Does Google collect too much personal information?

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

highly doubt on what you said about BlackBerry.

Okay well I recently read the Privacy statements from Blackberry and from TCL and both of them state that they can do that. There are also articles about Blackberry monitizing all the data that they've collected over the past 10 years.

 

[anon(10092459)]

This incredible to me. Here you have the largest data collection organization in the world, and they're spending time theorizing about how they would go about doing things like this, and people rush to praise them. This is exactly why privacy will disappear completely.. and I'm sorry, but to whomever is OK with that, I'm not. We have rights and I'm rather fond of them. We have those rights for a reason, and it's because things like what's being discussed here are dangerous.

Google continues to move the goal post of what's acceptable, using technology as an enticement to convince people their privacy doesn't matter.

You have the right to whatever opinion you desire. But please consider the other side of data collection. As an example, the medical field.

What if you are an organ recipient, let's say, and you obviously share information with you transplant surgeon and his medical team. Let's say your individual case is part of a much bigger medical study to help the medical field increase successful organ transplants. While your personal information isn't shared, let's say they consider you patient# Ax21-3m95, your non-personal information is part of the case study i.e. your sex, age, height, weight etc and that information is aggregated with like-type patients.

Do you consider this a violation of your privacy and would you be against it?

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

You have the right to whatever opinion you desire. But please consider the other side of data collection. As an example, the medical field.

What if you are an organ recipient, let's say, and you obviously share information with you transplant surgeon and his medical team. Let's say your individual case is part of a much bigger medical study to help the medical field increase successful organ transplants. While your personal information isn't shared, let's say they consider you patient# Ax21-3m95, your non-personal information is part of the case study i.e. your sex, age, height, weight etc and that information is aggregated with like-type patients.

Do you consider this a violation of your privacy and would you be against it?

Not at all, and this use is also a huge benefit to humanity. However, I'm not sure if you're aware of the recent reports in regard to Facebook and their attempted access to private citizens anonymous medical information in an attempt to experiment with an algorithm capable of matching it up with actual user profiles? This was in coordination with several major hospitals. This is all a very slippery slope, and things are happening behind the scenes on a continuous basis.. things that as soon as the public becomes aware of cause a huge backlash.

That aside, Google's primary use of your data is to monetize you. Much like the news organizations of today are not really there to inform you, but are in the business of news, Google is in the business of data collection. They are not here to benefit you. They're primary concern, as with any business, is profit. And the majority of the time, at your expense.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Not at all, and this use is also a huge benefit to humanity. However, I'm not sure if you're aware of the recent reports in regard to Facebook and their attempted access to private citizens anonymous medical information in an attempt to experiment with an algorithm capable of matching it up with actual user profiles? This was in coordination with several major hospitals. This is all a very slippery slope, and things are happening behind the scenes on a continuous basis.. things that as soon as the public becomes aware of cause a huge backlash.

That aside, Google's primary use of your data is to monetize you. Much like the news organizations of today are not really there to inform you, but are in the business of news, Google is in the business of data collection. They are not here to benefit you. They're primary concern, as with any business, is profit. And the majority of the time, at your expense.

Okay so regardless of the situation with Facebook, you are saying that organ transplant information is good for society and all of mankind and that you would agree to be a party involved with the study independent of any accusations against any bad actors, in your example Facebook, correct? Because the medical field needs money to function and be profitable and provide services. Otherwise they close their doors. That same case study example takes several data points and several years to provide useful information and that also helps keep the cost of medicines and treatments in line.

Insurance companies use big data constantly. Every year when I do my wellness check-up to lower my premiums, I am asked "Do you use your seat belt every time?". My assessment report is returned and broken down into modifiable and non-modifiable risks. Seat belt usage being a modifiable one. That's important because, "Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent."

Now with Google, none of your personal information is ever sold to anyone. It all stays with Google. If you'll allow me the indulgence, think about the data that Google has when people operate their vehicles.

Let's say that, at some point in the future, Google decides to share with you (i.e. any user) that over the last 3 years when you operate a vehicle alone you drive above the speed limit 78% of the time and that sample of information indicates that your chances of being involved in an accident being X%. They're basing this on total drivers in your demographic, area of the world and overall user profiles. With that information perhaps you change your behavior or perhaps not, but you're at least more aware of the risk that you are exposing yourself and other drivers to in real quantifiable data.

I mention these things to shine light on the positive results and implications of big data and how it can be utilized to modify poor behavior patterns for individuals.Yes, today Google wants to place an advertisement in front of you. It is indeed how they make the majority of their revenue. There is no denying that. But I don't begrudge them for being a business and making money.

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

Okay so regardless of the situation with Facebook, you are saying that organ transplant information is good for society and all of mankind and that you would agree to be a party involved with the study independent of any accusations against any bad actors, in your example Facebook, correct? Because the medical field needs money to function and be profitable and provide services. Otherwise they close their doors. That same case study example takes several data points and several years to provide useful information and that also helps keep the cost of medicines and treatments in line.

Insurance companies use big data constantly. Every year when I do my wellness check-up to lower my premiums, I am asked "Do you use your seat belt every time?". My assessment report is returned and broken down into modifiable and non-modifiable risks. Seat belt usage being a modifiable one. That's important because, "Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent, and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent."

Now with Google, none of your personal information is ever sold to anyone. It all stays with Google. If you'll allow me the indulgence, think about the data that Google has when people operate their vehicles.

Let's say that, at some point in the future, Google decides to share with you (i.e. any user) that over the last 3 years when you operate a vehicle alone you drive above the speed limit 78% of the time and that sample of information indicates that your chances of being involved in an accident being X%. They're basing this on total drivers in your demographic, area of the world and overall user profiles. With that information perhaps you change your behavior or perhaps not, but you're at least more aware of the risk that you are exposing yourself and other drivers to in real quantifiable data.

I mention these things to shine light on the positive results and implications of big data and how it can be utilized to modify poor behavior patterns for individuals.Yes, today Google wants to place an advertisement in front of you. It is indeed how they make the majority of their revenue. There is no denying that. But I don't begrudge them for being a business and making money.

I'm not sure why you continue to cite examples of beneficial ways data can be used, this isn't about whether or not data itself is of benefit to human kind. You continue to take dance around the discussion of potential nefarious uses of data as if they don't exist or occur. The issue is not a question of whether or not information itself is bad.. it's the high likelihood of abuse at the hands of human beings who's morals and decisions revolve around the generation of profit and control of said information. I'm not sure why you keep referencing scenarios that have nothing to do with the actual dangers being discussed as a concern.

I also would like to point out that be simply because you're OK with something doesn't mean you have any sort of control over it. Don't let your willingness to participate without objection confuse you into believing you're making a decision on this. These things are being done regardless of your opinion and that fact in itself should be concerning.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I'm not sure why you continue to cite examples of beneficial ways data can be used, this isn't about whether or not data itself is of benefit to human kind. You continue to take dance around the discussion of potential nefarious uses of data as if they don't exist or occur. The issue is not a question of whether or not information itself is bad.. it's the high likelihood of abuse at the hands of human beings who's morals and decisions revolve around the generation of profit and control of said information. I'm not sure why you keep referencing scenarios that have nothing to do with the actual dangers being discussed as a concern.

I also would like to point out that be simply because you're OK with something doesn't mean you have any sort of control over it. Don't let your willingness to participate without objection confuse you into believing you're making a decision on this. These things are being done regardless of your opinion and that fact in itself should be concerning.

If one feels that a company's policy regarding data collection and use of that data is problematic, he or she does not have to use that company's products or services. No one is compelled to use Google or Android if he or she disagrees with Google's data collection and use policies.

 

[anon(10092459)]

'm not sure why you continue to cite examples of beneficial ways data can be used, this isn't about whether or not data itself is of benefit to human kind. You continue to take dance around the discussion of potential nefarious uses of data as if they don't exist or occur. The issue is not a question of whether or not information itself is bad.. it's the high likelihood of abuse at the hands of human beings who's morals and decisions revolve around the generation of profit and control of said information. I'm not sure why you keep referencing scenarios that have nothing to do with the actual dangers being discussed as a concern.

I'm not dancing around anything. You choose to discuss things on a level of "someone could" and cite possible "nefarious uses", but that's all hypothetical.

I also would like to point out that be simply because you're OK with something doesn't mean you have any sort of control over it. Don't let your willingness to participate without objection confuse you into believing you're making a decision on this. These things are being done regardless of your opinion and that fact in itself should be concerning.

Well I don't know about you, but I actually DO make choices about things in my life. That includes whether or not I use technology and what companies I chose to do business with. If I wasn't on board with Google, I wouldn't use their services. If I was concerned about technology, I'd use a landline and a pen and a pad. For whatever reason, you seem to believe that people are ignorant if their thoughts don't line up with your own. I can assure you that's not the case at all.

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

If one feels that a company's policy regarding data collection and use of that data is problematic, he or she does not have to use that company's products or services. No one is compelled to use Google or Android if he or she disagrees with Google's data collection and use policies.

We both know that argument is completely false. Data about you is being collected whether or not you use any company's products or agree to their terms. If someone takes your picture with their cell phone, posts a picture with you in it on social media, your data is being collected. Location, facial recognition data, etc. Determinations about you are being made by algorithms based on your friends habits/likes/events and that information is used to build a profile about you whether you want to or not. You cannot avoid data collection at this point without withdrawing from societal norms.

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

I'm not dancing around anything. You choose to discuss things on a level of "someone could" and cite possible "nefarious uses", but that's all hypothetical.




Well I don't know about you, but I actually DO make choices about things in my life. That includes whether or not I use technology and what companies I chose to do business with. If I wasn't on board with Google, I wouldn't use their services. If I was concerned about technology, I'd use a landline and a pen and a pad. For whatever reason, you seem to believe that people are ignorant if their thoughts don't line up with your own. I can assure you that's not the case at all.

It's not hypothetical. There have been numerous proven instances of massive abuse of personal data, both intentional and due to poor security measures. Do you think watchdog agencies are unnecessary? I mean, if it's all hypothetical, right? You're acting like my opinion is entirely unwarranted.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

It's not hypothetical. There have been numerous proven instances of massive abuse of personal data, both intentional and due to poor security measures. Do you think watchdog agencies are unnecessary? I mean, if it's all hypothetical, right? You're acting like my opinion is entirely unwarranted.

I could be wrong but I think he specifically was referring to the notion of Google doing those things, not businesses in general.

 

[anon(10092459)]

It's not hypothetical. There have been numerous proven instances of massive abuse of personal data, both intentional and due to poor security measures. Do you think watchdog agencies are unnecessary? I mean, if it's all hypothetical, right? You're acting like my opinion is entirely unwarranted.

That's not my intention at all, and if our discussion has led you to that conclusion, I do apologize. Everyone has a right to their opinion. We can agree to disagree, as it seems our points of view are quite different.

 

[anon(10092459)]

I could be wrong but I think he specifically was referring to the notion of Google doing those things, not businesses in general.

Correct!

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

I could be wrong but I think he specifically was referring to the notion of Google doing those things, not businesses in general.

I understand that, and what I just demonstrated was that Google has admittedly explored ideas that would certainly qualify for areas of concern given the massive trove of data they collect. That's what the OP was asking about isn't it?

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

That's not my intention at all, and if our discussion has led you to that conclusion, I do apologize. Everyone has a right to their opinion. We can agree to disagree, as it seems our points of view are quite different.

Certainly. Please let me clarify as well that I'm in no way insinuating anyone with an opinion different from mine is ignorant. I'm only offering my perspective as it pertains to Google's data collection and the inherent risks associated with it. I appreciate the debate, it allows me to evolve as new information or perspectives are presented as well.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

If we're saying there is the potential for great abuse or risk of harm, I agree. If we're asking the probability of Google betraying it's customers, I think that probability is rather small, especially respective to other players in the industry.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Certainly. Please let me clarify as well that I'm in no way insinuating anyone with an opinion different from mine is ignorant. I'm only offering my perspective as it pertains to Google's data collection and the inherent risks associated with it. I appreciate the debate, it allows me to evolve as new information or perspectives are presented as well.

Absolutely. The theme behind the post is to debate the issue. An alternative point of view from mine is always welcome, as far as I am concerned.

One thing we can agree on, I believe, is that data will definitely play a bigger and bigger role in all of our daily lives. With that in mind, it's of paramount importance that who we each of choose to be the custodian of that information is critical.

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

If we're saying there is the potential for great abuse or risk of harm, I agree. If we're asking the probability of Google betraying it's customers, I think that probability is rather small, especially respective to other players in the industry.

Would you not agree to that in order for significant advancements to be made in the technologies Google has expressed interest in pursuing, extensive privacy sacrifices would have to be made to facilitate the collection of the data required to make these advances? If we can agree that to be the case, and you truly believe Google to be transparent in their practices, it would be logical to assume people will be given the right to choose whether or not they participate. So my next question to you is, if the level of consensual participation is inadequate to satisfy the amount of data needed to make the technological leaps Google decides to pursue, is it your assumption that Google will remain transparent even if it results in failure or stagnation? That's a tough one for me to swallow.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Would you not agree to that in order for significant advancements to be made in the technologies Google has expressed interest in pursuing, extensive privacy sacrifices would have to be made to facilitate the collection of the data required to make these advances?

Could you be a bit more specific here? I'm reading this with you considering the "Selfish Ledger" video your reference point.

 

[nof8butwhatwemake]

Could you be a bit more specific here? I'm reading this with you considering the "Selfish Ledger" video your reference point.

To be specific, the development and implementation of AI in numerous applications which is not only an admitted agenda but has become a controversial one already. The reality is in order to build an effective AI, a massive amount of human data must be collected. Algorithms that have a deep understanding of human behavior, and can emulate and predict those behaviors as well, will be a necessary component. This is the end game, make no mistake, AI is the ultimate goal and Google will likely be the one of the first to get there.. though Facebook and Amazon are certainly interested as well, and Apple and Samsung among others are surely looking at this.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/googl...ers-are-quitting-over-pentagon-drone-project/

 

[anon(10092459)]

To be specific, the development and implementation of AI in numerous applications which is not only an admitted agenda but has become a controversial one already. The reality is in order to build an effective AI, a massive amount of human data must be collected. Algorithms that have a deep understanding of human behavior, and can emulate and predict those behaviors as well, will be a necessary component. This is the end game, make no mistake, AI it's the ultimate goal and Google will likely be the one of the first to get there.. though Facebook and Amazon are certainly interested as well, be and Apple and Samsung among others are surely looking at this.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/googl...ers-are-quitting-over-pentagon-drone-project/

Ah.. The Project Maven situation.

Well AI can be utilized for a LOT of different things, but let's stay with the grand "Skynet" version of the story. There are a lot of players in AI, Google is for sure one of them so I'll keep the discussion on just Google.

The question then comes down to what you believe, as you alluded to earlier. Whether or not Google is truly a good citizen and custodian with the information they collect. I believe they are.