I need more control

[Aquila]

There seems to be some serious confusion about the difference between data mining and "reading". For example, an app reading SMS: We're not talking about something that looks at your SMS, says, "oh, Billy's mom is having an affair with the door to door sale's man who sold her that vacuum cleaner, how interesting!" We're talking about an artificial neural network that uses topical pattern recognition to link relevance from one part of the ecosystem to another. There is no one "reading" your texts, even the machine isn't really doing that in the sense of trying to establish context, etc. What it is doing is more akin to the way the search algorithms scrape the web, except it's doing it on your device because the interactions on your device are probably the more relevant to topical accuracy than random patterns of users with similar behavioral profiles on the internet. There's nothing creepy about it if you understand what is being done, how it works and why it works that way, and what the overall reason or benefit of the search is to the end user(s).

My opinion is that we need to make a HUGE distinction between companies like Google and companies like MS, FB, Apple, etc. Google uses machine learning to improve services for consumer users and use the resulting recurrent observations as a transmutable function of observation in a separate service where they use neural networking algorithms to pair consumers with advertisements (on their own servers, not trading data) that are mutually beneficial to consumers and AdSense customers As long as Google never crosses the line of aggregating data sets for sale/trade and never allows AdSense users access to your data, this is a very good relationship.

On the flip side, MS, FB and Apple all freely admit that they share user information with their "partners" (such as Yahoo (all three of them)) and it's a business of data resale to them. Now, even in that case, they're not sending their partners's, (Billy used credit card 1234-5678-9101-1213 to buy "How to File for Divorce, by Sleeze McGee" from Amazon.com and wrote, "Good luck, get a great attorney!" on the gift message, opted for free shipping and sent it to 123 Sesame St...." ... they're sending (mostly) cleaned data sets about their customers with identifier numbers rather than personal information that is useful in behavior modeling. The risk there is 1. whoever they sell it to may not handle it with the same care that they themselves do and 2. those unique identifiers COULD be linked to a real person, etc. Even though humans do not read that information and it's still just analyzed by business intelligence software, that type of sale/trade/sharing of information really bugs me and if Google did it, I wouldn't hang out with Google.

 

[A895]

True to some degree, but Google Search itself is such a deeply embedded part of Android now, if you get rid of it you lose a ton of functionality. Speaking just for myself, I would use another platform before an AOSP android. There's 3 main things I disagree with right now. The read sms permission in the Search app, having Gmail open to Google Plus users as the default option, and ability to record voice conversations. Two of those have already happened, and only one of them can be turned off.

I disabled google search and touchless controls on my Moto X, and deleted my google plus.

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App

 

[xchange]

There seems to be some serious confusion about the difference between data mining and "reading". For example, an app reading SMS: We're not talking about something that looks at your SMS, says, "oh, Billy's mom is having an affair with the door to door sale's man who sold her that vacuum cleaner, how interesting!" We're talking about an artificial neural network that uses topical pattern recognition to link relevance from one part of the ecosystem to another. There is no one "reading" your texts, even the machine isn't really doing that in the sense of trying to establish context, etc. What it is doing is more akin to the way the search algorithms scrape the web, except it's doing it on your device because the interactions on your device are probably the more relevant to topical accuracy than random patterns of users with similar behavioral profiles on the internet. There's nothing creepy about it if you understand what is being done, how it works and why it works that way, and what the overall reason or benefit of the search is to the end user(s).

My opinion is that we need to make a HUGE distinction between companies like Google and companies like MS, FB, Apple, etc. Google uses machine learning to improve services for consumer users and use the resulting recurrent observations as a transmutable function of observation in a separate service where they use neural networking algorithms to pair consumers with advertisements (on their own servers, not trading data) that are mutually beneficial to consumers and AdSense customers As long as Google never crosses the line of aggregating data sets for sale/trade and never allows AdSense users access to your data, this is a very good relationship.

On the flip side, MS, FB and Apple all freely admit that they share user information with their "partners" (such as Yahoo (all three of them)) and it's a business of data resale to them. Now, even in that case, they're not sending their partners's, (Billy used credit card 1234-5678-9101-1213 to buy "How to File for Divorce, by Sleeze McGee" from Amazon.com and wrote, "Good luck, get a great attorney!" on the gift message, opted for free shipping and sent it to 123 Sesame St...." ... they're sending (mostly) cleaned data sets about their customers with identifier numbers rather than personal information that is useful in behavior modeling. The risk there is 1. whoever they sell it to may not handle it with the same care that they themselves do and 2. those unique identifiers COULD be linked to a real person, etc. Even though humans do not read that information and it's still just analyzed by business intelligence software, that type of sale/trade/sharing of information really bugs me and if Google did it, I wouldn't hang out with Google.

I am already aware of how this is done and for the most part I'm ok with trading them seeing what I'm up to for getting the service it provides as was mentioned above like using Maps occasionally for example. What I'm not ok with is the contents of my sms conversations residing on Google's servers. Whether it's being analyzed by inhuman machines or whether Joe and Susie are reading it and having a giggle or whether it just sits there gathering dust makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't want several years of my thousands of sms there regardless.

 

[zkSharks]

I am already aware of how this is done and for the most part I'm ok with trading them seeing what I'm up to for getting the service it provides as was mentioned above like using Maps occasionally for example. What I'm not ok with is the contents of my sms conversations residing on Google's servers. Whether it's being analyzed by inhuman machines or whether Joe and Susie are reading it and having a giggle or whether it just sits there gathering dust makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't want several years of my thousands of sms there regardless.

Fair enough; I don't fault you for preferring that your day-to-day conversations don't stick around. You're therefore limited to locally-managed client-side messaging services, traditional SMS included. Have you looked at WhisperSystems or other forms of secured messaging? Their systems are what CyanogenMod's new secure messaging providers are using.

Edit: I use — for the most part — cloud-based services for my digital communications. The integration and centralization is something I need, especially as a developer. Locally-based anything doesn't hold up for too long... it's overwritten, erased, moved, or otherwise messed with too often to be up to par in terms of reliability. So I use Google Voice for my SMS services. Now, we all know Google Now provides 'helpful' suggested navigation cards based on where it thinks I might be going. You know what I want? I want Google Now to scan my recent calls list and Voice inbox, to determine who I've talked with (though not what I talked with them about).

It's nice of Google Now to drop in cards for six or seven friends' places, home, a couple spots I frequent, etc. Unfortunately, with so many cards it isn't of as much value to me. I'd prefer that Now factor in my recent communication history in the process of deciding which places I may be heading to. It would certainly be more accurate.

 

[ultravisitor]

You know what I want? I want Google Now to scan my recent calls list and Voice inbox, to determine who I've talked with (though not what I talked with them about).

And you know if they enable cards like that, there will be more uproar about it.

 

[zkSharks]

And you know if they enable cards like that, there will be more uproar about it.

If they were to enable them by default, absolutely. And I'd probably be one of the ones speaking out for more control over any such features, even if it's merely a 'disable' option. I'm all for services that return value to consumers by analyzing their data — no matter what that data may be — as long as the consumer in question has control over, or at the very least, access to information regarding these services.

 

[ultravisitor]

I'm all for services that return value to consumers by analyzing their data — no matter what that data may be — as long as the consumer in question has control over, or at the very least, access to information regarding these services.

Same. And so far, Google has pretty much proven to be unlike Facebook in that it allows users more control when features like that are added.

 

[xchange]

Just to get on my soap box for a moment, I really do think in light of current privacy issues over the last couple of years that it's more important now at the rate technology allows easier access to our privacy that we demand more accountability from those who control it, and for them to allows us more personal control on how it's handled. Even if that means distributing the cost to us at a fair price.

 

[ultravisitor]

Just to get on my soap box for a moment, I really do think in light of current privacy issues over the last couple of years that it's more important now at the rate technology allows easier access to our privacy that we demand more accountability from those who control it, and for them to allows us more personal control on how it's handled. Even if that means distributing the cost to us at a fair price.

Google Dashboard has existed for years.

 

[A895]

Google Dashboard has existed for years.

How many normal consumers know about it though? How many just use google services not knowing so much that they do is actually tracked and kept by google themselves?

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App

 

[llamabreath]

Google employees are looking at your photos?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app

http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-on-chats






I think signatures are stupid.

 

[Aquila]

GCreep: Google Engineer Stalked Teens, Spied on Chats (Updated)



I think signatures are stupid.

I'm inclined to go with squares and rhombus' here. It's always possible for some jerk to break the law and/or rules/policies, but that doesn't by any means indicate that such abuses are the intention, nor even common place. What matters on a story like this is the response, so we'd expect 1. Google fires this guy 2. Any applicable prosecution is considered 3. The victim(s) consider a civil suit against the guy 4. Google creates processes to prevent future abuses of a similar nature. If all 4 of those things happen, IMO we're good. Now, if this type of thing is rampant and Google says, "privacy is important" yet consistently does nothing to prevent such abuse and/or looks the other way, etc, then we're having a totally different conversation.

 

[sauce_a_poutine]

Is probably not the first, and not the last... I'll bet Google works real hard to keep stuff like that under wraps. All the "good moves" would probably never have happened without the publicity.

 

[zkSharks]

How many normal consumers know about it though? How many just use google services not knowing so much that they do is actually tracked and kept by google themselves?

As long as Google makes such tools easily accessible, the burden of use should lie with the consumer. In other words, if the consumer can easily find the Google Dashboard while looking for it, that constitutes proper business practice regarding the review and control of digital data pertaining to oneself.

Yes, it would certainly be feasible to increase awareness of the Dashboard by mentioning it in (or alongside) any of their other products. However keep in mind that aside from potential positive press and consumer reactions, doing so would not benefit Google. This is not due to any malicious intent or hidden agenda, but rather that the default settings for Google Accounts are (in terms of dataset satisfaction) optimal for products that utilize such data (of which Google Now is a prime example). These products are built to provide utility and benefit to the consumer as data is added; Google+, Drive, Gmail, and of course search and advertising, all reflect this. Encouraging users to actively monitor their accounts' data has the potential to result in some degree of product utility loss to the consumer if they restrict or remove any of that data.

This is especially relevant, seeing as Google is further unifying its products (see Google+). This effects the same risk, and we can see it in action as some users abstain from commenting on YouTube following the Google+ integration. Whether that's good or bad is a separate debate (and largely dependent on what type of content the user would be contributing — we all know what some of those YouTube comments were like). In most cases feature loss is detrimental to the interests of the consumer and business alike.

 

[xchange]

Google Dashboard has existed for years.

Care to elaborate? Because I'm pretty sure what you're getting at only scratches the surface of what I'm talking about but I think you already knew that.
Dashboard doesn't cover a fraction of real control, it only gives you a small semblance and only what's in their interest, not necessarily yours. Does dashboard have an option to stop any sms conversations from being read or stored for example?

 

[llamabreath]

If they were to enable them by default, absolutely. And I'd probably be one of the ones speaking out for more control over any such features, even if it's merely a 'disable' option. I'm all for services that return value to consumers by analyzing their data ? no matter what that data may be ? as long as the consumer in question has control over, or at the very least, access to information regarding these services.

How do we ever really know if turning off options such as ones that relate to our privacy really actually turn them off?

I think it's naive to think that those options do anything at all.



I think signatures are stupid.

 

[llamabreath]

Why does going off grid not solve the problem?

Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App

If you have a smartphone, you're on the grid. That's why they're so affordable now. To make sure we're on the grid.




I think signatures are stupid.

 

[sauce_a_poutine]

If anyone who knows you is on the grid, your on it. If your in someone's contact list, upped to Google, with picture and Birthday....

 

[zkSharks]

How do we ever really know if turning off options such as ones that relate to our privacy really actually turn them off?

I think it's naive to think that those options do anything at all.

You're right that technically we don't know with certainty. That said, I submit that one should only entrust their personal data to an online entity up to the same extent one is willing to take their statements and practices in good faith, until given cause to do otherwise.

 

[Aquila]

Does dashboard have an option to stop any sms conversations from being read or stored for example?

I'm curious about the "stored" part here, because it's been mentioned several times. The Google Search app's ability to read SMS seems very straight forward, it searches your SMS when you use it (if you've enabled searching your device) in case you have a text message relevant to your search term. That permission is also needed because Google Search can read/write SMS is because you can use it to send a Text to someone. Once we've established that this permission is necessary for the app to function, the use of that app obviously requires it so the choice is use the app or do not.

However, the "store" SMS portion.... There is nothing in their privacy policy about collecting, let alone storing SMS information. The obvious exception(s) to this would be using Google Voice, in which case you're intentionally using their service to send the SMS, so obviously they have to transmit it and Hangouts, for which the same thing applies. If you are not using a Google service to send SMS, how/why (with a heavy distinction between reading what's on your device and sending this information to Google Servers for permanent storage) would they intercept it and store it? Is there a reason that you think they are taking the information off of your device and putting it on their servers? It'd be highly convenient for them to do so, as you could get text messages via your tablet or PC, etc, but outside of using apps from other companies, that functionality doesn't currently appear to exist.

This is another reason that, as far as data companies go, Google is easy to work with for consumers... because their privacy terms are spelled out in very plain middle school language so that the majority of people can easily understand how/why their information is collected, used, etc.