Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large.
Totalitarian Surveillance is here. In the west. Secure document releases aside, it's too easy to do to imagine a state actor not doing it.
Data breaches of differing severities occur every day, at nearly every company. I would have thought Yahoo was big enough and smart enough to avoid it; but no. Not Yahoo, not Sony, not security contractors, not credit bureaus, not Apple (a'la celebrity photo leaks), not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).
>Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large.
(Have worked at google in the past, may in the future, am not currently). You say this as though anyone at Google (or Microsoft or whatever) can go in and search for 'falcolas' and look through your GPS history.
I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had that power. I honestly think that the best thing Google could to is publicize their internal training and documents on personal information, because the regulations and such made me a lot more comfortable with giving Google the sort of amorphous entity my data, because no person is going to be looking at that data.
>, not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).
One of these is not like the others, unless you're talking about something I'm not aware of. Hacking an individual GMail account requires guessing/taking someone's password, which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure (Unlike the yahoo, sony, apple, etc. examples), its an attack on a bad password.
How about the government? Isn't this exactly the access that Snowden (a contractor) had? And there are/were countless tales of people using the system to track ex-girlfriends/celebrities. Now imagine that not only do they have phone/email access, but every action the person takes in their home and potentially every single thing they say in their home (the microphone is always on).
In what way is this not exactly the nightmare scenario in 1984? You can argue you don't need to install this, but 10 years ago you didn't "need" a cellphone either. The risk is the consolidation of information and the potential for misuse/control. And not so much potential, but the inevitability.
Even if Google is perfectly secure from bad-actors today, they might not be tomorrow. And if they themselves suddenly switch to being a bad-actor, they aren't going to throw all that data away and start from scratch first.
> [...] which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure
This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?
> I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had that power.
Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data? Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable if their data protection policies change)?
>This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?
I think is incredibly important. If your information is put at risk due to bad practices by Google/Yahoo/Apple/Facebook/whomever that's a problem to be taken up with the company. If you use insecure passwords and someone is able to access your information that way, then the problem is with your passwords, not with the platform.
>Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data?
As far as I'm aware, no one. Like I said, from my experience, accessing personal data and user information as an engineer required a lot of red tape and approval from 'the powers that be', and violating those rules would get you fired faster than anything else.
>Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable if their data protection policies change)?
Here I agree with you, probably not (or very little). They obviously have public privacy policies, but you have no proof that they abide by those, and I don't know (and doubt that) they get audited or whatnot to make sure that those policies are followed. Which is why being an employee made me more comfortable. If nothing else, it meant I'd know ;)
I'm sorry but if you think that far ahead, then how do you do anything?
Do you go out in public? because if you do, some company could be recording you on CCTV, and the company that makes the CCTV equipment could sell the business to Google who could update it to use the CCTV footage in AI learning, which means that someone could eventually lookup your face and see you were at a smut store 6 years ago.
At some point you need to draw the line, there is no perfect privacy.
You are, of course, correct. Especially in this day and age, perfect privacy is nearly impossible.
That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of these Google implements.
People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them of what it can cost them.
Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.
> Who has the root access to the servers holding the data?
I'd be surprised if such a thing existed in any large ‘cloud’ system. A data center machine is a small and fungible unit of computation and/or storage, and there's no reason for anyone to be able to log in to one.
I agree with you. To help convince people, I realize that we often imagine benevolent leadership, so it helps to give an example such as, "Imagine if you were a Muslim or illegal and Donald Trump were elected president. What could he do with your data?" E.g. find you, search your residence based on your purchasing and travel habits and send you home.
E.g. Wakes up at 5:30 am, travels to a construction site, lives in a house with a large number of people -> signals possible immigrant. Or this:
Detecting Islamic Calendar Effects on U.S. Meat Consumption: Is the Muslim Population Larger than Widely Assumed?
We have to think about data not just in terms of our relative safety, but in terms of what could happen in adverse circumstances. And not even just in terms of our own government, but foreign governments.
Sure, there are some trust issues, but just regarding your two first points:
A very limited number of Google employees have access to private user data (only when it's vital to their work) and they have strict policies in place (data does not leave the data centers etc.).
Which third parties are you referring to? As far as I know, Google does not give their users' private data to a third party.
Lots of reference to a user's private data - but what is private? Is my zipcode, gender, and birthdate private? Those three factors can be used to uniquely identify greater than 80% of the US population. Are the GPS locations I visit private? If so, why does information about them show up on lock screens?
Third parties get my voice recordings for "improving the voice recognition service" - what if my name is mentioned in the background of one of those recordings? What if I'm not a savvy user and add private data to those recordings?
You're also talking about what's in place today. If I give Google my data, that data is probably going to stay with Google as long as they are a business (and potentially after, if Google were ever liquidated and their assets sold off). What measures are in place to protect me then?
Yes, if data can be used to potentially locate somebody, like a combination of zipcode, birthdate and first name, it is considered PII (Personally identifiable information) and those strict policies would apply.
I'm responding to a comment that said trusting Google == trusting ALL Google employees, which is not true. Trusting Google with your data is believing that having some convenience (a mail service like Gmail, an intelligent assistant, etc.) is worth the risks you are talking about: Google drastically changing their policy, or being bankrupt and acquired by less scrupulous owners, etc.
Let's not just act like anybody at Google can look at your data and play with it, or a disgruntled employee will suddenly click a button and release all users' data on pastebin...
I think the strongest guarantee is that the sustainability of their business very much depends on that. Billions of incentives to make not a single ex-employee able to say "I managed to hack my way to user personal data".
That's not much of a guarantee. First, you're relying on everyone acting rationally. I hope they would, but humans often act irrationally, especially if grudges or money is involved.
More important is your assumption that the decision would even be made by Google. Outside forces such as governments may force Google's hand.
> able to say
It doesn't matter what is said. If Google had sufficient deniability (perhaps an NSL gag order? or a sufficiently high purchase price?), they can say user personal data is secure while sending it outside their control.
--
The only guarantee that would be believable is if they indemnified their users against any future damages derived from their data collection, and there is no way Google (or any company) would willingly accept that kind of liability.
> was talking about were about employees' (lack of) access to user data
Which we have to take their word on and hope that never changes in the future, even though Google might not be the party with the authority to make that decision. Even when they are, business plans change and a pile of potentially profitable user data is a very powerful temptation towards moral hazard. Only a fool would claim that this wasn't a risk.
> that's the case for any person and business.
Only if you deliberately ignore the entire point that the data shouldn't be stored at all by 3rd parties. A business that sold a real product (instead of a service masquerading as a product) would run locally and no data would be put at risk.
If a judge orders me personally to reveal something, they probably need a warrant and there is a process by which I can challenge that order. If, however, that data is stored on Google's servers then I don't have standing to challenge any interaction between Google and the government.
> Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you?
You forgot: every single state which Google is subject to.
Yup. If any of my data is stored on servers in, say Canada, what is to stop the Canadian government from siezing Google's servers in an effort to stop my maple syrup smuggling ring?
Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large.
Totalitarian Surveillance is here. In the west. Secure document releases aside, it's too easy to do to imagine a state actor not doing it.
Data breaches of differing severities occur every day, at nearly every company. I would have thought Yahoo was big enough and smart enough to avoid it; but no. Not Yahoo, not Sony, not security contractors, not credit bureaus, not Apple (a'la celebrity photo leaks), not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).