Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it

by dotcoma • 3 years ago

390 181 3 years ago

dylan604• 3 years ago

It is not uncommon to abide by some regulation that you don't agree with while at the same time working to have the regulation removed.

voisin• 3 years ago

It’s wild that anyone believes Google supports privacy in any manner whatsoever. You cannot simultaneously support privacy while relying on a targeted advertising business model.

qbrass• 3 years ago

Google still wants their own privacy, so they're going to support the things that protect that.

arciini• 3 years ago

While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it'll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market.

Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved.

If you don't think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It's better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don't care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense.

The following only makes sense if you buy this argument:

The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it's not worth it.

Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". The Chrome topics API and mathematical/statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies/data brokers.

That being said, I don't love the concentration of power (that's why the DOJ is going after them) - I'd much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.

Nullabillity3• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

Ads are, at best, malware for the brain.

What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.

JohnFen12• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point.

It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.

jkubicek2• 3 years ago

It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.

I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_.

I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline.

What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.

skybrian• 3 years ago

Time to check Ad Topics in Chrome Settings to see what information advertisers are getting from me...

Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked.

(I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.")

It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.

tristor5• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.

As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"

gambiting3• 3 years ago

>Advertisements and marketing are immoral.

So if you are selling something it's literally immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I'm genuinely curious.

zeroonetwothree• 3 years ago

There is no solid line separating ads from other content. What about a positive review for a game? Is that not an ad because the reviewer wasn’t paid? But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)?

There are many other examples. It’s much more a matter of degree than just saying “ads bad”.

jzb• 3 years ago

"Advertisements and marketing are immoral."

That's quite a position. Are you also taking the position that capitalism and commerce are immoral? Because you really can't have those things absent marketing.

At any rate, I can't agree with this. The way that ads/marketing are done can be immoral, for sure -- but you also have PSAs against littering or simply marketing / advertising for any number of things that I'd hope we'd all agree are good ("Spay and neuter your pets," "Don't drink & drive") or at worst neutral ("Now available: The Beatles 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper CD").

Promoting a thing is not the same thing as "psychological manipulation" unless you consider "making a person or persons aware of something" is manipulation.

One might even argue that marketing is a good when the thing is something that people benefit from being aware of. Is marketing open source immoral? Fitness, as a concept? Ads for animal adoption are immoral?

At any rate - ads are a symptom of consumerism and capitalism, so as long as that's the system we exist in they're going to be present.

arpa2• 3 years ago

I wish I could upvote you more. I too think that advertisements are at best unethical, at worst downright evil. Just like organized religion, the ads are designed to distort the perceived reality into something that it isn't and part the fool and their money.

naniwaduni2• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad, then

I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.

daft_pink• 3 years ago

If you look at how Google is approaching competing with companies like Apple on Android, or Firefox and Safari on Chrome. It's obvious that the overarching theme of the company is to copy all their security upgrades immediately and create watered down versions of the privacy technology, so they can appear to care about your privacy and compete, but their solutions simply aren't very good at protecting your privacy and there really isn't any good reason other than the truth that they want to appear to care about your privacy, while controlling and developing their technology in such a way that it doesn't protect your privacy as well as the competition or just gives only them access to the info, but protects it from others.

Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago.

It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.

hk1337• 3 years ago

Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting".

This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S.

Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?

gretch6• 3 years ago

Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?

I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind.

For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide".

We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns?

No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working

mehlmao• 3 years ago

Why can't we have a system where you (and the vast majority that you're sure love targeted ads) can opt in to being tracked by Google and other companies, and everyone else is protected from invasive data collection by default?

JohnFen12• 3 years ago

This would be ideal, yes.

eh_why_not3• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad... then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.

Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals.

On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on.

And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck.

Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting.

Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.

gretch6• 3 years ago

No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.

This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.

But it's also really dumb.

Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?

There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.

havnagiggle• 3 years ago

Very strange that you consider ads based on geography as fine. That's the one I am most concerned about, primarily with political and PR-focused advertising which are often heavily geographic based. I care extremely little about "products" advertising.

marcosdumay• 3 years ago

If you don't think that all ads are bad

And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad.

This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there.

Besides:

Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity

Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.

brookst• 3 years ago

So tired of the “[company] claims to support my definition of [topic] while advocating different version of [topic]”

Privacy is an ambiguous term. Probably no two of us agree on 100% of the implementation details. Yes, Google’s approach does not align with my desires. But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one.

How about “Google’s is lobbying for a weaker form of privacy than customers expect”?

JohnFen12• 3 years ago

But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one

I am arrogant enough to know what is acceptable to me, though, and to work towards that. Just like Google (or most anyone else) does, albeit Google outguns me by many orders of magnitude.

shadowgovt7• 3 years ago

The thing Google knows is that once the law decides what privacy means, neither Google nor you get to have your own definition anymore.

ehhthing2• 3 years ago

Regardless of who wrote this, I find it hard to trust an article written by a direct competitor to the company being scrutinized -- there is a clear conflict of interest here.

zilchnotta• 3 years ago

The adversarial system is the best we've come with in law and government. It seems, relying on opponents to keep each other honest, is a tool worth using.

callalex• 3 years ago

You’re right, Google’s stalking and manipulation conflict with my interests.

asadotzler• 3 years ago

You're not gonna like how our justice system works if you think the adversarial approach discounts the results.

ehhthing2• 3 years ago

But I'm not a judge and this isn't court.

The adversarial system has a time and a place, but in this case it's not like Google ever publishes blog posts on why ProtonMail may or may not be bad, and it would be quite impossible for them to debunk every accusation against them.

This isn't the adversarial system as much as it is just one company making marketing material for themselves by attacking another company.

more_corn• 3 years ago

Google is the worst offender in creating the current state of zero privacy. Real privacy is privacy by default. Opt out is bullshit and everyone knows it. Just try to opt out of information sharing for every service you have. It’s simply not possible. Why don’t our lawmakers advocate for real privacy? Because powerful tech advertising lobbies prevent it.

Google doesn’t even respect opt out.

There’s no role for user privacy advocate at google . There’s no room for the discussion. They regularly and actively subvert even the weak privacy laws we have here.

Notice how they nag you forever to log into google maps? That’s so they can share your location data across all properties. They aren’t legally allowed to do it unless there’s a reason. The login service is their reason. How do I know this? They said it openly. Is this conscious, active and continuous violation of privacy law? I’d say it is.

roody15• 3 years ago

Google supporting privacy… lol

shadowgovt7• 3 years ago

The article pretty much gets Google's philosophy on this correct. Google, having cut their teeth on being pioneers in search in a world where people were still figuring out what the consequences of vastly collating human data at scale were, found themselves all too often the moral and philosophical pioneers as well, whether or not they wanted to be.

As a consequence, they have heavy skepticism about both government and public capacity to self-regulate here. Neither group has usually done either the deep reflection or trial by fire that Google has in figuring out all of the parameters of the problem, all of the consequences of the decisions, etc.

In short, they trust themselves more than they trust anybody else and they put their lobbying money in places that allow them to maximize acting on that self-trust. They'd rather be making mistakes and correcting them than forced to make what they perceive to be the wrong decision by bad ideas baked into unmovable law. Good bad or indifferent, that's where they're coming from.

(And to be clear, this is not an endorsement of their position. I think people who believe that there is a gap between that self-image and of the reality of the decisions they've made as de facto arbiters of privacy online have plenty of evidence to bring to the table to support their position.)

davinci1232• 3 years ago

Privacy is a myth in today's world. It has become a marketing anthem for many including Apple. If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.

Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.

davinci1232• 3 years ago

lo and behold: https://karl-voit.at/cloud/

CharlesW4• 3 years ago

If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.

In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.

smoldesu5• 3 years ago

So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?

Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".

zlg_codes6• 3 years ago

This can be changed. It becomes a lot harder to track people when they get pissed off and destroy your surveillance network.

None of the conditions in this situation are ironclad.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

If you accept free speech then you accept advertisements. If you accept advertisements, then you might as well accept the obfuscation to preserve some semblance of "privacy."

Only the naive believe it's possible to not have advertisements. Advertisements even existed in Ancient Rome.

deely3• 3 years ago

I do accept free speech and also I accept possibility to block all and any advertisements from showing on my devices.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

Sure, but you can't block someone from saying, hey "Applications are open for Y Combinator Winter 2024". There you go, an advertisement, straight to your brain.

tomjen3• 3 years ago

I accept free speech as in I am free to listen to any speech of my choosing without interference from a third party. I do not accept that I have to hear any specific speech. The fact that reality lacks a good filter is a very serious bug that I hope gets fixed immediately.

Nullabillity3• 3 years ago

Freedom to speak is not freedom to hire goons to shove it down people's throats.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

indeed!

johnnyworker2• 3 years ago

https://www.learnancientrome.com/were-there-ads-in-ancient-r...

In 3000 BC, a slaveholder in Thebes, Egypt created the first-ever written ad. [..] The slaveholder was trying to find a runaway slave while also promoting their weaving shop.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...

Even David Ogilvy, widely considered the father of modern advertising, expressed his disdain for the medium back in 1963. “Man is at his vilest when he erects a billboard,” Ogilvy wrote. “When I retire from Madison Avenue, I am going to start a secret society of masked vigilantes who will travel around the world on silent motor bicycles, chopping down posters at the dark of the moon.”

CatWChainsaw2• 3 years ago

The more things change, the more they stay the same.. indeed. The guy only wanted to put a bandage on the gaping wound he inflicted after he'd decided he'd made enough money from it. Reminds me of all the software engineers that leave FANG companies to start foundations promoting ethical software.

93po3• 3 years ago

Free speech doesn’t protect people from causing harm. Advertising is inherently unethical and harmful.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

Advertising is not inherently harmful, lol

zlg_codes6• 3 years ago

What's naive about believing it's possible to have a society without ads? I understand why you have that myopic a view if Rome is as far back in civilization you're willing to go.

How's your work in adtech going? It seems only those who profit from ads are defending them.

endisneigh17• 3 years ago

don't work on ads. society without ads is one without commerce. without commerce there's poverty and despair. not interested in that kind of life. if you don't like ads when do you go to a marketing forum?

JohnFen12• 3 years ago

then you might as well accept the obfuscation to preserve some semblance of "privacy."

I don't accept Google's approach because it is intended to reduce my privacy from them. They are not trying to preserve some semblance of privacy, they are trying to preserve some semblance of their ability to spy on us.

I reject their position entirely.

CatWChainsaw2• 3 years ago

Ancient Roman advertisements didn't send out flying airtags to follow all of the people who passed by and collate a bunch of extra data about where those people went, how long they spent there and at what times, what the purpose of those places was, how the social webs of all the people interconnected....

So clearly it's possible to advertise without tracking, we just innovated that benefit away.

AlbertCory9• 3 years ago

When I was in Google Ads, someone explained to me that Search ads were 10x more profitable than banner ads. The reason is the search tells you something about what the user wants. Our canonical example was "flowers." It's perfectly reasonable to show you ads for 1-800-FLOWERS.

Of course, over time that's been corrupted so you see only ads. Don't bother beating that dead horse.

All the "targeted advertisement" efforts are to figure out what you want when you didn't say anything, and reduce that 10x to 5x or less. I don't see a good reason not to prohibit those, if people object to them. There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.

teaearlgraycold2• 3 years ago

When I was at Google I almost got in trouble a couple of times by asking if Google might have a monopoly. I was told to delete messages and to never say "The M Word".

gretch6• 3 years ago

disclosure: work at Google

This makes sense if your genuine perspective is that you don't have a monopoly.

Like if I sent a bunch of emails saying "Hey guys, we are making great progress on committing genocide" - people would say "wtf man, we don't commit genocide, we just make software, why are you talking like that?"

Then you're all like "shhh don't say the G word..."

I'm not sure what you did in the company, but unless you had a VP+ level position, how are you qualified to know whether Google has a monopoly or not? Like, how do you have omniscient data on what competitors sales look like? You're just speculating in an unhealthy way. And that's why people told you to be quiet.

yjftsjthsd-h6• 3 years ago

Our canonical example was "flowers." It's perfectly reasonable to show you ads for 1-800-FLOWERS.

It still results in strong perverse incentives. If I search for $company I don't want to have the top hit be $rival_company

lern_too_spel• 3 years ago

I've gotten good deals searching for one company and getting an ad from another VC-funded company in the same market offering a large discount.

Spivak• 3 years ago

As long as it's the top ad spot, why not? That's basically the only relevant ad when you search $company -- "Hey, we also do that."

xctr94• 3 years ago

There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.

I like this a lot. Google is massively profitable. The only argument in favor of continue to extract every cent they can off the market, is that we have a fiction of perpetual, constant growth. It should be 100% okay for a company to say “we’re super profitable, we’re going to tone it down now and focus on making our services better”.

AlbertCory9• 3 years ago

It's corporate religion: "Where is the growth coming from?"

At a certain size, the answer should be "It's not."

And then they get valued by their dividend yield. That IS boring, to some people.

exabrial• 3 years ago

When Google does it, it's fine. When others do it, it's "Invading Your Privacy!!!"

rmbyrro2• 3 years ago

Ever imagined a tech giant with a "don't be evil" mantra?

Google is a big company. That's why it has conflicting ideas about privacy... They can't all talk to eachother there!

After all, they're not evil, are they?

davesque• 3 years ago

Google's business model is such that it needs to invade privacy in order to make money. It's also made up of human beings who are subject to self-serving bias (believing that they have no bad intentions, therefore nothing will go wrong). So yeah, they're going to lobby for less privacy and claim that they want more of it and feel just fine about doing that.

__jambo• 3 years ago

"...Google and tech industry allies responded with a massive lobbying campaign... convince lawmakers banning targeted ads would hurt the global economy. The gambit worked, and the draft law no longer threatens Google’s advertising."

Lol, sounds like Google and the tech industry used targeted advertising to prevent a ban on targeted advertising.

nojvek• 3 years ago

Reminds me of 1984.

Google is the Ministry of Privacy.

Minister of Privacy: “Let us gather to celebrate a trillion dollars of profit in one quarter. Our goal is to harness the world’s data and exploit it. Surveillance is Privacy”

—

Minister of Peace: “Comrades, our Ministry has an important duty to ensure the perpetual war that maintains our control. War is peace.”

Minister of Plenty: “Let us not forget our crucial role of the in rationing resources and keeping the populace in a state of need. Scarcity is Abundance.”

Minister of Truth: “The past is mutable, and it is our duty to control the narrative. Ignorance is Strength.”

Minister of Love: “Our goal is to eliminate dissent and ensure the loyalty of our citizens. Fear is Love.”

alphanullmeric• 3 years ago

Privacy washing: half of these commenters claim to support privacy while whining about financial privacy under any post involving cryptocurrencies

lakomen• 3 years ago

Pro digital services act propaganda

gorenb• 3 years ago

Lol im using https://searx.be now

fennecfoxy• 3 years ago

Basically everyone I know and most people I see on HN: I don't like ads and also I won't pay for content/a service.

So what're their options, then? People get real, reeeeeal mad that YT offers premium as if for some reason they deserve to use things like Youtube for free?

Granted, if we actually taxed the rich and focussed money on more important stuff yeah we could totally have all of these service for free, sponsored by tax dollars. But that is _never_ gonna happen as long as we're dragging the chains of evolution behind us.

Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it

Related Stories