Visiting almost any site on the web means you are using Google. Google Analytics, Ads, and blogging platforms... This isn't some optional service that you can simply choose not to use, like Dropbox or MS Office.
Your argument is, practically speaking, like saying, "don't like lead pollution in the air from gasoline? just don't breath in the lead particles."
I may have been too subtle (or just unfunny, which is often the same thing). A Nexus 27 would take up a lot of space. Android phones are getting humorously large (Note II). 93 Escort Wagon was wondering how they would fill a store with so few products...
Something I've never quite understood from the "free/libre/open" software culture is the self-contradictory sentiment of, "you're not doing it our way, therefore you are wrong!" Isn't choice and variety and each person being able to take something and mold it to their wishes one of, if not the, primary points?
I wonder if decoupling morality from software the way it's so commonly tied together in the FSF/OSS movements would help? I don't mean entirely, just not that everything is a moral imperative. That's clearly not in the cards for the FSF any time soon, but ostensibly, that's one of the reasons the Open Source movement was started.
Personally, I find Ubuntu on phones to have great possibilities, and though it has a long way to go to prove itself as qualified and viable, I could see it surpassing Android in appeal to me. That it's a more honest offering of "Linux on your phone" than Android is. I haven't had a chance to flash it onto one of my Nexuses yet, but am looking forward to doing so sometime soon.
Honestly, seeing nerds rage against something on meta-reason grounds is often the first sign that it's going to be good!
In other news, only 2 of the 15 stories on Slashdot's front page have anything to do with Apple, directly or obliquely. In this case, one is about an apple (fruit) store changing its name due to people calling it up thinking it's about Apple (technology). The other is this one, which is a rumor about Google following another of Apple's leads (and quite likely, very wisely so).
That's a non sequitur. There's no way around it that Google (and Microsoft before them) are copying Apple by opening their own stores. The thing to keep it mind is that this isn't a knock against Google (or MS, but MS does get some justified ragging for so blatantly copying Apple).
I suspect (and hope!) these Google stores will have their own unique Google feel to them, and not seem like a bizarro Apple Store, like MS's stores are. And also not so bogglingly "me too!" in their choice of location.
Apple copied Gateway in opening company stores. The main difference here is that while Gateway's stores were a total failure, Apple's have been a phenomenal success. And importantly, they were (and are) unique. This is made all the more notable given the way Apple's foray into retail was universally panned by the pundits and opinionated bloggers.
MS's stores are absurd, and an obvious ploy to ape Apple in hopes of some of their "cool" rubbing off on them. It's not like you have to search far and wide for MS products the way you did (and still do, in some ways) Apple products. But Google is more like Apple at the moment, where you don't really have a place to fully grasp the hardware Google has to offer. Where can you try out a Chromebook? Where have you ever even seen a Chromebox? Or any Nexus other than a 7?
And support? The Genius Bar is a huge benefit for Apple customers. Google has nothing like it, and sorely needs it. But not just an Genius Bar clone like MS has done, but something new, unique, and suited for the products Google provides.
I don't know how successful in the "cool" category a Google store would be, but as long as it's not a complete rip-off of Apple's (or anyone else's) stores, this is at the very least an interesting idea, and could set the groundwork for future Google products (like Glass).
With my privacy? Please, explain why I'd be stupid to.
They lie in the advertisements (they've called the users that believe the tripe they put in ads "unreasonable" -- see lawsuit for 3G commercial / voice assistant). The lie in most of the press releases (no other phone has an exterior antenna for the sole purpose of avoiding shorting out adjacent antennas).
Nothing to do with privacy, you're off to a great start!
The obscure the fact that they're harvesting your location information (even when it's off -- see the open GPS database a while ago).
On the phone only. The rest is anonymized data. Even if Apple were to be given a court order to identify where I was, they would not be able to.
Google, on the other hand, keeps an actual location history, tied to my Google account. It's a neat service, assuming it remains private.
Your opt out for location based advertising is NOT ON YOUR device, but on a website (see if you can find it in your EULA -- it's buried in there).
Wrong on both counts. It's on your device in iOS 7, and the opt out isn't about sharing your location with anyone. The iOS user has always had full control over access to their personally-identifiable location information from day one.
They almost had a clause FORCING companies using IAPs to match the price of wherever else they were selling the product -- while taking ~30% cut (35%, but I'll give 5% cut since other payment processors charge 1-5%)
Nothing to do with privacy, and not even something dishonest.
I mean... can you even name one thing that they DID tell the truth in? I can't remember anything lately.
They are the LEAST trustworthy company there is, period.
With my data, yes. And even their marketing claims tend to be more honest and reasonable than is standard. I've not addressed any of your non-privacy related claims simply because they are pointless red herrings.
You're simply grandstanding, because you favor Apple over Google, and consider there as being a battle between the two. Be at least honest enough to acknowledge that is really your motivation in taking such a strong stand. We've all seen your posting history.
Please, tell me what I think. In fact, if you could just post for me, that'd save me a lot of effort.
I'm heavily invested in Google's services. I think they are great. I prefer G+ to Facebook. I have almost as many Android devices as iOS devices (and I have a *lot* of iOS devices).
What you are seeing is merely the contrast of someone who actually likes Apple, in a den of Apple-haters. I actually like Google too.
My motivation for this stand is that this is a line I never expected Google to cross. I place a lot of trust in them by providing as much data as I do, but that has always come with the explicit promise that the data would only ever be anonymous when shared outside of Google. My posts on this story aren't from a Google-hater, but someone who feels my trust has been betrayed.
But what am I saying, you clearly know better than me what I think!
I think you are mistaken. You'll find very few posts from me saying bad things about Google. This is one of the first stories which have really bothered me about them, and unfortunately, it's a breach of trust I won't soon forget. The problem, for me, is that it's a symptom of a greater problem with trusting Google too far. I've always given them the benefit of the doubt, I feel betrayed.
And if Apple were to do the same thing, I'd feel just the same about it, possibly worse.
You are right that I'm generally positive about Apple. It's not that I don't have anything negative to say about them (I could go on!), but that here on Slashdot, there's so much irrational hatred of Apple that my thoughts can appear... the way you seem to be presenting them.
It's not that my name and email and home address is data that I don't want people to know, it's that I don't want it handed to strangers without my permission (ideally) or my explicit understanding (at the very least). And I definitely don't want it given out on the internet to strangers without being asked first.
What I greatly prefer in Apple's way of doing this compared to Google's is that my privacy is assumed important with Apple, and is, at best, assumed proprietary to Google, but is to be sold or given away at their discretion apparently (which I did not expect!).
The repercussions of violating privacy are much higher for Google than they are for other companies. Therefore logic dictates that Google will do more to prevent these violations.
You'll have to demonstrate that the bolded part is true. For example, this story contradicts it.
Apple, for example, treats customer privacy as a feature with which to sell their products. I'd suggest Apple's incentive for protecting privacy is greater than Google's.
If the typical company lets your private data get out (and as I'm sure you know, many have) they still have products to sell. Google's product *is* that data. They have nothing else. If the data gets away from them *or* if they lose the confidence of the public to keep it safe, Google is out of business, the end for them.
But the data here *did* get out, and not only that, but this is by their design and not an accident. The same goes for magazine subscriptions. On the Play Store, the publisher gets your name, email, and home address. On iTunes, the publisher can ask for it, but you can say "no" and you get the exact same magazine, no limitations. On Google Play, your only option is to not subscribe at all.
Do you want your data held by a company that specializes in making consumer electronics, or a company that specializes in *data*?
The former, because I trust Apple. And you are still glossing over the fact that Google collecting the data already *is* an invasion of privacy.
The only reason I have, up to now, accepted Google's inherent privacy implications is that, like you, I assumed (wrongly) that they would keep it all in house. That the worst of it was that I'd get ads based on my emails and such. And this data collection also allows for some very cool (if creepy) things like Google Now.
Unfortunately, for me, this is the last straw. Google has asked for a *lot* of my data, far more than Apple ever has, and with that data comes a degree of trust. Google has violated that trust in my mind, and will not get it back easily.
Were Apple to ever to the same, I'd have a similar response.
Sorry, I misread that last statement. What you wrote is so mind-numbingly absurd, my subconscious mind must have crashed upon reading it.
Your logic is that Google takes as much of my data as they possibly can, and that's *not* an invasion of privacy? Google's whole business model is to take in as much data as possible and exploit it to their fullest ability to do so.
Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone who has even a modicum of how it works (and you clearly understand it well) can't see this.
Calling someone a "fanboi" is the first sign that you are probably the fanboy in this equation.
It's also an ad hominem, as you are attacking the man, not the argument. The argument is that Google is atrocious at user privacy. Do you disagree with this statement? If not, then please explain how your ad hominem isn't a sign of fanboyism?
Absolutely. I'm just explaining the institutional reasons why Google repeatedly betrays their customers, not that it's a good thing. That aspect of it is downright disturbing.
I was also pointing out that the upside is it leads to flexible services that are quickly deployed. And is one of Google's greatest strengths. The two go hand in hand.
If this were the iOS or Windows Phone stores, then yes, that would be true. But with Google Play, the developer actually IS the merchant.
The problem here is that it's not presented that way. The Play Store appears, to the customer, exactly like any other storefront. If it's really more like a flea market with individual merchants all collected together under one roof, instead of like a retail store, then this is something that is not only obscured to the buyer (which is a gross deception), it's also not even obvious to the developers, who seem quite surprised to receive this amount of info.
Only do those not reading. When you click the "$1.99 Buy" button then "Continue" button, you're presented with Google Checkout:
Review your purchase Pay to: Pay with:
Google Checkout is nothing more then an online merchant processor and works just like PayPal.
You act as though that implies anything useful. As an Android user, one expects the purchase to go through Google's payment system. What one doesn't expect is their name, email address, and location, to be sent without any notification that that's going to happen.
All arguments about this particular situation aside, it's stupid to point your finger at a particular technology company and say "bad privacy!!1!".
What? This "particular situation aside"??? This particular situation is the thing we are talking about! And I never blamed the technology behind it. I blamed the company that doesn't give two shits about privacy.
Your credit card company knows what you buy and where you live. The checkout chick at Woolies/Kmart/Whatever can know your name when you hand over the card. eBay has a record of everything you've purchased (and when, and from whom...). Anyone at all you've dealt with could be storing your previous address. Need I go on?
And none of these things bother me. It's not that they need data from me in order to do commerce with them, it's what they do with it afterwards.
...and don't even get me started on store loyalty cards!
I don't use them.
And I don't how any of this justifies Google's gross disregard for privacy.
XMFD @ trusting Apple over Google. They're both interested in your data for a variety of reasons. Get your head out of the sand.
With Apple, I'm the customer, with Google, I'm the product.
And in practice, Apple has been consistently far beyond Google in terms of protecting my privacy. This is just one of an endless supply of examples that demonstrates this. Perhaps you should take your own advice and look at the world as it is and not as you imagine it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Visiting almost any site on the web means you are using Google. Google Analytics, Ads, and blogging platforms... This isn't some optional service that you can simply choose not to use, like Dropbox or MS Office.
Your argument is, practically speaking, like saying, "don't like lead pollution in the air from gasoline? just don't breath in the lead particles."
Your sarcasm was way too subtle. I suspect there are more than a few here that would agree with your statement without irony.
"You can do whatever you want. No, not that." is a contradiction.
FS/OSS advocates pay lip service to choice, but far too many of them have large sets of choices which they tell others are wrong.
I may have been too subtle (or just unfunny, which is often the same thing). A Nexus 27 would take up a lot of space. Android phones are getting humorously large (Note II). 93 Escort Wagon was wondering how they would fill a store with so few products...
So, nothing?
Something I've never quite understood from the "free/libre/open" software culture is the self-contradictory sentiment of, "you're not doing it our way, therefore you are wrong!" Isn't choice and variety and each person being able to take something and mold it to their wishes one of, if not the, primary points?
I wonder if decoupling morality from software the way it's so commonly tied together in the FSF/OSS movements would help? I don't mean entirely, just not that everything is a moral imperative. That's clearly not in the cards for the FSF any time soon, but ostensibly, that's one of the reasons the Open Source movement was started.
Personally, I find Ubuntu on phones to have great possibilities, and though it has a long way to go to prove itself as qualified and viable, I could see it surpassing Android in appeal to me. That it's a more honest offering of "Linux on your phone" than Android is. I haven't had a chance to flash it onto one of my Nexuses yet, but am looking forward to doing so sometime soon.
Honestly, seeing nerds rage against something on meta-reason grounds is often the first sign that it's going to be good!
Not at first, no. But when the Nexus 27 smartphone is launched at Google I/O this year, the need for a full retail space will make more sense.
In other news, only 2 of the 15 stories on Slashdot's front page have anything to do with Apple, directly or obliquely. In this case, one is about an apple (fruit) store changing its name due to people calling it up thinking it's about Apple (technology). The other is this one, which is a rumor about Google following another of Apple's leads (and quite likely, very wisely so).
That's a surprisingly accurate and succinct summation of the three!
So now Apple invented stores?
That's a non sequitur. There's no way around it that Google (and Microsoft before them) are copying Apple by opening their own stores. The thing to keep it mind is that this isn't a knock against Google (or MS, but MS does get some justified ragging for so blatantly copying Apple).
I suspect (and hope!) these Google stores will have their own unique Google feel to them, and not seem like a bizarro Apple Store, like MS's stores are. And also not so bogglingly "me too!" in their choice of location.
Apple copied Gateway in opening company stores. The main difference here is that while Gateway's stores were a total failure, Apple's have been a phenomenal success. And importantly, they were (and are) unique. This is made all the more notable given the way Apple's foray into retail was universally panned by the pundits and opinionated bloggers.
MS's stores are absurd, and an obvious ploy to ape Apple in hopes of some of their "cool" rubbing off on them. It's not like you have to search far and wide for MS products the way you did (and still do, in some ways) Apple products. But Google is more like Apple at the moment, where you don't really have a place to fully grasp the hardware Google has to offer. Where can you try out a Chromebook? Where have you ever even seen a Chromebox? Or any Nexus other than a 7?
And support? The Genius Bar is a huge benefit for Apple customers. Google has nothing like it, and sorely needs it. But not just an Genius Bar clone like MS has done, but something new, unique, and suited for the products Google provides.
I don't know how successful in the "cool" category a Google store would be, but as long as it's not a complete rip-off of Apple's (or anyone else's) stores, this is at the very least an interesting idea, and could set the groundwork for future Google products (like Glass).
You trust APL? Are you stupid?
With my privacy? Please, explain why I'd be stupid to.
They lie in the advertisements (they've called the users that believe the tripe they put in ads "unreasonable" -- see lawsuit for 3G commercial / voice assistant). The lie in most of the press releases (no other phone has an exterior antenna for the sole purpose of avoiding shorting out adjacent antennas).
Nothing to do with privacy, you're off to a great start!
The obscure the fact that they're harvesting your location information (even when it's off -- see the open GPS database a while ago).
On the phone only. The rest is anonymized data. Even if Apple were to be given a court order to identify where I was, they would not be able to.
Google, on the other hand, keeps an actual location history, tied to my Google account. It's a neat service, assuming it remains private.
Your opt out for location based advertising is NOT ON YOUR device, but on a website (see if you can find it in your EULA -- it's buried in there).
Wrong on both counts. It's on your device in iOS 7, and the opt out isn't about sharing your location with anyone. The iOS user has always had full control over access to their personally-identifiable location information from day one.
They almost had a clause FORCING companies using IAPs to match the price of wherever else they were selling the product -- while taking ~30% cut (35%, but I'll give 5% cut since other payment processors charge 1-5%)
Nothing to do with privacy, and not even something dishonest.
I mean... can you even name one thing that they DID tell the truth in? I can't remember anything lately.
They are the LEAST trustworthy company there is, period.
With my data, yes. And even their marketing claims tend to be more honest and reasonable than is standard. I've not addressed any of your non-privacy related claims simply because they are pointless red herrings.
You're simply grandstanding, because you favor Apple over Google, and consider there as being a battle between the two. Be at least honest enough to acknowledge that is really your motivation in taking such a strong stand. We've all seen your posting history.
Please, tell me what I think. In fact, if you could just post for me, that'd save me a lot of effort.
I'm heavily invested in Google's services. I think they are great. I prefer G+ to Facebook. I have almost as many Android devices as iOS devices (and I have a *lot* of iOS devices).
What you are seeing is merely the contrast of someone who actually likes Apple, in a den of Apple-haters. I actually like Google too.
My motivation for this stand is that this is a line I never expected Google to cross. I place a lot of trust in them by providing as much data as I do, but that has always come with the explicit promise that the data would only ever be anonymous when shared outside of Google. My posts on this story aren't from a Google-hater, but someone who feels my trust has been betrayed.
But what am I saying, you clearly know better than me what I think!
I think you are mistaken. You'll find very few posts from me saying bad things about Google. This is one of the first stories which have really bothered me about them, and unfortunately, it's a breach of trust I won't soon forget. The problem, for me, is that it's a symptom of a greater problem with trusting Google too far. I've always given them the benefit of the doubt, I feel betrayed.
And if Apple were to do the same thing, I'd feel just the same about it, possibly worse.
You are right that I'm generally positive about Apple. It's not that I don't have anything negative to say about them (I could go on!), but that here on Slashdot, there's so much irrational hatred of Apple that my thoughts can appear... the way you seem to be presenting them.
You can't prove a negative. If you think they are doing it, you need to provide proof, or at least evidence, to support your claim.
You mean Unity and Ubuntu One weren't reasons enough?!?!
I think you mean:
"So long, and thanks for all the fish."
--Tux
It's not that my name and email and home address is data that I don't want people to know, it's that I don't want it handed to strangers without my permission (ideally) or my explicit understanding (at the very least). And I definitely don't want it given out on the internet to strangers without being asked first.
What I greatly prefer in Apple's way of doing this compared to Google's is that my privacy is assumed important with Apple, and is, at best, assumed proprietary to Google, but is to be sold or given away at their discretion apparently (which I did not expect!).
Its fairly simple.
The repercussions of violating privacy are much higher for Google than they are for other companies. Therefore logic dictates that Google will do more to prevent these violations.
You'll have to demonstrate that the bolded part is true. For example, this story contradicts it.
Apple, for example, treats customer privacy as a feature with which to sell their products. I'd suggest Apple's incentive for protecting privacy is greater than Google's.
If the typical company lets your private data get out (and as I'm sure you know, many have) they still have products to sell. Google's product *is* that data. They have nothing else. If the data gets away from them *or* if they lose the confidence of the public to keep it safe, Google is out of business, the end for them.
But the data here *did* get out, and not only that, but this is by their design and not an accident. The same goes for magazine subscriptions. On the Play Store, the publisher gets your name, email, and home address. On iTunes, the publisher can ask for it, but you can say "no" and you get the exact same magazine, no limitations. On Google Play, your only option is to not subscribe at all.
Do you want your data held by a company that specializes in making consumer electronics, or a company that specializes in *data*?
The former, because I trust Apple. And you are still glossing over the fact that Google collecting the data already *is* an invasion of privacy.
The only reason I have, up to now, accepted Google's inherent privacy implications is that, like you, I assumed (wrongly) that they would keep it all in house. That the worst of it was that I'd get ads based on my emails and such. And this data collection also allows for some very cool (if creepy) things like Google Now.
Unfortunately, for me, this is the last straw. Google has asked for a *lot* of my data, far more than Apple ever has, and with that data comes a degree of trust. Google has violated that trust in my mind, and will not get it back easily.
Were Apple to ever to the same, I'd have a similar response.
Sorry, I misread that last statement. What you wrote is so mind-numbingly absurd, my subconscious mind must have crashed upon reading it.
Your logic is that Google takes as much of my data as they possibly can, and that's *not* an invasion of privacy? Google's whole business model is to take in as much data as possible and exploit it to their fullest ability to do so.
Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone who has even a modicum of how it works (and you clearly understand it well) can't see this.
That's exactly in line with what I said, and I agree fully. Was your question meant to be ironic?
This is Slashdot. Everyone's a fucking shill here, because here, "shill" is simply defined as "likes something I don't like".
Get over yourself and quit trolling.
Calling someone a "fanboi" is the first sign that you are probably the fanboy in this equation.
It's also an ad hominem, as you are attacking the man, not the argument. The argument is that Google is atrocious at user privacy. Do you disagree with this statement? If not, then please explain how your ad hominem isn't a sign of fanboyism?
Absolutely. I'm just explaining the institutional reasons why Google repeatedly betrays their customers, not that it's a good thing. That aspect of it is downright disturbing.
I was also pointing out that the upside is it leads to flexible services that are quickly deployed. And is one of Google's greatest strengths. The two go hand in hand.
If this were the iOS or Windows Phone stores, then yes, that would be true. But with Google Play, the developer actually IS the merchant.
The problem here is that it's not presented that way. The Play Store appears, to the customer, exactly like any other storefront. If it's really more like a flea market with individual merchants all collected together under one roof, instead of like a retail store, then this is something that is not only obscured to the buyer (which is a gross deception), it's also not even obvious to the developers, who seem quite surprised to receive this amount of info.
Only do those not reading. When you click the "$1.99 Buy" button then "Continue" button, you're presented with Google Checkout:
Review your purchase
Pay to:
Pay with:
Google Checkout is nothing more then an online merchant processor and works just like PayPal.
You act as though that implies anything useful. As an Android user, one expects the purchase to go through Google's payment system. What one doesn't expect is their name, email address, and location, to be sent without any notification that that's going to happen.
All arguments about this particular situation aside, it's stupid to point your finger at a particular technology company and say "bad privacy!!1!".
What? This "particular situation aside"??? This particular situation is the thing we are talking about! And I never blamed the technology behind it. I blamed the company that doesn't give two shits about privacy.
Your credit card company knows what you buy and where you live. The checkout chick at Woolies/Kmart/Whatever can know your name when you hand over the card. eBay has a record of everything you've purchased (and when, and from whom...). Anyone at all you've dealt with could be storing your previous address. Need I go on?
And none of these things bother me. It's not that they need data from me in order to do commerce with them, it's what they do with it afterwards.
...and don't even get me started on store loyalty cards!
I don't use them.
And I don't how any of this justifies Google's gross disregard for privacy.
XMFD @ trusting Apple over Google. They're both interested in your data for a variety of reasons. Get your head out of the sand.
With Apple, I'm the customer, with Google, I'm the product.
And in practice, Apple has been consistently far beyond Google in terms of protecting my privacy. This is just one of an endless supply of examples that demonstrates this. Perhaps you should take your own advice and look at the world as it is and not as you imagine it to be.