>Will Google take over world communication?
Google logs, categorises every little thing you do in your everyday life - with your consent.
People always say:
>It is free. I don't care, I am a good citizen anyway.
But when you ask them:
>Would you want a trenchcoat wearing boogyman following you around all day and listening and noting down every single thing you do?
That outrages them. But what's the difference between Google and a stalker?
GMail
>Somebody gives you a free mailbox in front of your house.
>With the right to look through and read all your private data (banks, etc.).
Google Maps
>Somebody gives you a free navigation system
>But follows you around all day, looking where you are.
Voice Search
>A 'person' who answers you every question by asking him verbally.
>Listens to everything you do and records it.
They might not be selling your data now, using it only for ads and service optimisation. But for how long?
With so much data, it is only a baby step away from selling it to private bidders, companies looking into the private life of their employees and others.
The NSA and other agencies might be tapping your data. But at least you have some semblance of ability to say you don't want it. Google can shrug it off, saying you do it voluntarily.
Even if they track you. By having a Google account, you give them a name, an address and the ability to stalk you by name, instead of a number. Yes theoretically this number can be traced back to you. But by having an account you give them permission to stalk you officially.
Why is nobody caring?
How do circumvent this? Or at least minimise the effect?
Convince me that I am wrong. And that we don't live in a 1984 Orwell world.
>>53848194
they're an advertising company
so yeah i guess they're evil
>>53848194
>How do circumvent this? Or at least minimise the effect?
1) install: adblock, noscript, ghostery.
2) never register
>>53848194
With all the Patels, Rashmindas and Masalas running google now all they are concerned about is how to defeat their #1 enemy - Sanitation.
>>53848194
>what's the differnece between Google anr a stalker
Google is providing you services. A stalker is just stalking you.
>>53848194
>And that we don't live in a 1984 Orwell world.
We live in a "Brand New World" world. People are controlled by pleasure. "Why would you be against something which grants you pleasure, and it's free?"
There are significant differences between a stalker and google.
Google is invisible, people don't notice they're constantly being spied on. Secondly, the stalker has some obvious evil intentions, there's a high chance of bad stuff happening to you, I have never heard of anyone being raped by google.
Then again, this doesn't convince me at all that google's not evil or anything, I'd still be creeped the fuck out if 10 nice guys kept stalking me "just to help me" without me ever asking for it...
>>53848194
>all this bullshit
yet you'd get google fiber without a second though, stop being hypocritical faggots, my god.
>>53848284
>ten good men
>>53848194
>They might not be selling your data now, using it only for ads and service optimisation.
>implying they don't
>Why is nobody caring?
It's generally because of the ease of access. People don't want to go through the extra effort to hide what they think is useless information, like a school project or a simple search. It's kind of for the same reason people download windows 10, "it looks nice, it works, and I don't do anything illegal". Plus, people don't see the effects of it "So what if someone is stealing my data, no issues have ever arose from it and it hasn't affected me".
>How do circumvent this? Or at least minimise the effect?
Just use opensource software that you've looked over yourself. Remove ads, use separate usernames and passwords, use proxies (behind at least 7), and try not to do anything illegal.
>Convince me that I am wrong. And that we don't live in a 1984 Orwell world.
We are.
how is this "evil"?
im ok with it, i dont find an issue with what info they get from me and i like the services i get in return
it works, its secure and just because google stalks me doesnt mean id ever stop using their stuff
>>53848364
>monopoly
gee willy i'm sure the man isn't abusing his powers at all
>>53848284
>People don't notice
Well a good stalker is also invisible. Always following you around without you noticing.
>Google no evil intentions
That is relative.
1) Information is power. It can easily be used to control people (see Scientology), who guarantees me that Google won't pull that shit in the future. Google currently doesn't have an agenda. That is not set in stone.
2) The bubble problem.
Opinion, believes and free thought is based on a wide source of information. A proper newspaper will have many different commentaries giving different viewpoints. Google filters only yours and reaffirms it. This is the end of free thought as we know it.
>That could be considered unintentional 'evil'.
3) Google vs. Microsoft
I understand that both a big tech companies. But with Microsoft I at least know that a majority of their income is NOT datamining and spying on you. Google is.
Does that guarantee me that Microsoft won't go the same route in the future. No. But at least it is safer in terms of general eagerness than Google.
>>53848303
No, I would not. I don't even have a google account and use firefox (/w tor) most of the time. My main search engine is duckduckgo.
I admittedly sadly own an Android phone - without google account.
>>53848333
Even to get open source onto your android you mostly need an account.
>Can one open a misleading Google account, feeding Google false data? Or correct data under a wrong identity?
On the other side they would care if a person came up to their house, bugged the place and regularly went through their mail and even thoughts and worries (Google Search)
>>53848369
What guarantees you that Google won't pull a Scientology on you, when they one day start implementing an agenda?
There are generally 2 ways to achieve ANY goal in life:
1) Corruption. Giving you what you want. We all want something in life, we are human after all.
2) Blackmail. Taking something away which you hold dear. We all have something like that. Even if you had no friends or relatives. Torture and starvation is also part of this.
The first option is unlikely and very inefficient to achieve a goal.
But Google is in the perfect position to implement the second one. Data is power.
>I know you cheated.
>I know you like bondage porn
>I know where you live, what you do and what your interests are.
>I know that you had a fight over dinner with you wife, because I heard it - I was there. I got it on tape.
>You have insecurities - lets exploit that by threatening you.
Google knows more about you than your best friend.
We all have smth to hide.
>>53848639
Why would the executives at Google throw away their fortune of billions of dollars just to blackmail some random faggot?
>>53848194
Friendly reminder that Google is an abstraction layer between your data and advertisers. Google has no desire to sell your data, because holding it close forces people trying to advertise their products to come to them.
Google is literally built on having the largest piece of the personal data pie. Every service they offer and product they sell is focused on ensuring that they are the only company that owns your private data. If they were to sell any of your information, that would give them total ownership of a smaller portion of the same size pie. Why would they ever do that? Money? Google brings in 75 billion dollars a year. They don't give a shit about selling your data for lunch money, especially if it might affect your willingness to feed them more data in the future.
This is exactly what's going on with this Apple/FBI lawsuit. Apple realized after the Snowden leaks and the CIQ fiasco that it costs them sales to leak personal information, even (especially?) to governments, and wins them sales to be seen as upholding individual rights. Google has been doing this same shit for years.
tl;dr: you're safer giving your info to Google than Microsoft, and many, many, many times safer giving your info to Google than Facebook.
>>53848265
>Brand New World
Brave New World?
>>53848194
Do you think real people are reading through this data? Bots don't give a shit what kind of porn you surf.
>>53848756
pigs give a shit and they got subpoenas
>>53848674
Imagine the political agenda one could enforce with such kind of data.
People control their governments, but if you control the people...you also control the governments. + The government is also only a bunch of people who also don't want their porn habits leaked.
Whatever an agenda like that would look like. It could be implemented with such amounts of personal and sensitive information about YOU.
>>53848700
I understand your point.
Therefore should we support Google in its aspiration of some day controlling our entire (virtual) life, because it is the most 'sensible and safe' thing to do`?
Also you point does not void the thing I said above.
The Apple/FBI lawsuit is a hoax imo. Breaking into one guys phone is impossible for a multibillion dollar government agency with an army of the best coders in the world?
>>53848639
The answer to this is to not have something to hide.
I'm not saying "be a good boy dindu nuffin".. I'm saying don't hide the shit you do.
Who gives a fuck if you like bondage porn or fight with your wife?
If as an adult human being you have habits that you desperately want to keep secret, you are the one who is morally wrong, not Google.
>>53848810
Why do pigs care what porn you like? Unless the porn you like means you deserve to be in jail.. In which case, you deserve to be in jail.
>>53848756
Who makes bots my friend? People. And bots are getting better and better.
>Google's AlphaGo project
With that kind of power and expertise, who far are we from a true data searching and understanding entity?
>>53848834
Ok, let's say Google releases some sensitive data about a high profile politician and influences politics in some way. Now no one trusts Google with their data anymore. Google loses all their business. They go bankrupt. Now what? woohoo we got someone elected.
>>53848194
There is a difference between a company only doing it and a stranger doing it. I would let Google chrome save my password but I wouldn't let Joe next door save my password. You'd tell a secret to your best friend but you wouldn't tell it to the coworker who hates you.
What's so hard to understand about this? Do people genuinely believe that Google or literally any entity on the planet has the manpower to monitor everything you do 24 hours a day across multiple devices? At most the shit goes through a cluster and gets analyzed. No human has likely ever seen what you do.
>>53848194
>But what's the difference between Google and a stalker?
If I could control when the stalker stalks me as I do with google (since it's my choice to use their services when I want to) and if the stalker would supply me with tons of awesome free stuff. Gladly.
>The NSA and other agencies might be tapping your data.
And these are the real problem but both can be solved legally, given more educated citizens.
>By having a Google account, you give them a name
Shh, don't tell anybody that I am John Smith.
>>53848194
if I ask that boogey man questions all the time then yeah I'd let him shadow me so he can better understand what I want when I ask an unreasonably vague question
>>53848875
dude, dildos of all things are still illegal in alabama. and who's to say some currently legal thing becomes illegal overnight, because fuck you, and a swat team is sent to your hovel because chrome narced your prolific /aco/ history?
>>53848971
That's a problem with retarded legislature and not Chrome.
>>53848837
So it would be ok for somebody to just start following you around, taking notes on everything you do and say.
Going to you friends and boss and telling them all the stuff you said or even thought about them?
>I hate you, you are a dirty ass nigger fucker (too you boss with an black wife)
>Hey guys, I really love loli hentai and bdsm. I regularly look for new vids.
You basically support the notion that everybody does the same things in life, following only one social norm system and being exposed for every little deviation from that norm?
But i find the implications for free thought even more worrying.
>Opinion, believes and free thought is based on a wide source of information. A proper newspaper will have many different commentaries giving different viewpoints. Google filters only yours and reaffirms it. This is the end of free thought as we know it.
>>53848284
>never heard of anyone being raped by Google
Yeah until some feminazi cunt reads that statement and gives her an idea about how to get some quick publicity about Google raping her because she mistyped her Gmail password too many times and it locked her out
>>53848892
Who says it will come out. Most media outlets are owned by
a) the government
b) private conglomerates
both can be dealt with in similar fashion: Blackmail or Corruption
>>53848894
As I said here >>53848876 who needs manpower, when you are coming ever closer to sentient and completely obedient AI?
>>53848530
>MFW constant strawman
>>53848530
phew lad, if you're this autistic just go buy some land in the middle of nevada and live off the grid, you know they can track you even now, right?
>typical MAC address
>notify your ISP
>request your information
>receive name and address
>big brother shoves your head deeper into your asshole than it already is
Seriously, how autistic can one person be?
>>53848993
yeah i got a problem with shit laws. they still seem to get written, no matter which way we vote or protest. i'd also prefer a browser not roll over on me at the drop of a subpoena
>>53849057
It's still a machine. But the conversation on the ethics and morality of a sentient machine actually mattering can go on for hours.
In short, a controlled robot that cannot communicate with your friend about your porn fetish or your email you sent to your boss is still just an advanced catalogue machine. Not a person. Your shit is still just being sifted through a machine, however effective it may be. Until we reach literal Synth tier machines, no machine worth mattering will review your shit, bro. It still wouldn't share it with anybody you didn't give it permission to. I mean. It's just so unfeasible.
>>53849098
>they still seem to get written, no matter which way we vote or protest.
That's bullshit. The majority votes for them and the protests are minimal. This is a problem, not a shitty browser.
> i'd also prefer a browser not roll over on me at the drop of a subpoena
Sure but if you live in a country with shitty laws, there are tons of other ways to fuck you. A browser snitching on you would be just one way of many.
>>53848700
But Facebook is the same as Google - it benefits from personal data and it is crucial for it to have your trust. Why do you trust Google, but not Facebook?
>>53848971
You can't be punished for doing something illegal before it was illegal unless it was obviously morally wrong.
>>53849012
I'm not saying I don't care about privacy, I'm saying if you're doing anything that you desperately want to hide, you should probably take some time to question if it's a good thing to be doing.
Give me a single example of something that is perfectly morally sound that you would need to keep hidden from people.
>>53849080
Prove me wrong.
>>53849082
Yes that is true. Nobody is ever completely off the grid (except in the Himalayas in a cave).
It is more about the aggregation of all that data in one convenient location to distribute. Also stealing you data is strictly speaking illegal. Selling or distributing smth given to you in a consensual manner is not.
>>53849131
Well sending it to people is no every hard once it is found. We are not far away from Synth tier machines which find and distribute efficiently.
At this stage I'm just hoping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth turns out right.
We overshoot and collapse, living standards go into freefall, but we have our privacy back. Google's brief stint as omnipotent ends in the blink of an eye.
It could've all gone so differently. We could've done things properly.
>>53849012
>You basically support the notion that everybody does the same things in life, following only one social norm system
No, but I do believe that "right" and "wrong" are pretty fucking obvious to everyone. If you're doing something perfectly morally sound but don't want anyone to know about it, the issue is with you and not with Google.
If you're doing something that isn't morally sound, the issue is with you and not with Google.
>>53848834
>Therefore should we support Google in its aspiration of some day controlling our entire (virtual) life, because it is the most 'sensible and safe' thing to do`?
My point is that Google will not sell your data to anyone, since holding onto all your data is why and how the company company exists. My point is that there is no danger of Google selling your data, so refusing to use useful software and services because of some vague theory of a potential future threat is nonsense.
>The Apple/FBI lawsuit is a hoax imo. Breaking into one guys phone is impossible for a multibillion dollar government agency with an army of the best coders in the world?
Are you implying that the FBI is competent at literally anything, especially technology? I can all but guarantee you they're still using XP on their entire network.
>>53849213
Simply I hate my boss.
Now your boss suspects this and requests Google Detective (tm) and confirms this.
He starts hating you.
Makes your life a living hell at work.
Google Detective (tm) would make hating your superiors impossible. Even talking to your wife about your shit boss isn't possible because Google Voice records it.
>>53849280
>they're still using XP on their entire network.
C'mon man.. We all hate Feds, but no Agency at that level is ever using Windows.
>>53849190
Facebook isn't an advertising company, it's a data mining company that sells information to advertising companies.
You guys are all autistic.
>>53849296
Why are you still at your job if you hate your boss?
Putting money over your morals?
The issue is you, and not Google.
>>53849228
We're -very- far from synth tier machines dude.
I hope you don't believe that Tay was considered an effective AI. That was an algorithmic regurgitation bot.
We are decades and decades away from an actual neural network artificial intelligence. Even Tay was run on a cluster. Let alone simulating actual genuine emotions, creativity, thought and decision making all in a computer smaller than the ITX format for placement in the head or possibly the torso.
You're so far off you believe you'll see that in your life time.
>>53849315
>>53849280
Apparently the FBI uses Macs in their offices but old Windows laptops in the field.
>>53849322
Thanks for joining the thread!
>>53849296
Google aren't covert ops. Anyone requesting information like this would be making a paper trail, opening themselves to a lawsuit if they treated you any differently afterwards.
>run for public office 20 years from now
>run on a platform that is against something google has a stake in
Surely they wouldn't blackmail you with your search history or anything, wouldn't it be a shame if it got leaked due to some clerical error to the public just before the election huh?
>>53849271
Well I don't want to get into this. But norms are not fixed entities you think them to be. They are variable.
example:
Child porn ownership was legal in Japan into the 2000s.
>So you argue that Japan is a 'morally deviant' country and should be nuked to death.
People used to marry at the age of 15 in the middle ages
>People in the middle ages were inhuman degenerates who are terrible.
etc.
Norms are variable.
>>53849280
Well ok assuming Google doesn't sell your data.
Now what if they start implementing an agenda as mentioned previously. They would have all the resources to control most of the information supply and public sentiment toward every subject. (if not even more)
>>53849339
This was only a hypothetical example.
What if you weren't able to leave your job due to extraneous circumstances?
>>53849370
Well ok even ten years from now google will still have the data. Time is not really the issue here.
>>53849411
Try to prove that in court. You with your next door lawyer vs, your bosses' company sponsored Columbia lawyer.
>>53849471
If your search history is morally just, people shouldn't care.
If your search history isn't morally just, people shouldn't vote for you.
>>53849471
>Being against progress
Google wouldn't even have to sink you; you'd do that yourself.
>>53849507
Legal =/= Moral
What is good and what is not is very clear. Anyone who disagrees is in denial because they are addicted to something immoral.
>>53849471
>Google tries to blackmail me
>out Google to the public
>they lose all trust
>they go bankrupt
>>53849548
Lets agree to disagree.
It is quite clear that you are not capable to think outside of you 'moral yes/no bubble' and have no grasp on either contemporary Neuroscience and/or Nietzsche or Feuerbach. And are not a well travel individual who has experienced a wide range of moral systems in the world.
Experience in either would show you that western moral systems are not the only ones in this world and that moral systems are not fixed in space and time.
Don't worry you are not alone.
>>53848260
What do you suggest apart from these superficial methods to compromise Google's grasp on your personal life?
>>53848875
>consensual bondage porn is illegal in some places.
>I deserve to be in jail for it.
Yeah okay
>>53849720
How is it unsatisfactory? It accomplishes everything you asked for.
>>53849695
I wonder what immoral thing you are addicted to in order to be in such denial.
Does it harm another human, yourself, an animal, the planet? Its immoral.
Does it impact the free will of another human or yourself negatively? Its immoral.
It doesn't matter where or when you are alive, truth is black and white. It may be shrouded in ambiguous argument, it may be tempting to deny, but morals are very simple and anybody who thinks they are complex is trying to account for their own addictions.
>>53849834
>in some places.
Don't live in those places?
[spoiler] it gets worse [/spoiler]
>>53849865
What about consensual bondage? Masochism is a thing. Obviously real rape and things that do non trivial damage are immoral, but if it's consensual and ultimately harmless then it should be legal IMO
>>53849887
If only life were that easy. Not everyone can choose where they live, nor can they just up and leave whenever something happens that doesn't fit with them
>>53849986
>it's consensual and ultimately harmless then it should be legal
You answered your own question.
It's a good idea to consider why these people are attracted to being harmed, but that's another topic.
>>53850069
So you're making a choice between the difficulty of leaving your country, or the difficulty of not watching bondage porn/being punished for doing so.
Its your choice. Google has nothing to do with it.
>>53848194
>technology company
>based in the US
>develope android
>not evil
kek, fisa court probably checks up on them every day, and there already linked to the nsa's backbone internet
>>53849865
Truth isn't really black and white, especially when subjective elements come into play. What one person finds true, another person might find wrong, eg bondage is harmful and should be illegal. It's subjective in this case and people shouldn't be criminalized for it
>>53850131
But does one really deserve to be in jail for liking bondage porn?
>>53850246
There are no subjective elements to wrong and right. Only what you choose to ignore or enforce.
>does one really deserve to be in jail for liking bondage porn?
No. My original comment was intended to imply that pesos and rapists belong in jail. Consensual kinks should not be punished.
>>53849316
But it is an advertising company. Facebook advertisements are probably the most efficient. Do you have any source on Facebook selling its data?
And by the way, Google also sells data in a way. When advertising companies bid on Google ads placements, they get a list of domains that the user has visited.
>>53850279
Who in the fuck is looking through individual users accessed sites?
They have algorithms for this shit dude, nobody is laughing at you for watching MLP because you +1'd a Kotaku article.
>>53850315
No need to sperg out.
I didn't even imply there's a problem with either Google or Facebook. I'm just saying that Facebook and Google are not very different in terms of how it uses people data. And that Google ads program sell some data (namely, lists of domains an anonymized person visited) to 3rd parties, while Facebook does not, to the best of my knowledge. So in that regard, Facebook is slightly more privacy respecting than Google. I was just asking that guy why he trusts Google more than Facebook.
>>53848194
Good thread, OP.
>>53848194
What would their motive be?
They're already billionaires and can live like kings. There is no reason for corruption on the level you suggest, because the only reason would be for profit.
>>53851044
>no corruption, only profit
Don't quite follow your there
>Agenda
As I have detailed in numerous posts above:
Most media outlets are owned by
a) the government
b) private conglomerates
both can be dealt with in similar fashion: Blackmail or Corruption or jolly cooperation between conglomerates
>>53848260
Google can still use your IP address and other metadata to track you
>>53851044
More money, obviously. Why should they arbitrarily stop?
> Oh, we got 4 billion dollars, let's call it quits here since nothing in this world costs that much.
>>53851082
I'm not suggesting there hasn't been corruption up until this point for them to make their profits
I'm saying that now that they are already bazillionares, there is no reason for them to enact some kind of "new world order". It's better for them just to keep quiet and keep shoving ads in peoples faces.
>>53851104
So can literally any website on the World Wide Web
>>53848194
You can't unless you are NEET or something similar
>>53851044
Google isn't one guy with a 4 billion dollar bankroll. They have shareholders. They serve them. That's the sole reason of existence for public companies, to increase the value of the shareholder's investments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJNO3CCI7rI
>>53851104
So don't use Google services.
>>53849213
why do close the door to your bathroom?
Why does your house not have walls made of glass?
>>53851492
I don't close the door to my bathroom. My walls are not made of glass because it is a poor insulator and lets in too much light.
>>53851550
> Implying people on /g/ would understand a simple metaphor
>>53848194
So guys... first of all english is not my native language.
I currently use Android and Windows 7, I was thinking about changing to a new Android and use Google Now and all the shit it needs (like history, location, etc. I don't never use the service aside from GMail), I have doubts about that, 'cause it will be awesome to use the Apps that Google give for "free", will I do good because the botnet is inevitable? or is it better for me to stay away from Google and use only Gmail?
>>53849548
>What is good and what is not is very clear.
No it's not, because nobody can agree on what's right and wrong. Our ideas about such things are colored by our ideologies and subjective beliefs. Different political ideologies have wildly differing stances on what's considered morally right and wrong.
Because we don't agree, we need to set limits - for our own good - to keep people who have warped views on morality from being able to force the rest of the country to go along with their bullshit.
There are tons of stupid fucking normies and SJWs who think that even browsing the content on 4chan is morally wrong. There are people who think that you should be punished for making offensive jokes on the internet. You're beyond deluded if you think that everyone agrees with your "very clear" assessment of right and wrong.
>Anyone who disagrees is in denial because they are addicted to something immoral.
Or, maybe they just realize that people are capable of making irrational judgments about morality and don't want to make it easier for said people to control society
>>53848194
they are worse than evil. They are completely apathetic to humanity. They are no more evil than a black hole, but you still have plenty reason to fear a black hole.
>don't be evil
I always thought this was a terrifying motto. It should be 'be good' if that's the message they want to send. Having it in the negative just makes it sound like they are constantly on the brink of caving to their worst impulses. Also humans don't properly register negative words so for instance if you say to a child 'don't do this' all they hear is 'do this' and so the desire to do it builds until they cave.
Scary motto.
>>53851656
>would
that's not a metaphor. it's an analogy.
>>53848875
Fuck you illegal scum
>>53853224
If you want to me more terrified; that was just one item on a list.
Above it was "Make a lot of money".
>>53848194
Don't be evil because that spot is taken by us.
>>53848194
They are not evil, perse, they are a for profit company.
>>53848194
Do your best to break out of this Google-Microsoft-Apple-Facebook ecosystem. There are alternatives.
>>53848194
yes, they are.
No wonder they give you their services for free, you give them all your data in return.
Just think about what they actually have.
calendar, notes, emails, contacts, chatligs, profile data, searches, and whatnot.
This is from someone posting this from a google acc bound Nexus phone.
It's not that i don't care. It's just that i hope i wont live the moment google does something evil openly.
Right now they do everything undercover, they are building up something like an own world power.
They have the influence, they have the funds, they have the knowledge.
Ever thought why google is advancing "cool technoligy" so fast? (eg. Glass, self driving cars) They want you to think you're given some really cool stuff to adore them, keeping up their good image. In reality they want control.
It's too late already, just a matter of time until something openly happens.
>>53848194
>GMail
use my own email server
>Google Maps
openstreetmaps
>Voice Search
disabled
>YouTube
no other alternative
>Drive
who wouldn't want an office suite that('s)
>in a browser
>takes no space on google drive
>can access on any device
>FREE
>>53849280
>I can all but guarantee you they're still using XP on their entire network.
this is the FBI we're talking about, not the average consumer.
they are most likely using a derivative of linux
>>53851737
GMail is still Google. Use your own server.
>>53848194
I don't understand why this bothers people who browse technology forums. If you're on /g/, you should at least know how to securely browse the web without detection. I'm a very heavy user of Google's services, so what? They're well made and free to use, of course they're going to want some advertising data in return, but I use ad block so it's irrelevant. The rare occasions I need to stir clear of Google and protect my browsing data, I can just load up a Tails livedisk and type in my VPN credentials. Take off the tinfoil anon.
>>53853809
This. Learn how to use technology properly and tailor that usage to your needs. Stop worrying about hypothetical dystopian futures and start focusing your energy toward finding other people to work with to keep groups like Google in check and inform the public of troubling changes, if that is what's important to you. Boycotting them over morals doesn't actually do anything when millions of people don't give a shit.
>>53848705
yeah m8
>>53848194
>With the right to look through and read all your private data (banks, etc.).
Your bank does not send any information through e-mail that is confidential.
>But follows you around all day, looking where you are.
It is opt-in to record your travel. Your cell phone location is being logged by your carrier anyways through cell tower pings, which happen with literally every phone.
>Listens to everything you do and records it.
That isn't how it works
>>53848264
Well a stalker could provide you with some services too......
When the data value crash happens, data mining companies will be falling over themselves to sell away your personal data when advertisers don't want it any more.
>>53857354
And they're not going to sell it to people who are using it 'just for advertising'
You know how many russian cheeki breekis there are that would love to just commit identity theft by just buying all your personal data from the big companies that you gave it all to?
By using shell companies and intermediaries the data companies won't even know they've sold your data to russian criminals.
And they won't even care so long as the russians pay.
>>53849508
>people shouldn't care
But they will. Good luck getting elected after everyone sees your tranny porn collection.
(Your opponent also had such a collection, but he was a good little boy who didn't pick fights with Google.)
>>53850272
>pesos
Donald pls
>>53849508
>shouldn't vote for you
OK regardless of if you're right or left leaning most people will agree that Bill Clinton did a pretty good job as president. He got a blow job from a fat chick and the nation still went fucking ape shit over something that was frankly an extremely private matter between a man and his wife. Did that b jibber negate the good he did as president? Nope. Were people calling for his impeachment and stoning on the white house lawn? Absolutely.
>>53848194
Shh, shh.
Just accept it. Feel the warmth of the botnet flow through you and accept the peace it grants
>>53851104
get behind 7 proxys
>>53853809
>>53857624
>>53855339
They won't be advertising for long. They are building huge amounts of intelligence on you. Which can be used for various other things.
If they start implementing an agenda and start to implement this by using the data against you. It not even direct blackmail necessarily. It is also about controlling free information flow and free thought.
In a world were you are only exposed to what google shows you, there is only Google's opinion.
>Humans are very welcoming to comfort. People in the PRC are not shouting for freedom because it is comfortable. Now imagine a world controlled by google and when you are considered a deviant, you are blackmailed to keep your mouth shut. Happens in the PRC every day.
>Well it doesn't happen to me, so who cares, right?
Basically accepting a Syndicate like future where the world is controlled by a huge company like entity with a few majority shareholder controlling everything.
>Even giving Google the benefit of the doubt that they are 'good' and 'malevolent'. Should they ever break down, the world economy will tank. Most everyday appliances will stop working (nest), all communication and info sources are gone (fiber and search), etc.
>>53851104
Having your IP is one thing. Having your entire life activity logged under the name 'Joseph McPeterson' is another.
>>53851211
Try outrunning a company which controls more than 1/4 of internet traffic.
Try finding a decent Sailfish OS phone ont he market. It isnt that easy as Google wants you to believe.
>>53851492
nice analogy mate
>>53853694
on an android phone?
>>53855515
The tell me how is works.
Don't tell me you have nothing to say you want anyone else to read in your mail. If so, why even bother putting a password there in the first place.
There are things you don't want other people to know besides you and the person you are communicating with, Google knows and reads everything.
>Log data from carrier
Yes, but google tracks your location contextually, which store, which strip club, which guys/girls house....
That is different. Plus they have it under your real world identity.
>Recording Voice
Google openly tells you that they will be listening and logging every single thing you say.
Otherwise tell me how it can contextually understand you saying Ok Google! in a loud pub.
They have admitted that Google can tell who you are talking to, what you are talking about and how they are related to you at any moment in time.
Now tell me that having a guy always listening to you and recording everything when you eat, sleep, have sex is not creepy.
I am certain that there are moments where you want to talk to a person in private one on one.
Well that is impossible now via email or regular conversation.
>>53848894
>There is a difference between a company only doing it and a stranger doing it.
>I would let Google chrome save my password but I wouldn't let Joe next door save my password.
I don't get it. You trust people at Google that you don't know at all more than you trust your neighbor or coworker?
>>53860610
Google is not a person. There is not enough man power at Google for a single live person to review any one users personal information. A computer sifts through my shit at most and feeds bits of data into algorithms for ads and better products.
My co worker would have malicious intent with my passwords, bank information, porn fetishes, etc....
>>53860704
But they have algorithms to look through all the stuff they have and find what one guy is looking for.
Also they surely got some internal search engine where they can type in your name and find all the stuff under your name.
Who guarantees you that they won't have malicious intents in the future.
Companies are not anonymous meta entities. They are literally controlled by a hand full of shareholders and boardmember (i bet less than 30 people) who give commands. It is like saying nobody runs the military.
>>53860893
>Sure they have an internal search engine where they can type on your name and find all the stuff under your name.
I say more seriously than sarcastic, go to the top of Facebook and type in some bodies name. You now have access to most likely most of their information, interests, likes, family friends home city college workplace etc......
Do they have an internal search engine just to find out specific peoples porn fetishes? No dude come on you're being ridiculous. And even if they did have a search engine in there to search you up and pull up every little thing they have tied to you. Who has access to that? DDo you think everybody who works at Google has access to that? It's at most 2-5 people who would have the clearance to do that. They would also have literally no interest or benefit from that. Every time you search scat blowjob it may stick in your history but it gets sent to Google as a +1 to scat blowjob popularity trends.
Nobody can guarantee they won't turn malicious in the future. Just like you can't guarantee your wife isn't blowing somebody else RIGHT NOW(unless she's next to you ofc)
Or course they want profit but there is no benefit or profit to sharing my data with a bunch of worthless employees who massively increase the risk of exposes that kind of massive collection of data. If I had access to that id find all the dirt on my worst enemy and share it as secretly as I could without losing my job. I'm sure most people would do this too.
>>53849695
Never thought to read these names on 4chan.
>>53853224
I wonder if they were being post-meta-ironic or whatever when they came up with it.
i.e. "We want to be good. Therefore we should have an evil sounding slogan that ironically says a good thing, in a way that is obviously evil. It's ironic because we're not evil."
And then ironically, they are.
>>53848194
>giving people aka millennials instant information without them ever having a deep thought or deep reading in what the just read Wanting to create a AI connect to ur brain.
>are they evil
Yes,and Google is making you stupid
>>53848194
>he doesn't read the terms of service or user agreements
There's your problem right there you fucking homo. If you read them about 90% of them state they have the right to release information about you to subsidiaries. Fucking faggot kill yourself