Slashdot Mirror
Who Has More of Your Personal Data Than Facebook? Try Google (wsj.com)
Facebook may be in the hot seat right now for its collection of personal data without our knowledge or explicit consent, but as The Wall Street Journal points out, "Google is a far bigger threat by many measures: the volume of information it gathers, the reach of its tracking and the time people spend on its sites and apps." From the report (alternative source): It's likely that Google has shadow profiles (data the company gathers on people without accounts) on as at least as many people as Facebook does, says Chandler Givens, CEO of TrackOff, which develops software to fight identity theft. Google allows everyone, whether they have a Google account or not, to opt out of its ad targeting, though, like Facebook, it continues to gather your data. Google Analytics is far and away the web's most dominant analytics platform. Used on the sites of about half of the biggest companies in the U.S., it has a total reach of 30 million to 50 million sites. Google Analytics tracks you whether or not you are logged in. Meanwhile, the billion-plus people who have Google accounts are tracked in even more ways. In 2016, Google changed its terms of service, allowing it to merge its massive trove of tracking and advertising data with the personally identifiable information from our Google accounts.
Google uses, among other things, our browsing and search history, apps we've installed, demographics like age and gender and, from its own analytics and other sources, where we've shopped in the real world. Google says it doesn't use information from "sensitive categories" such as race, religion, sexual orientation or health. Because it relies on cross-device tracking, it can spot logged-in users no matter which device they're on. Google fuels even more data harvesting through its dominant ad marketplaces. There are up to 4,000 data brokers in the U.S., and collectively they know everything about us we might otherwise prefer they didn't -- whether we're pregnant, divorced or trying to lose weight. Google works with some of these brokers directly but the company says it vets them to prevent targeting based on sensitive information. Google also is the biggest enabler of data harvesting, through the world's two billion active Android mobile devices.
Google uses, among other things, our browsing and search history, apps we've installed, demographics like age and gender and, from its own analytics and other sources, where we've shopped in the real world. Google says it doesn't use information from "sensitive categories" such as race, religion, sexual orientation or health. Because it relies on cross-device tracking, it can spot logged-in users no matter which device they're on. Google fuels even more data harvesting through its dominant ad marketplaces. There are up to 4,000 data brokers in the U.S., and collectively they know everything about us we might otherwise prefer they didn't -- whether we're pregnant, divorced or trying to lose weight. Google works with some of these brokers directly but the company says it vets them to prevent targeting based on sensitive information. Google also is the biggest enabler of data harvesting, through the world's two billion active Android mobile devices.
Try your cell company...
I've been kinda confused that everyone is so angry at Facebook, while MS has been given a free pass.
Google makes sense to me; they've always been known to profile you so as to effectively sell you stuff. Free service, so you had to have known what was going on ( same goes for facebook mind you ).
But MS; they force 10 down everyone's throats with telemetry and who knows what other data being collected. Of the three, MS's data collection policies are the most opaque; you can't even find out what they know about you. And that's for a product they charge people for!
Yet no one seems to care. I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that outrage at Facebook is nothing more than an extension of (D)s throwing a fit because Trump got elected.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If you could go through my credit card statement, you'd see the life of a sad middle-aged man addicted to eBay and sex chat lines... :)
This is even dumber that the average political use of whataboutism...
Google: knows everything about you, will use what it knows to serve ads to you based on a target profile supplied by the advertiser.
Facebook: knows everything about you and gave your data and your friends data and your friends-friends data to anyone that could be bothered to ask, oh and also sold some ads.
So similar.
0.0.0.0 googleadservices.com
0.0.0.0 googlesyndication.com
0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com
etc .........
APK is not wrong!!
However, just for the record, below is my relatively shallow submission on the same topic. What I was asking Slashdot about a couple of weeks ago was also relevant, essentially for tools to reconstruct what the google knows about each of us on OUR side, not the google's. I already got the data (from both Facebook and the google), but it means pretty much nothing to me.
Part of my approach was avoiding the WSJ and their paywall. I think the financial models most strongly supporting by the WSJ are NOT part of the solution to any of our problems... Corporate cancerism sucks. In solution terms, I still think we need REAL competition, not the pointless quest for infinite profit.
https://slashdot.org/journal/3...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
See here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Got a few of them from G... bit of a difference.
[($)]
The amount of information is one thing. The threat represented by the organisation holding it is another. In which case the government represents the greatest concern since they are most likely to use it against us.
Sure, Google collects all kinds of data about you. But it doesn't give or sell that data to third parties like app makers. It uses it to target ads. The ad companies don't get lists of your friends or your activities, to use how they want.
So yes, Google does collect a lot of information about you, but it's not the same as what Facebook does.
... take Captain Obvious off the slashdot editor's board? This is slashdot, news for nerds, not The Daily Sun, news for idiots.
Thank you.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I often say "I'll keep that between me and G".
Google, not God.
Welcome to breaking news from 10 years ago. Great job catching up.
As a watering hole Slashdot obviously has all our bodily electronic fluids.
Most of what they know about you is useless, unless someone wants to raid your bank account or send a missile towards your cell phone.
So, the monetary value of personal data for most people on the planet should be about zero.
... and I just block them!
Sure the ad companies are getting a great return from paying Google for me.
(Facebook? Never signed up so am officially a shadow)
I used the Google service for taking out all data. I got an archive of several GB. But most of the information was photos, emails and videos from YouTube. The only sensitive thing I saw was Google chrome bookmarks (I use Firefox btw) and autocomplete. I don't use an android phone. But I doubt that this information from the takeout archive is the only thing they have.
The biggest problem with facebook for me is that they don't just hoover up what you do on the internet, they also devour anything connected to you - your contact list (if you run facebook software on a smartphone), who you send messages to, possibly even the contents of those messages. They then use all this to create their connectivity graphs, and most importantly, they make nodes on this graph not just for the user themself, but for everyone else that said user has contact with - whether or not they've actually used any facebook services.
When it comes to web browsers, you have a lot of control over information leaks if you're willing to get your hands dirty and accept some broken websites (for instance, google owns the recaptcha service; blocking that like I do will break a lot of stuff, something I accept as a price to be paid). I block the vast majority of third-party requests (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy/ has served me well for many years), scripts and cookies when browsing; and I don't use any google or facebook websites (the one exception being the occasional youtube video, but that's done through a separate browser running in incognito mode). My phone runs LineageOS, so is completely free of any google crapware. This should completely prevent google from gathering any kind of information about me. It takes a little work, but I can take myself away from google's eyes and be pretty confident about having done it properly.
Removing oneself from facebook's tentacles is a lot harder. Not only do you need to not use any of their stuff (which is what you'd reasonably expect to do in such a situation), but you also need to refuse any contact with those who run any facebook software on their phone. Because the moment they enter you into their address book, or you exchange an SMS message or a phonecall, their device has just sold you out.
This behind the scenes connectivity graph creation is the problem with facebook. I don't believe that google do a similar analysis on those who send e-mail to someone's gmail account, or use ordinary android phones which run google stuff, but I could be very, very wrong here.
Your ISP (Interwebs Service Provider) has even more Personally Identifiable Information (PII) than either Facebook or Google combined. More even then the CIA, NSA & FBI.
Think about it: every single bit you send over the InterWebs goes through their routers over their wires, even if you use a satellite provider.
Who better than the 21st century TelCo's to trust w/ you most intimate on-line details? AT&T, Comcast, Frontier, Verizon, et al. all have spotless, impeccable records when it comes to respecting your privacy and guarding against data breaches.
NOT!
At least Google claims to strip the low-order octet (last 4 bits) from your 32-bit IP address when recording PII. That means they may know what ISP you're using and roughly in what town/county, but no finer resolution than that in their aggregate user data. Facebook makes no such claim, as far as I know. And your ISP records & retains full IP-address details in their logs for up to 2 years (or more), even if you're using VPN or Tor or some other presumed “privacy protection” device.
That's why unless you're using local strong encryption of all your data & Interwebs traffic, you're a privacy chump. Even then, though, that protects only your data, not your meta-data of with whom you've communicated, when and how many packets, etc. Big Brother likes it that way.
So why hasn't anyone dragged the ISP's before a Congressional hearing on data privacy yet? In who's pockets are they really... uhm... in? Just askin'. ;-)
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
I basically think this privacy thing goes in cycles of targets. Something always triggers a outrage eventually, and users revolt. Although I don't see Facebook suffering huge loses from anything so far. It eventually self destructs as it sells out its core user base to the highest bidder. Google will do the same as it hordes huge amounts of personal information and cannot help itself to exploit it for gain. In the end some one or group always will not be able to resist using that power of information in the wrong way. Or it will be hacked and stolen by someone else.
Even if, unlike google, you have never interacted with them, the US government has a shit ton of your personal data. And google's collection you can block or avoid or even spoof. If you try blocking or avoiding the US government's tracking of you, that becomes their reason for finding out even more. And spoofing it will be prosecuted as a serious crime.
I don't normally agree with the idiotic homily of libertarians, but in this case it fits: google doesn't hold a gun to your head, governments will.
Your complaint about it being unfair is like saying "But all the Nazis wanted was to help the farmers make a living and to make germans feel better about themselves again!". There's a shitload more than that going on with MS that is why it's a criminal organisation.
Your cell production HAS been outsourced, to bacteria. They outnumber your "human" cells about 10 to 1
That number you are citing is not accurate if you believe the latest research. Furthermore the numbers are estimates with huge error bars and variance around them. And the current estimates (closer to 1:1) are certain to be revised further as we learn more. The numbers you are citing come from a back of the envelope estimate based on flawed assumptions.
Furthermore the largest repositories of bacteria "inside" the human body is the gut which is technically outside the body. I'm oversimplifying of course but think of it topologically and you are essentially a weirdly shaped toriod. The bacteria in your gut serve vital functions in keeping you alive (outsourcing is a fairly accurate term) but bacteria located there are only inside your body in the same sense that a bit of food you haven't finished chewing yet is contained "inside". Until your body absobs the contents and it passes the wall of your intestines it isn't actually part of you. It's just some stuff you are carrying around no different than some bacteria on your outer skin.
Google takes the honey pot approach. Free services and apps... people love free stuff. All they ask for this kind gesture, is your information.
Think about it: every single bit you send over the InterWebs goes through their routers over their wires, even if you use a satellite provider.
Well, https removes 99% of that information, my friend. They might see that you are connecting to Facebook or downloading 200 MB of data from Youtube, and thus infer that you have a Facebook account or watch Youtube videos, but they don't know who your friends are or which video you watched, so their PII profile is very limited.
Of course, if the domain happens to be "ilikebigbutts.com" or "bombrecipes.ru" your profile will have a more sensitive quality to it (unless those domains share an IP pool with several other web services, and you use DNSSEC and not your ISP's DNS server...).
How does this affect me in my day to day life?
It amounts to targetted ads, right?
Giants as google, fakebookm instagram have global monopoly on online publicity, social media, news distribution worldwide. Become inevitable, as in one day sooner or later they will abuse from their position. It said actually for that type of actions were made global spying,mass manipulation, social engineering etc in every home.
"Privacy Badger detected 26 potential trackers on this page. These sliders let you control how Privacy Badger handles each one. You shouldn't need to adjust the sliders unless something is broken."
and you use DNSSEC and not your ISP's DNS server...
DNSSEC signs DNS queries, but it doesn't encrypt them. So it ensures you really are connecting to the right IP address, but it doesn't keep secret what lookups you are doing. DNSCurve is a proposal for encrypting DNS that is not widely used. You could also hide your DNS queries from your ISP by routing them through TOR or some other encrypted proxy.
And this is why Google Analytics is blocked by my browsers, along with every other ad and analytics company I see.
The web is full of this shit.
I have no interest in all of these damned trackers, and I ruthlessly block them, and then never see them again. I'd say most sites have between 6 and 20 third party trackers and ad companies embedded in them. Between blocking them, and whitelisting javascript and cookies, you can make them go away pretty easily.
The problem is the average user has no idea about them.
It is my opinion that browsers need to move towards secure and private first, and stop pandering to the assholes who want to monetise your life.
See subject & ÃPK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ZYrPWpW_H-ykggel7JLwBg&btnG=Search&q=APK+site%3Astart64.com/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivir + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. av/addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Viâ what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Accept NO substitute for more speed, security, reliablity & anonymity that natively does more for less vs. ANY other single "so-called 'solution'"... apk
Gee, why aren't we hearing from Google Asshole Shawn Willden, aka Shillden to tell us what a Really Good Thing this is??
. . . that Google lets you turn off essentially all data collection and still use their services for free. And it stays off. They call it "paused", but it stays paused until if and when you un-pause it. You can be selective about it, or turn off everything. Of course, Google services and apps might nag you from time to time about what you're missing out on by not letting them use your data, but it isn't that bad, and it serves as a reminder that your data collection is indeed "paused".
You're spot on, and that's the entire reason they wanted Net Neutrality gone. Without the privacy restrictions that came with NN they are now free to monetize all of that data they have about you. All of the common talking points about NN were nothing but red herings - it was always about the data.....your data.
Why does it have to be Congress? California and New York are extremely aggressive with companies when they don't agree with their business practices. Look at smog systems for vehicles. California forced the issue and now all new vehicles nationwide are California compliant. They could do the same with privacy and craft state legislation favoring our privacy that would set the bar for the nation. They won't because they are for sale just like all the other politicians. Their virtue is superficial. It only extends to industries they disagree with. They have no qualms about helping craft a police state, as long as it is their version of a police state. Money and power are all that matters.
Google has gained too much monopoly power, and has become far too intrusive into people's private lives. It's time for Uncle Sam to step in and break up Google.
At very least, each of the units below needs to become a fully separate company that is legally barred from exchanging data with the others.
Android
Search
Surveillance ("advertising")
Gmail
Cloud platform
Maps
Media content (play music, play books, etc)
Chrome browser
ChromeOS
It's frustrating to realize how many Slashdot readers actually believe that Google collects all of the data it does simply for the purpose of targeted advertising. Consider the fact that they have algorithms to read every message that goes through Gmail. They combine this with data they gather in following almost everyone as they surf across the web. The emails provide loads of personal, and personally identifiable information about anyone using the service, as well as anyone replying to those who do.
Keeping this in mind, why do you think they are trying so hard to be the foremost developers of AI? To do targeted advertising?
They've been releasing bits and pieces of information on what they can already do for several years. How many here have read about it and been concerned? What will happen when their AI gets several magnitudes of order better?
To a somewhat lesser extent this applies to MS, Facebook and Amazon, and many lesser known information warehouses. None of them have shown any indication that their applications will continue to be considered to be benign, even by those who can't yet even imagine that all of this is taking place.
This is at least part of the reason that Elon Musk is pushing for government regulation of AI.
Even so, primary issues are what’s the data used for and how is it handled?