be shut in your own bubble, not being exposed to new ideas or ideas that contradict your own, is pretty bad
2. The idea that a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth ( with noble intentions of fighting 'fake news' etc ) is also pretty bad. It can be used for political or economic gain
3. The company has a largely hostage users that they can abuse through predatory pricing etc
The opposition is not towards technology, but towards one company controlling most, if not all, of modern technology
1. The Filter Bubble. The idea that you can be shut in your own bubble, not being exposed to new ideas or ideas that contradict your own, is pretty bad
2. The idea that a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth ( with noble intentions of fighting 'fake news' etc ) is also pretty bad. It can be used for political or economic gain
3. The company has a largely hostage users that they can abuse through predatory pricing etc
The opposition is not towards technology, but towards one company controlling most, if not all, of modern technology
> The Filter Bubble. The idea that you can be shut in your own bubble, not being exposed to new ideas or ideas that contradict your own, is pretty bad
This is a psychological and social question, not a technological problem. Most people are used to being surrounded by broad agreement; continual confrontation over basic values is highly stressful.
This is a psychological and social question, not a technological problem. Most people are used to being surrounded by broad agreement; continual confrontation over basic values is highly stressful.
> filter bubble
That just means you've got to proactively seek out new ideas you're uncomfortable with, and be mindful that not everything can be found on Google. It's not a reason to use a crappy search like Yahoo or Bing (which only indexes 1/10 of the pages Google does: http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/).
> a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth
Wikipedia is more of an arbiter of truth than Google; so far Google has limited itself to indexing information rather than summarizing or categorizing it.
> predatory pricing etc
Free is predatory? I guess they should be paying users to search, like Bing? http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/get-paid-search-bing-rewards-pr...
That just means you've got to proactively seek out new ideas you're uncomfortable with, and be mindful that not everything can be found on Google. It's not a reason to use a crappy search like Yahoo or Bing (which only indexes 1/10 of the pages Google does: http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/).
> a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth
Wikipedia is more of an arbiter of truth than Google; so far Google has limited itself to indexing information rather than summarizing or categorizing it.
> predatory pricing etc
Free is predatory? I guess they should be paying users to search, like Bing? http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/get-paid-search-bing-rewards-pr...
> so far Google has limited itself to indexing information rather than summarizing or categorizing it
Apart from Google's Instant Answers. Which have, in the past, captured misleading or flat-out wrong information.
> predatory pricing etc
See Firebase's recent price hike. [0]
Not all Google products are free, Google is not just a search engine. Some start off reasonable, you get invested, and then they suddenly become ridiculously more expensive.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409
Apart from Google's Instant Answers. Which have, in the past, captured misleading or flat-out wrong information.
> predatory pricing etc
See Firebase's recent price hike. [0]
Not all Google products are free, Google is not just a search engine. Some start off reasonable, you get invested, and then they suddenly become ridiculously more expensive.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14356409
(I work for google, but nothing to do with firebase)
How exactly is what I think is best summarized as "we had a bug in our pricing system that was undercharging a miniscule number of users by an order of magnitude, and when we fixed the bug, they were informed of the price increase and we even gave them ways to mitigate, but their app architecture was terrible which made it difficult or impossible, and then after they raised a stink about it we reduced the cost/credited them enough to be mutually agreeable" as predatory?
How exactly is what I think is best summarized as "we had a bug in our pricing system that was undercharging a miniscule number of users by an order of magnitude, and when we fixed the bug, they were informed of the price increase and we even gave them ways to mitigate, but their app architecture was terrible which made it difficult or impossible, and then after they raised a stink about it we reduced the cost/credited them enough to be mutually agreeable" as predatory?
Yes, but there are two problems with this particular company:
1. they have grown this mentality where they gather any data they can get their hands on - apologize only when/if caught red handed. (remember google street car password gathering?).
2. the more you use their services the more dependent you become. but google have shown zero care for individual consumers. (who do you call if gmail craps out on you?)
1. they have grown this mentality where they gather any data they can get their hands on - apologize only when/if caught red handed. (remember google street car password gathering?).
2. the more you use their services the more dependent you become. but google have shown zero care for individual consumers. (who do you call if gmail craps out on you?)
> remember google street car password gathering?
What? Wasn't that "SSID gathering", as in "the name you give your WiFi network, which is then visible to anyone that passes by"? How could a streetview car gather passwords?
What? Wasn't that "SSID gathering", as in "the name you give your WiFi network, which is then visible to anyone that passes by"? How could a streetview car gather passwords?
Thanks for the link!
From Alan Eustace himself, too: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-pr...
From Alan Eustace himself, too: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-pr...
>(who do you call if gmail craps out on you?)
When was the last time gmail crapped out on you?
When was the last time gmail crapped out on you?
The most likely scenario is people getting locked out of Gmail https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=locked+out+of+Gmail
> data gathering
It's not really any worse an invasion of privacy than Snowden or Wikileaks. At least Google apologizes instead of going on about how information should be free.
> more dependent
Google actively reduces dependence, e.g. by their data takeout option. Obviously there's always going to be some switching cost but it's not like Google is a prison.
> Who do you call if gmail craps out
Well, if you have a SLA, you just call them on their 99.9% uptime guarantee: https://www.cnet.com/news/can-you-trust-your-business-to-goo... I guess if you're a consumer you don't get the same level of support, but it uses the same infrastructure so any problems will show up on the dashboard: https://www.google.com/appsstatus The reparations in all cases are limited to service credits, so you'd just be getting more free use of an already free service.
It's not really any worse an invasion of privacy than Snowden or Wikileaks. At least Google apologizes instead of going on about how information should be free.
> more dependent
Google actively reduces dependence, e.g. by their data takeout option. Obviously there's always going to be some switching cost but it's not like Google is a prison.
> Who do you call if gmail craps out
Well, if you have a SLA, you just call them on their 99.9% uptime guarantee: https://www.cnet.com/news/can-you-trust-your-business-to-goo... I guess if you're a consumer you don't get the same level of support, but it uses the same infrastructure so any problems will show up on the dashboard: https://www.google.com/appsstatus The reparations in all cases are limited to service credits, so you'd just be getting more free use of an already free service.
>It's not really any worse an invasion of privacy than Snowden or Wikileaks
So informing people that their government is spying on them is the same as spying on them yourself?
So informing people that their government is spying on them is the same as spying on them yourself?
The thing that scares me the most about all the data I give to Google is not that I am putting lots of trust in present-Google. It's that I am also putting lots of trust in FUTURE-Google.
So far, history has shown that even the most dominant tech companies can see their power wane.
Imagine you are a VP at Google, and after a year of revenue shrinkage you are being pressured to get "creative" about new sources of revenue... You have everyone's ENTIRE history of data. At one point the "need for revenue" will outweigh the "desire to respect people's privacy."
So far, history has shown that even the most dominant tech companies can see their power wane.
Imagine you are a VP at Google, and after a year of revenue shrinkage you are being pressured to get "creative" about new sources of revenue... You have everyone's ENTIRE history of data. At one point the "need for revenue" will outweigh the "desire to respect people's privacy."
Lots of doomsday scenarios can happen.
Consider also that, as dominant companies see their revenue slip, they start cutting corners and get complacent with security.
Yahoo is the prime example, I think. It was one of the giants of the early web. Then they started losing relevance, hit rock bottom, started cutting corners and as a result 500+ million users had their account details leaked by hackers.
Another doomsday scenario is Google being bought by or merged with a competitor that doesn't give a shit about your privacy or your data.
So this entity gobbles up Google's data, sets fire to their privacy agreement (which they will pretend they no longer have to honour because they aren't Google) then pimps you to the highest bidder.
Bottom line is, we're screwed.
Consider also that, as dominant companies see their revenue slip, they start cutting corners and get complacent with security.
Yahoo is the prime example, I think. It was one of the giants of the early web. Then they started losing relevance, hit rock bottom, started cutting corners and as a result 500+ million users had their account details leaked by hackers.
Another doomsday scenario is Google being bought by or merged with a competitor that doesn't give a shit about your privacy or your data.
So this entity gobbles up Google's data, sets fire to their privacy agreement (which they will pretend they no longer have to honour because they aren't Google) then pimps you to the highest bidder.
Bottom line is, we're screwed.
That "desire to respect people's privacy" isn't just some form of benevolent corporate altruism though, it's also a legal agreement between Google and its users and something that's closely watched by regulators around the world.
It's hard to see because in America there are basically no laws regarding privacy but around Europe in particular, regulators have power and use it. See the "right to be forgotten" laws which were forced on Google as an example.
That's not to say that Google can't do things with your data later but it will need your consent and regulators will be paying close attention.
It's hard to see because in America there are basically no laws regarding privacy but around Europe in particular, regulators have power and use it. See the "right to be forgotten" laws which were forced on Google as an example.
That's not to say that Google can't do things with your data later but it will need your consent and regulators will be paying close attention.
That's a good point, I have zero understanding of how privacy laws and Google's own TOS limit what they can do with old data.
To clarify, though, I'm not talking about Google straight-up selling my data, I'm talking about all the creepy in-between things like:
- parsing out the fees I pay from my financial transaction emails and selling me in an "audience" to competing banks.
- Parsing my e-commerce Return confirmations and selling it as an "ecommerce credit score" to ecommerce sites.
- Monitoring brand mentions on Google Home and selling me in an audience to advertisers.
- Selling my contact information to sites I thought I was just browsing "anonymously"
To clarify, though, I'm not talking about Google straight-up selling my data, I'm talking about all the creepy in-between things like:
- parsing out the fees I pay from my financial transaction emails and selling me in an "audience" to competing banks.
- Parsing my e-commerce Return confirmations and selling it as an "ecommerce credit score" to ecommerce sites.
- Monitoring brand mentions on Google Home and selling me in an audience to advertisers.
- Selling my contact information to sites I thought I was just browsing "anonymously"
What we need more of is something like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679). Right now, Google, Facebook et al are luring their users deeper and deeper into their ecosystem by promising them a better future, which will never happen, the only thing that is happening are consumers handing over more of their personal data hoping tech will make good on that promise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
Your premise is flawed. My future is already better than when I started using Google. It promised me a better future and I have already received the benefit and there are many, many more benefits coming in the future. I no longer have to buy and maintain my own hardware for my files. I don't have to worry about losing my precious photos in a fire. I have found better restaurants by allowing my preferences to be known.
So they are not just gathering data and providing hope. There are tangible benefits today.
So they are not just gathering data and providing hope. There are tangible benefits today.
Sure, my concern are all the bad things that will happen when all collected data ends up in the hands of a future totalitarian state. Do you know if there is a kill switch in place ?
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-perfect-future-will-al...
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-perfect-future-will-al...
The maximum penalty for violating the GDPR is 4% of worldwide turnover. Possibly stupid question: I keep hearing that this is considered a "high" penalty, but if you're Google or Facebook and this (or any) regulation substantially threatens your bottom line to the tune of more than 4%, wouldn't you just eat it like a tax?
The maximum current penalty is 4% of worldwide turnover. I imagine that if it becomes clear that isn't enough to force compliance, legislation can be passed to raise the penalty.
On the topic of Google Lens, I don't really understand the hype around it.
People are talking about how it is able scan a bar code of SSID and password to connect to router. Isn't that ancient technology? And for other uses like overlay maps info, aren't those just running standard CV/ML algorithms on their mega-servers plus simple integration with other apps in their ecosystem?
People are talking about how it is able scan a bar code of SSID and password to connect to router. Isn't that ancient technology? And for other uses like overlay maps info, aren't those just running standard CV/ML algorithms on their mega-servers plus simple integration with other apps in their ecosystem?
If they open this to developers, it could be quite powerful and interesting feature. Point your phone to something, Google recognizes what's in the picture and makes this information available on platform. Applications can then be activated based on context and they can additional information to screen.
Of course things like this already exist, but my phone does not feel particularly "smart" when I need to be making the choices which app to use on which occasion. They could also tie in app discovery to this. "Hey, you are pointing at movie poster but don't have any related apps, would you like to see a list.."
The true power of this of course comes with the augmented reality headsets (Google Glass or whatever it will be in future). Maybe one reason for introducing it already now is to start collecting data. It is certainly interesting for Google to know what kind of things people are pointing their phones at in order to recognize things.
Of course things like this already exist, but my phone does not feel particularly "smart" when I need to be making the choices which app to use on which occasion. They could also tie in app discovery to this. "Hey, you are pointing at movie poster but don't have any related apps, would you like to see a list.."
The true power of this of course comes with the augmented reality headsets (Google Glass or whatever it will be in future). Maybe one reason for introducing it already now is to start collecting data. It is certainly interesting for Google to know what kind of things people are pointing their phones at in order to recognize things.
Having 7nth way to pay for something is cute, but not exciting.
The real bother is fragmentation. The amount of time wasted integrating to each vendor speech, vision, backend API's is just going to be enormous.
> Maybe one reason for introducing it already now is to start collecting data
With Google, this is always the reason. This is sort of cleverness I admire about them.
The real bother is fragmentation. The amount of time wasted integrating to each vendor speech, vision, backend API's is just going to be enormous.
> Maybe one reason for introducing it already now is to start collecting data
With Google, this is always the reason. This is sort of cleverness I admire about them.
This has generally been resolved in the past by third-parties acting as an infrastructure glue---building one API that can manipulate the other APIs.
What's not to be hyped about? It's pretty much the first step towards ubiquitous sci-fi style augmented reality. Even in it's current form it's already fairly useful (you can get info on pretty much anything just by snapping a photo of it), and it's only going to get better from here.
Yeah it's literally a relaunch of Google Goggles which worked on like… Android 1.x?
I think it is that simple integration that makes or breaks the product. Because Google controls the OS, it allows for a more seamless experience: you wouldn't download an app just to scan and connect to Wi-Fi networks, but because it's a feature built into your phone you are much more likely to use it.
If only they did that. One of the things that annoys me the most about modern smartphones is that every single feature has a separated, isolated app for it (usually each from a different vendor), and none of those apps properly integrate with one another. The more they can integrate at OS level, the better for the user experience (though I'm not having high hopes - Google has a long history of dumbing down applications to the point of making them barely useful for anything).
Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Plenty of visitors download a Barcode Scanner app to log onto my home WiFi because they don't like to punch in a 30-letter code by hand.
The open source Barcode Scanner app by ZXing can do the SSID thing. The text translation feature is actually lifted straight from Word Lens, a company they bought and absorbed a couple years ago. And Google Goggles did most of the rest.
It is interesting that of the 5, Microsoft is still in the mix. Look back 10 years, or 20 years, and ask which companies you would have thought would also be present. MS may have made the list, but wouldn't a lot of others as well?
Apple is also surprising, but then again, that's what they were so good at. You expect someone to come out of nowhere, but MS just keeps on chugging when so many others failed out.
Apple is also surprising, but then again, that's what they were so good at. You expect someone to come out of nowhere, but MS just keeps on chugging when so many others failed out.
Microsoft's scale and early dominance gives them incredible staying power. Apple, at this point, too. Huge companies have the money to coast by in mediocrity for years, and can simply buy assets to fill in gaps in their product line.
Don't have a chat app? Buy one. Don't have machine learning yet? Buy a couple of those too.
Even if a company like Google lost most of it's income overnight, it could coast for years on pure cash reserves. The amount of money these big tech behemoths have to work with is incredible. As long as they strike gold once or twice every several years, they'll be fine.
Don't have a chat app? Buy one. Don't have machine learning yet? Buy a couple of those too.
Even if a company like Google lost most of it's income overnight, it could coast for years on pure cash reserves. The amount of money these big tech behemoths have to work with is incredible. As long as they strike gold once or twice every several years, they'll be fine.
> Huge companies have the money to coast by in mediocrity for years, and can simply buy assets to fill in gaps in their product line.
True, though IBM may now have spent too long coasting by in mediocrity...
True, though IBM may now have spent too long coasting by in mediocrity...
I don't know, Watson is actually one of the most publicly-recognized names in the AI game. If they leverage that correctly, there's a lot of opportunities there.
Especially since most people who want to use AI would view Google as a competitor because of the number of services it operates, and IBM is more likely to support someone's desire for on-premises solutions. (The on-site enterprise solutions Google had for search and Earth, for comparison, have been recently discontinued.)
Especially since most people who want to use AI would view Google as a competitor because of the number of services it operates, and IBM is more likely to support someone's desire for on-premises solutions. (The on-site enterprise solutions Google had for search and Earth, for comparison, have been recently discontinued.)
Watson is actually the most heavily-advertized name in the AI game. It's invisible in IBM's financial results, which have now shown declines in turnover for 20 quarters in a row.
The author seems really concerned with privacy and surveillance. I'm no expert on the subject.
But, why all the concern? He said they're working really hard to keep that stuff private. Are there legal risks here? Will the government come after you if you say the wrong thing? I don't really get it.
I think the biggest security risk is just your email, if hackers get into that: that's where all the potentially financially devastating information is.
But, why all the concern? He said they're working really hard to keep that stuff private. Are there legal risks here? Will the government come after you if you say the wrong thing? I don't really get it.
I think the biggest security risk is just your email, if hackers get into that: that's where all the potentially financially devastating information is.
There used to be a video called "Google Grid" that talked about a future where everything was Google. It was pretty cool, about 5-10-ish years old I think? But I can't find it anywhere.
This one by any chance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s
Is this guy quoting his own tweets in the article?
…and what is wrong with referring to what you have said before?
That is the new normal. I did chuckle at the 3 likes
And it just might work, if any of the newer Google experiences worked on all Google accounts.
My experience as a Google Apps / G Suite user, is that few to none of the newer Google products and features are either available or offer anything more than a basic and perfunctory service.
"One account, all of Google", not if the account isn't a Gmail account.
It's the biggest thing that is broken at Google, and it's broken in every product department, every team, every feature.
It's also why I haven't purchased a Pixel (why? When much of the benefit I'm denied access to, I cannot even ask Google Assistant for my agenda), and I haven't purchased a Home (why? When again it is limited and locked down), and my Android TV seems to lack integration with Photos (which I assume is because of my G Suite account but maybe it's just crappy).
Google accounts seem to be driving towards 2 very different and polarised futures, a personal one and a professional one. Having only professional accounts means that all of the personal features are unavailable.