Slashdot Mirror


Google's My Activity Reveals How Much It Knows About You (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Google has released a new section to Google's account settings, called My Activity, which lets users review everything that Google has tracked about their online behavior -- search, YouTube, Chrome, Android, and every other Google service. Best of all, users can edit or delete their tracked behaviors. In addition, the My Activity tools come with new ad preferences. Google is now offering to use its behavioral information to tailer ads shown across the wider non-Google internet and Google's search pages, which until now was purely done through the use of cookies. The difference between Google and other companies that offer ads like Facebook is that Google is making this interest-based advertising extension optional, or opt-in, not opt-out. There are two separate behavioral advertising settings for users to switch on or off: signed in ads and signed out ads. Signed in ads are those on Google services, and signed out ads are those served by Google on third-party sites. However, if you're conscious about your privacy, you'll probably want to stay opted out.

114 comments

  1. Tailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we being followed?

    The joke actually seemed to acquire new meaning as I thought about it more...

    1. Re:Tailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we being followed?

      The joke actually seemed to acquire new meaning as I thought about it more...

      If you didn't want a following[*1] you wouldn't post - anonymously or otherwise. Think[*2] about it.
      The joke, is you. It's just not funny.

      [*1] The desire to be heard/read is the knee jerk reaction to a need for a approval - the same one that prompts me to post this.
      [*2] Logically, as opposed to "thoughts" just popping into your head.

    2. Re:Tailer? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Not to be obvious but I think they meant 'taler'.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Tailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the correct word/spelling is 'tailor'.

    4. Re:Tailer? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Nobody has ever accused AC of being clever.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Tailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has ever accused AC of being clever.

      Aw thanks for the advice. So, being a stupid AC, if I want super intelligence all I have to do is sign up for Slashdot with a cool handler like AnonymousCoward78465. That's just genius! Thanks again!

      On a side comment, this Slashdot culture idiosyncrasy is pathetic.

  2. Interest-Based Ads by Thelasko · · Score: 2

    I use Adblock most of the time. But, for some reason, by brain is convinced that interest-based ads will be less likely to serve up malware. I'm not interested in downloading malware, so it won't show me ads that host it. Right?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Interest-Based Ads by darthsilun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh. Before I used Adblock I'd search for something, buy it, and then see ads for it for weeks.

      Which seems – to me – to be missing the target.

    2. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Meh. Before I used Adblock I'd search for something, buy it, and then see ads for it for weeks.

      Which seems – to me – to be missing the target.

      The flip side is I see and ad on a site where I don't block ads (because I value the site and am willing to put up with ads so they can continue to provide useful content), navigate past the page and then can't find the ad again when I want more information. That is why I consider most internet advertising wasted beyond creating an awareness of the product and perhaps a great propensity to buy it in the future.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Slashdot had ads for nice laser-projectors (obviously specifically targeted at my personal budget) and electric motors of a certain brand. I cannot find either now.

    4. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is done because the advertisers don't collect "enough" data about you. They only collect that you visited the product page they, don't collect that you actually bought the product. Lots of people search for something look at then go away and the ad is very effective at suggesting maybe a week later that you now wish to buy the product. Compared to traditional advertising methods (everyone who is watching a TV show at time X) this is much, much more targeted.

    5. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most people buy condoms more than once in their lifetime, so you're a bit of an edge case.

    6. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me when all online ads are foolproofed from any form of malware/vector attacks, et al. Then and only then will you be able to pry UBlockOrigin from my cold, dead hand.

    7. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me when all online ads are foolproofed from any form of malware/vector attacks, et al. Then and only then will you be able to pry UBlockOrigin from my cold, dead hand.

      The Internet itself isn't "foolproofed from any form of malware/vector attacks, et al.", so maybe you should just stay offline.

    8. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On Vivaldi, I use uMatrix, which I like better than uBlock Origin for "Chrome" browsers.

    9. Re:Interest-Based Ads by Zaowulf · · Score: 1

      So the solution is more tracking!

    10. Re:Interest-Based Ads by jakimfett · · Score: 0

      ...you know that we have uMatrix on Chrome too, right?

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  3. and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google tracks everyone, whether or not you have "made a google account", which is another way to say "given them even better quality data".

    I went to that page. I do not see any way to delete the profile they build of me via google analytics and other things, because I have never made an account. So the only way I can accomplish this is to tell them even more about who I am?

    How about making profiling opt IN instead of opt OUT?

    1. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Ive also noticed that google has a server side auto complete history even if your not logged in. How can I see that without having to go a....b...c....d...ect?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, create an account and then delete what you wish?

      Is that so hard?

    3. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you put that information out there on the public net then don't be surprised when the people you gave it to then happen to have it. Seriously the culture around here is all about information freedom except when it comes to your own information that you freely give to companies like Google. If you didn't want them to have it then don't give it to them.

    4. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't give it to them, they take it against your will. If you want to use the web, Google tracks almost everything you do, even if you try to have nothing to do with them at all.

      Try to block it? Then sorry but the web is broken for you. You cannot sign up for much of anything (google recaptchas), you can't email anyone (they are on gmail), etc.

      Unless you want to be almost totally excluded from modern life, google tracks you.

    5. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      Not only that, I've checked the My Activity profile after logging in, and I can assure everyone that Google knows way more about me than what they display there. That's because they store information by IP addresses, whether you're logged in or not, and also link different devices / Google accounts / IP addresses to your account whenever they can.

      My Activity does not "reveal how much it knows about you", it reveals just a few of the things Google knows about you.

    6. Re: and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Firefox private tab.
      Tho since google is the best search engine, Im willing to give them my searches...

    7. Re: and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Google now requires a phone number to create an account. Fsck that.

    8. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Yeah, all my "My Activity" shows are some YouTube videos I've watched. But with a gmail account, a google calendar, and constant use of the google search engine, I'm pretty sure they're tracking a LOT more about me than just what YouTube vids I'm watching.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    9. Re: and for those who didn't sign up? by Out0fAmmo · · Score: 1

      There are alternatives, like Ixquick/Startpage and DuckDuckGo. You don't *have* to use Google.

    10. Re: and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to have Google searches, at least do it through Startpage.

      If you want to avoid Google in your searches use The Ixquick EU page, not "ixquick.com" which also uses Google.

    11. Re: and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll still be tracked. Private browsing mode just deletes cookies, it doesn't delete server-side logs that Google correlates with your IP address, site visits, forum logins, etc. Cookies are the most convenient way to track you, not the only way.

    12. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by Shompol · · Score: 1

      tell them even more about who I am

      Why, no, you can use it to tell them who you want to become. E.g. I am going to update them that I am on the market for a multi-million racing yacht. I only want to see adverts about racing yachts. Who knows, maybe after enough ad brainwashing I might just buy one :)

    13. Re:and for those who didn't sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all my "My Activity" shows are some YouTube videos I've watched. But with a gmail account, a google calendar, and constant use of the google search engine, I'm pretty sure they're tracking a LOT more about me than just what YouTube vids I'm watching.

      Yeah, they show youtube by default, and it is really hard to search your search history and other products. It is like they don't want to really show you.

  4. Do you believe Google? by matbury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you believe that Google would willingly stop collecting any data about you on your request, well, you're more naive than I thought. My bet is that they just stop revealing those data to you that they say they'll stop collecting and then use the additional data, i.e. that you opted out, to further profile you, e.g. the user is sensitive about A, B, & C and has preferences for X, Y, & Z.

    1. Re:Do you believe Google? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you believe that Google would willingly stop collecting any data about you on your request, well, you're more naive than I thought.

      Or if you actually look into it they are talking about very specific data. No one is talking about being able to wipe your online presence, but rather you can customise the results Youtube suggest based on your interest, or search results returned based on your past searching. What makes you think they need any of this? Google can target ads to you just fine without it.

    2. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Youtube suggest based on your interest, or search results returned based on your past searching"

      rtfa, it's talking about being able to delete your past search history, which is used to tailor ads. the question OP is posing is: is your search history really deleted? Or are you still presented ads based on your search history even though you 'deleted it'

    3. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you close the bathroom door even when nobody else is home?

    4. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Granted 9 times out of 10 I don't close it when others are home.

    5. Re:Do you believe Google? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you believe that Google would willingly stop collecting any data about you on your request, well, you're more naive than I thought.

      Remember that Google is subject to an FTC consent decree from the Buzz privacy investigation. As a result of that, they're regularly audited by the FTC, and if the FTC were to find that Google were not acting in accord with public privacy-related statements Google would be in big trouble. Even if the FTC's fine were trivial (which I don't think it would be), you can bet the EU would pile on a much bigger one. And the damage to Google's brand would be incredible.

      Believe what you like, but the reality is that Google would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to lie. There's way too much at stake.

      (Disclaimer/disclosure: I'm a Google employee, but I'm speaking only for myself.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Do you believe Google? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      No... which is why the dog comes in to check on me literally every time I use the toilet. Or shower. Apparently she has decided someone sitting on a toilet is a captive audience for her attention whoring.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Do you believe Google? by zrobotics · · Score: 2

      Read what to Google is saying: they do t delete your history for ads, just for search history. Which I'm oddly fine with. I realize Google needs ad revenue to continue offering services that I use, such as YouTube, search, and Gmail. However, I am very aware that their revenue model is based on tracking me closely. There's no way they'll let you delete your data for ads; FFS, this is a multinational US corporation. If you don't want their trackers, don't use their services. I know it's impossible to avoid adsense, but do you want to pay a subscription fee for every site you visit? It seems anathema, but we all used to do this with newspapers and porn. Who buys either of those products now? Tracking sucks, but unfortunately shit costs money. Even this site: I've been here quite a while and never paid them a dime put of pocket, but my page views have indirectly paid the editors and hosting fees.

    8. Re:Do you believe Google? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because it's in their interest.

      They also don't stop collecting information. They get additional information from you telling them what parts of the information they got about you are right. They know that humans are fickle beings and something that they were absolutely engrossed in today is absolutely boring and uninteresting for them tomorrow. With this tool, they don't have to find out when you lose interest in some celebrity.

      You tell them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Do you believe Google? by DerpQuake · · Score: 1

      No matter how they behave I see it as impractical that these opt-outs are either based on account settings of signed in users or cookies set on signed-out users, so if you choose never to sign in and prefer not to accept, or to clear cookies after each session then you can't actually very well opt-out of anything. Its same issue with the ad industry behavioral advertising opt-out http://www.aboutads.info/choic... , useless if you clear cookies.

    10. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the same people who believe Google would ignore a person's settings to stop collecting data are the same people who think the privacy settings in Windows 10 are just fluff and Microsoft would keep collecting data specific to those settings regardless of whether they're enabled or not.

      You can't kill conspiracy theories, only the conspiracy theorists.

    11. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you implying that the FTC are granted access and go through EVERYTHING that google has?

      Not to belabor the point, but all google has to do move the data for users who opt out from the "stuff we got on people" to some other, more obscure location.

      If anything, I am pretty sure google collects usage data on people who don't even have google accounts, based on IPs, usage patterns and whatnot, people who have never consented to google's terms and don't have a way to opt out.

      And following google's own rhetoric "only the guilty want to hide" it is safe to assume all the people who opt out are actually put in some "people we need to track especially hard and rat to the NSA on own own accord" list. And who's to say the FTC, even if aware of that, isn't keeping quiet on orders from the government? Because it will be unethical or illegal and the various US "intelligence" agencies are not known for doing unethical or illegal things. Google has no blowback to worry about if they are doing it on request and the only way for this to surface would be some very serious leak or hack, which I image after Snowden will not be as trivial. Basically, Snowden revealed mostly old and obsolete stuff, I highly doubt the NSA/CIA/whatever have been keeping idle since.

      But hey, keep defending your evil monopolistic employer.

    12. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's impossible to avoid adsense, but do you want to pay a subscription fee for every site you visit?

      Maybe I do. If you factor in how little sites are getting for my time via the ad model, my time as an "ad viewer" is worth much, much less than my time as the thing I actually do to earn money. Since my time is valuable, I would rather pay than have ads, if that were possible. In fact I've already started to - I have a Netflix subscription, but I won't buy a Hulu subscription until they offer an ad-free tier that actually has no ads.

    13. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes what an excellent idea, let's remove the revenue stream that funds websites and instead paywall all content so information is only available to those who can afford it.

    14. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you really want privacy from Google you can get it but you have to do a bit of work for it. First you need to browse the Internet through an anonymizing proxy service. Second, you need to use script blocking, ad blocking and cookie management plugins in your browser. Third, you need to use anti browser fingerprint plugins to randomize your HTML canvas data, user agent, http-accept headers, etc. Finally, you need to avoid logging into Google services while you're operational and never from the same IP addresses that you use for non-routine activity or activities that you don't want associated with your known accounts.

    15. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capital idea, my good man. Let's bring back the old, clear web.

    16. Re:Do you believe Google? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that the FTC are granted access and go through EVERYTHING that google has?

      They have carte blanche.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they have full access, I doubt the FTC has the manpower to comb through all of google's jiggabytes of encrypted data. Or that they will be willing to find any evidence of wrongdoing.

      At any rate, getting to evidence of wrongdoing through means of hacking google is pretty much impossible, it will land you in prison or in the grave, it will literally be logistically much more feasible to stanch the top tier executives and beat it out of them.

      In any case, my personal opinion is that believing ANYTHING is stupid enough on its own, much less greedy monopolist corporations under paranoid criminal warmongering world domination seeking regimes. I'd stick with whats factual, logical or probable before buying in their "fair word".

    18. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I"m sure an NSA employee can confirm you are required to give them the info before you start filtering what is collected.

    19. Re:Do you believe Google? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Rather than combing through data, they would look through design documents and talk to employees. The misinformation campaign necessary to conceal it would be large-scale. Someone would leak it. *Especially* at Google, which has lots and lots of employees with rather strong viewpoints on such things. I'd certainly blow the whistle if I saw anything like that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Do you believe Google? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I"m sure an NSA employee can confirm you are required to give them the info before you start filtering what is collected.

      I'm sure they could not, because Google doesn't give information to the NSA.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got some on your chin.

    22. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "because Google doesn't give information to the NSA"

      Care to back that statement with evidence? Because they said so? Yeah, right. Also, this gem, just one of many:

      "PRISM is a clandestine surveillance program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from at least nine major US internet companies...The Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft"."

      Seems like the only reason for google to NOT be giving information to the NSA is that the NSA can take it on demand, without requiring google to give it. Why bother to ask them to give it when they can just take it? But that's by no means better on google's account, it is much worse. It only indicates that the NSA can treat google as its own property. No courtesy of asking for permission required.

      As for this, to avoid two posts:

      "Rather than combing through data, they would look through design documents and talk to employees. The misinformation campaign necessary to conceal it would be large-scale. Someone would leak it. *Especially* at Google, which has lots and lots of employees with rather strong viewpoints on such things. I'd certainly blow the whistle if I saw anything like that."

      Yeah, I guess they didn't find the "illegal data treasure trove gathering scheme you must keep quiet about WINK" chapter. You are quite naive when it comes to the implementation and human resource requirement of something like that. It can easily be pulled off by a handful of people. There is no logistical need to involve many people. The worker drones do not need to know, they are merely cogs whose job is to rotate, they are clueless of what the actual mechanism does. And it does far more than google is being public about. Compartmentalization is everywhere in the corporate world today.

      Did you assume google does nothing wrong just because they didn't tell you they are evil when you applied for a job? You are a genuine genius :)

    23. Re:Do you believe Google? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I had to have a subscription to every site I go to, I wouldn't be going to many sites, and I'd be very reluctant to check out a new site. The best pay-as-you-go solution I've heard of is micropayments, and that idea has a lot of psychological and technical issues.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Do you believe Google? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Every so often, a conspiracy theory turns out to be about a real live conspiracy. You can't dismiss a conspiracy theory by calling it a conspiracy theory.

      That's what they want you to believe, anyway.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Do you believe Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hey, it is high time you stand down, you have proven yourself FOS and then some. And I don't mean "free and open source". Google, the NSA and the forces of evil appreciate your efforts and dedication! I will contact google to see if I can arrange for you to get a medal or something.

    26. Re:Do you believe Google? by swillden · · Score: 1

      It appears that the PRISM program was tapping lines between Google data centers. Google responded by encrypting all of that data.

      Google's leadership and especially the chief legal officer has strenuously denied that Google provides any information except in response to proper legal documentation. I've seen no evidence anywhere that contradicts those statements (which, I'll note, would probably constitute a breach of Google's leadership's fiduciary duties to the shareholders, and therefore be illegal if untrue).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    27. Re:Do you believe Google? by matbury · · Score: 1

      Yep, good point. Perhaps ISPs should be required to offer a selection of VPN service providers to customers so they can opt out of being tracked?

  5. "tailer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???

  6. Chromium not supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went to the new ad preferences link in the article, was told:

    Your browser is not supported any more. Please update to a more recent one.

    This is latest chromium w/ubuntu. That's unfortunate.

    1. Re:Chromium not supported? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      The links in the summary are to the "not supported" page. Sheesh.

  7. Wow by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

    First reaction: Wow, I sure watch a lot of old Bob Ross and Carol Burnett Show videos on Youtube.

    Second reaction: Wow, is there anything but old Bob Ross and Carol Burnett Show videos in here?

    Third reaction: Wow, I'm really boring....

    1. Re:Wow by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I know I had been watching a lot of "This old house" on youtube, but it looks like binge watching. :D

  8. The links in the summary are bad by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Google links in the summary are bad. Just go to https://myactivity.google.com/

    1. Re:The links in the summary are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleverly, you have to sign-in to access it, giving you another opportunity to forget to sign out....

    2. Re:The links in the summary are bad by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The editors fixed them. Thank you!

  9. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    users can edit or delete their tracked behaviors

    You mean users can mark the behavior that's most embarrassing to them, don't you.

    1. Re:Sure by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I believe the subroutine that tracks what you care enough about to delete is called streisand_effect().

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Broken link by swillden · · Score: 1

    The link to the ad controls in the summary is broken. The correct target is https://www.google.com/setting...

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Opt Out? by BitZtream · · Score: 0

    You do realize there isn't an 'opt out' unless your browser stops sending them so much information, right?

    Regardless of what you click on their web page, they get the data about your activities.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Opt Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It comes down to a decision you need to make: If you truly want to "opt out" then you need to stop using other peoples' computers (incl network infrastructure), of course in a network that is not wholly your own that is impossible. And even if you could make laws that stop the owners of those computers from capturing that information you wouldn't really be stupid enough to believe everybody in the world is playing nice and obeying those laws.

      Understand that if you use the internet you do not have privacy. There are ways to mitigate the effects of it but ultimately there is no guarantee, you can encrypt your data today and it can be decrypted in an instant by quantum computers tomorrow.

      If you really want to "opt out" then stop using other peoples' infrastructure for your private communications, otherwise understand that you do not have privacy in the context of what you communicate over the public net.

    2. Re:Opt Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

  12. porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing but bbw midget hentai porn 20 hours a day, i had no idea I was away from the computer for 4 hours a day!

  13. Google vs Facebook, etc. by theskipper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I may be naive and eventually end up with egg on my face but here goes. In today's world we all know the horse has left the gate wrt privacy. It seems the issue now isn't who's collecting the data, it's what happens to your data after it's been scooped up. And what keeps the data from escaping comes down to the question of how that data is being exploited for generating revenue.

    Google gets a lot of flack around here but if you follow the money, they have a pretty good incentive to do whatever it takes to keep the tracking data high-quality and most definitely in-house. Mainly because they own the search market and the better the ad targeting, the more protected Alphabet's revenue stream is.

    Apple is obviously dependent on hardware sales so not much needs to be said about that. Plus they really don't want bad PR from data escaping.

    So let's compare that to the other 800lb gorilla(s). I don't see any reason why Facebook, Pinterest, etc. wouldn't incorporate outright sale of their tracking data to third parties (if they don't ship it out the back door already). Sure, they're dependent on ad/affiliate revenue too but with one other important difference. Google has an (effective) search monopoly where data exposure would stir up a hornet's nest of legal issues directly or indirectly.

    Facebook has little to lose since their product (users) don't seem to care what happens to their data as long as they can post their cat pictures. And they've built a Terms of Use that guarantees they own every aspect of the data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Terms_of_Use_controversy). Not to mention there's not been much talk of anyone caring about a company holding a monopoly in the social network sphere. It's a 'meh' issue when compared to search market share.

    So what's keeping Facebook from transforming more of their revenue stream from ad sales to data sales down the road? Especially with the ad controversies that were swirling around (https://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag)? Following the money...not much?

    P.S. - s/tailer/tailor

    1. Re:Google vs Facebook, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I kind of disagree. Data collection on such a massive scale should simply be prohibited, and it is very well possible to do that by voting accordingly and lobbying your politicians.

      Google could rig the elections of a sovereign nation state by changing the results of search queries in the months and weeks before the election. Anyone who thinks that's not a problem is dangerously naive.

    2. Re: Google vs Facebook, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rofl facebook, twatter et al ... only good for stalking lol...

    3. Re:Google vs Facebook, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google gets a lot of flack around here but if you follow the money, they have a pretty good incentive to do whatever it takes to keep the tracking data high-quality and most definitely in-house. Mainly because they own the search market and the better the ad targeting, the more protected Alphabet's revenue stream is.

      But ad targeting means they cannot keep the data in-house. They place targeted ads and video suggestions on somebody else's display without having any idea who might be looking at that display at that moment. I have seen video suggestions related to psychological issues appear when someone showed me YouTube videos of his favorite drummers, for example. In my book that is the same as not being able to keep your mouth shut in company about things you were told in confidence. Showing targeted content simply cannot be done without risking privacy violations. It's inherent to the business model.

  14. How do we opt out of the webpage? by danudwary · · Score: 1

    So, what if I don't mind being tracked by Google, but I just don't want this webpage available for anyone out there to access (ie if my password gets compromised)? I can't see a way to opt out of the availability of the data without deleting the data.

    1. Re:How do we opt out of the webpage? by swillden · · Score: 1

      So, what if I don't mind being tracked by Google, but I just don't want this webpage available for anyone out there to access (ie if my password gets compromised)? I can't see a way to opt out of the availability of the data without deleting the data.

      Secure your account well. Use a good password and turn on two-factor authentication.

      Also, you may want to use the "Send Feedback" link and suggest that there should be an option to turn this off. I'm not sure how it would work, though, since there would clearly also need to be a way to turn it on. What would prevent someone who compromised your account from doing that?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:How do we opt out of the webpage? by danudwary · · Score: 1

      Hah. Good point, yeah. Time for me to get off my butt and actually get 2-factor going.

    3. Re:How do we opt out of the webpage? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Hah. Good point, yeah. Time for me to get off my butt and actually get 2-factor going.

      It's pretty painless, especially with the Authenticator app. SMS works, too, but if you're somewhere that you don't have cell coverage it can be problematic. Authenticator works on or off-line. I also recommend setting up a couple of different options: maybe use Authenticator as your primary and SMS for a backup (and maybe even add your wife's phone as another backup), and/or print out some codes to keep in your wallet.

      Hrm. That paragraph makes it sound complicated. It's really not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  15. Identity du jour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I have a robot that allows me to select my "identity du jour" before going to bed.
    While I sleep, it wanders the web engaging in activities that enforce my new persona.
    Tomorrow, perhaps I'll be a ballerina with an STD, or maybe a butcher who loves animals, or . . .
    . . . decisions, decisions, decisions

    1. Re:Identity du jour by Locke2005 · · Score: 0

      Too bad that today you programmed it for your false persona that posts bullshit to slashdot...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  16. Hope this doesn't fall into the wrong hands by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Since I use Google Navigate to warn me about traffic problems every time I drive anywhere, this information would be very useful to any assassin wanted to track my movement patterns. Or any wives/mistresses/girlfriends, for that matter. And yes, my ex-wife used to go through my phone while I was sleeping to see what I had been doing.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  17. "Oh my Goddess" isn't a gay thing to say anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I fucking sue Google for telling unscrupulous people that I love puppies? (or simply break the neck of disposable motherfuckers, just for fun) -- Without my authorization? If I can, well... Then I want a fucking thermonuclear fusion power station IN my house.

  18. I'm disappointed... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    You'd think by now Google would know what kind of porn I liked, and could recommend the good stuff for me, wouldn't you? Unless... they are actually taking this "incognito window" stuff seriously.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:I'm disappointed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never use incognito and Google still doesn't have a clue.

      But apparently Slashdot seems to be trying to figure me out...

      CAPTCHA: groped

    2. Re:I'm disappointed... by TroII · · Score: 1

      You'd think by now Google would know what kind of porn I liked, and could recommend the good stuff for me, wouldn't you?

      That's what Bing is for. It is, hands down (or one-handed?), the best porn search engine on the internet.

  19. $revenue$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... signed-in ads and signed-out ads. ...

    Isn't this how google makes their money? They can't eliminate both of them from their subscribers. I don't know the size of the 'signed-in' pool of adverts, but I'm guessing it's much smaller than the one for the other type of adverts. So that's the one they can afford to opt-out, which would probably kill their 'signed-in' advertising revenue stream.

  20. Handy! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    I uses it to reduce my activity to Desert With Tumbleweed!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  21. B-B-But how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean I went forward and checked it out. It has most of my searches. I use NoScript, I use Disconnect, I use firefox. Not that I thought this makes me invincible, but how is Google able to link my searches to my Google account? I am logged into YouTube all the time though, that's one thing from Google that I need. But is it able to link everything to it for that reason? Is Firefox willing to give it all the info just because I wanted it to remember my Youtube login?

    1. Re:B-B-But how? by TroII · · Score: 1

      I am logged into YouTube all the time though, that's one thing from Google that I need. But is it able to link everything to it for that reason?

      Yes. Log out of YouTube, then click the Sign In link and look where it actually takes you: accounts.google.com. Logging in there sets a cookie for google.com, which can and will be read by google.com and its other subdomains, tying your activity together.

  22. Just YouTube by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    Not sure if I should be happy or worried there's nothing there but my YouTube history considering how much I use Google+, Voice, Calendar, Search, Nexus tablet, and other services I don't even remember they've become so ubiquitous to my life.

  23. I remember looking at this data 2 years ago by cshay · · Score: 1

    ..and deleting my search history. I don't see what is new here except maybe a fancy new interface.,,,,

  24. Really? That's *all*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at my activity, I see a handful of Youtube vids I've watched - and that's all.

    No search terms. Not even the Blogspot post I just posted. I find it hard to imagine that they don't know what I posted on my Google blog.

    C'mon Google, where's the rest?

  25. Massive blur of data without meaning by shanen · · Score: 2

    Looked it over, but I can't figure out what it means. Both the google's version of "My Activity" and the slashdot side consisting of an article and visible comments. Now I expect such obfuscation from the google since their motto became "All your attention are belong to us", but I confabulate that slashdot used to be more revealing.

    Short summary: The level of information that the "My Activity" page reveals is without form or meaning. Too much data and no way to understand how it is used, though I'm still sure it is mostly used to manipulate and twist us to the google's will. What we really need to know is HOW the google analyzes the data and WHEN it is being used and in WHICH ways. Probably an impossible problem since all of us are too stupid to understand the google. The google will tell me so, even though the search "how to outsmart google" came up with a couple of interesting books (that are not available locally, at least not in English).

    Long answer: Naw, I can't be bothered to write more, and would be "penalized" for the long comment if I did. Today's slashdot doesn't motivate the effort to write so thoughtfully. It doesn't even have a fraction of the funny comments it used to. However, I might be confabulating myself again.

    (Now if slashdot supported such a financial model, I might be motivated to help support a project to detect abusive long comments, such as long cut-and-paste blurbs from the Web. Whoa, dead horse, whoa.)

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  26. Delete all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Thanks! Logged in, looked for 15 seconds, deleted everything.

  27. A little unsettling, and a little cool by Pulzar · · Score: 2

    Try clicking on "other google activity", and then location history. It's incredibly accurate. I can see where I walked around 2 years ago and made wrong turns and walked back.

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    1. Re:A little unsettling, and a little cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The location history is also incredibly helpful in a legal manner. With my divorce with my can't be ex-wife soon enough has lied about what time I got home in order to give me less than ideal time with our children. Google Location data shows that less than 6% of the time was I home by the time she has said I was always home by. Looking forward to showing this in court.

    2. Re:A little unsettling, and a little cool by swillden · · Score: 1

      Try clicking on "other google activity", and then location history. It's incredibly accurate. I can see where I walked around 2 years ago and made wrong turns and walked back.

      I think it's awesome. My Google Maps timeline goes back to early 2010 when I got my first smartphone (an iPhone4). It's spotty from then until September 21, 2011, when I got my first Android phone (I turned on location history immediately). The iPhone-provided data is spotty, but still very useful. It was only provided when I was using the Google Maps app, but that means it at least contains a record of all of my travels to other cities, states and countries -- in 2010, I traveled to Santiago, Chile; Los Angeles, CA; San Diego, CA; Chicago, IL; Rosemont, IL; Seattle, WA; and Raleigh, NC.

      From September 21, 2011 to the present, I have a complete record of everywhere I've gone, down to the minute. There are probably a few exceptions where I left my phone home or something, but they're few. Since May 2014, I've also been looking at my timeline every few weeks and correcting locations. Maps guesses at where you are based on GPS coordinates, but if there are, say, many buildings in close proximity it can't know for sure. You can also label particular locations that are of special interest to you, such as "so-and-so's home".

      The result is that I have a detailed history of everywhere I've gone, and therefore pretty much everything I've done, for the last five years, without the effort of keeping a diary. A diary would be better, certainly, but it's way more effort than I've ever been willing to put in.

      I've used that data for all sorts of things, from geotagging photos, to figuring out exactly when I went on vacation, to making sure I've submitted expenses for all of my business trips. I think it's great.

      Of course, I have all of this data because Google has all of this data. I'm okay with that, but YMMV.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  28. Hu?!?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where are all the pages I visited that contained Google.ads, Google.fonts, Google.maps,... ?

  29. Better the devil you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think these guys assume there would be a lot of backlash if people saw all this stuff at once from some other source. Or maybe they can see users pulling back and going to DuckDuckGo or other services. So they're trying to prevent that by showing you a bit more of tracking creepiness, so you get used to it and don't complain later.

  30. NSA My Activity by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 1

    Now all we need is an "NSA My Activity" and we're good to go.

  31. Lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. The history on that page only goes up till 2014 for some reason. That's unbelievable. I'm sure Google knows far more than that about me. Especially now that I've got a "normal android phone with Android Device Manager".

    The summary seems very misleading.

  32. Call me a cynic but... by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 2

    I have search history, location history.... all turned off so I get a 'nothing to see here' level of output.

    Does this mean that Google is genuinely not collecting my history? or is it more likely that they are and my opting out merely sets a flag used by the presentation layer to send back an empty set?

    I'd be surprised if it were not the latter.

    1. Re:Call me a cynic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My search history is great and I'm proud of it. It is a testimony to my wit and savoir-faire. It shows the world how intelligent and sophisticated I am, and how cool is the stuff I'm into. I make a point of never deleting it, thanks very much.

  33. Search History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked through it. It's really nothing more than a pretty listing of my browser search history. Meh.

  34. MISLEADING AS FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    review everything that Google has tracked about their online behavior

    That is not a Freudian slip. Much bullshit on Slashdot's front page today.

    They do admit here they track SOMETHING, but what they track is far more vast. It is a US Government spy operation.
    https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/06/1834211/eric-schmidt-gets-a-job-at-the-pentagon

    Even if you lied to your own family like this they would hate you and/or beat your ass.

    Subterfuge.

    Google tracks, Facebook profiles, Microsoft tracks and profiles. Cross-referenced everything including your screen size, installed fonts, name it.

    (Google also profiles, Facebook also tracks, Microsoft Windows is pure US Government malware)

  35. I just tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It showed "no activity" for me.

    I use Google as my e-mail provider, and I access all my e-mail using Thunderbird that connects via POP3. Therefore, I very rarely enter my e-mail-address/password into a web page.

    Even when I do use web e-mail, I have my browser set to "never remember history", so it clears cookies each time I close it. It seems that prevents them from obtaining any general web activity data from me.

  36. The quick, right-to-the-point URL by Zanadou · · Score: 1

    The quick, right-to-the-point URL to delete everything:

    http://myactivity.google.com/delete-activity/

    (Sign in if needed.)

    Select "All Time" from the top pull-down, then hit "DELETE".

    1. Re:The quick, right-to-the-point URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you go to their server farms and ls -al ? Or are you taking their word it is DELETED and not just DO_NOT_DISPLAY_TO_CLIENT_ANY_MORE?

      Google and Chrome and all of their services are a US Government spy shop. It was an offer Eric Schmidt could not refuse, but for much longer than it was public information.
      https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/06/1834211/eric-schmidt-gets-a-job-at-the-pentagon?sdsrc=rel

  37. Not April 1? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of youtube videos in there that I didn't watch (country music videos from VEVO stations). I wonder if someone isn't embedding silent invisible players in web pages somewhere to drive ad revenue...