People who signup for this already know what they are doing and the program has a privacy section[0] saying that the data is only shared with Google which is pretty much akin to having any Smart Speaker. Not only that but it also says that the data wouldn't be used to "advertise to you or sell you anything" which is not the case with Smart Speakers.

In essence, from a privacy point of view, when compared to having a Smart Speaker, this is better I'd say.

0.https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/902874...

Also, I'd just like to call out how much of an outright lie the phrase "Your [...] data will never be shared or sold to anyone outside of Google" is. If Google were to go into bankruptcy procedures at some point in the future, that data is simply another asset which will be sold off to someone else, with no respect for the privacy policy it was collected under (not to mention how privacy policies can change and retroactively cover data already collected).

Also, what do we know about the contract they signed? It's probably not the regular privacy policy.

Informed consent is kind of a grey area. How much do you normally know about the consequences of your actions? How can you prove that you know what you're doing? Should your freedom to enter an agreement be restricted if you can't prove that you know what you're doing?

Legally, you prove consent by signing a contract. Sometimes people go above and beyond that to make sure people really and truly know what they're getting into, but there's a question how far you should go.

I don't think we can know just from reading this article how informed the people signing up were. They didn't interview anyone to find out.

It's hard for me to see either of those cases being a slam dunk here. There's at least some potential for serious harm in the event of a data breach. And the potential benefit - an already rich company getting even richer - doesn't carry a whole lot of moral weight.

I’ve never heard of corporate market research being reviewed and approved by an IRB. Not sure how that would work since the board would hardly be independent anyway, but I’d guess the main reason it doesn’t happen is there is no law requiring it.

Passively reading something usually isn’t enough. The minimum often some kind of interactive explanation that includes a way for subjects to ask questions. I’ve heard tell of groups giving short “quizzes” for experiments with wired requirements and side effects.

For kids specifically, you often need to get both the parents’ consent and the child’s assent. The details vary with the child’s age (older kids opinions get more weight) and the nature of the research (kids can opt out of basic research, but the parents might be able to override the kids’s desire to (say) avoid a shot if it’s part of a potentially lifesaving clinical trial).

I was surprised recently to learn just how grey.

The company I work for used to have a big full-page opt-in form for text messages. Then one day it was pulled from the web site. Why? Because our usually very privacy-conscious legal team decided that if anyone gives us their phone number anywhere, it counts as consent to receive text messages.

Very sad, and in my opinion slimy. I’m glad I’m not on the social media team.

There’s an “enterprise certificate”—installing the enterprise certificate allows you to side-load applications. This is relatively benign. Both Facebook and Google do this, in both cases apparently a violation of Apple policy.

There’s a “root certificate”—installing the root certificate allows you to do MitM attacks and read encrypted traffic like messages, bank passwords, etc. The Facebook app appears to do this and I would characterize this reckless, irresponsible, and unambiguously unethical.

Sure this particular app is debatable.. but I have also worked in the music streaming industry. While being super respectful of the users, we still have sometimes had to wait for months for Apple's approval.

Having a single agent being able to gatekeep what you can install on your phone at their own discretion is an issue since there will always be the temptation to prevent any competitor from getting in your space.

As I understand it, it’s because the apps were being distributed using a method that is supposed to be used only inside the company. Like for beta testing software, or for in-house applications used by employees only. Anything going to the general public is supposed to go through the App Store under Apple’s terms and conditions.

You're basically saying you like Blockbuster video because there's no porn and they only have the "edited for the Airlines" versions of movies.

Great, but other people would like to use their device for whatever they want.

Yes, I know you'll say "so buy a device from someone else". I don't agree with that anymore than I think Ford should be able to make a car you're not allowed to drive anywhere Ford says your not. If Ford did that I don't think the answer should be, "if you want to drive other places buy a car from someone else". IMO the answer should be it's illegal for Ford to control my car to that level.

I'm hoping Apple loses the case against their monopoly on the App store (although given the details of the case I don't think this particular case will succeed so I'll have to wait for another)

You only buying Nike shoes does not require that all other companies are banned from selling shoes, you only eating McDonald's burgers does not require all other restaurants to be closed, and you only buying software through Apple does not require that there is no other ways to install software either, that's just authoritarian bullshit.

It's their platform, they can choose the rules behind app distribution. They chose to allow it through methods controlled by themselves. If a third party wants to distribute apps, then they have to abide by the terms set by Apple.

We're a large NFP but not a particularly large organization so I'm not sure if we get preferential treatment but our business lead has a direct point of contact with an App Store representative and has used it to get extended information about and, from our perspective, force through Apps releases stuck in review.

He isn't the type of person to sit idly by when a process is taking an abnormal amount of time so part of me thinks it isn't a case of preferential treatment but rather the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

I'm sure having someone he can get on a phone and hold accountable goes a long way. I'm still unclear how he managed that.

You are not playing. You are presenting arguments and attempting to sway opinion.

I’ll ask directly: do you not stand behind the arguments you’re making?

You seem not to understand the concept of Devil's Advocate, while the person you responded to clearly does.

It's only the argument that counts. A person is thereby shielded from association with the argument and does not need to show their real intent.

For example, in gsuite they only claim to not mine your data for advertising purposes. Does that mean 'we only use your data to provide the service', or does it mean 'we use your data for everything but advertising'?

Many people I know barely even know how their data is or isn't used, and are shocked by recent news stories. That's not informed consent imo

1. Google's entire business model is advertising through collecting more complete user data.

2. Why would they collect this data if not to further their advertisement business?

3. I've never heard of companies collecting data that wouldn't further their business pursuits.

This data is either "digital-oil" or "digital uranium" both still extremely valuable.

Data laundering needs to be recognized as a thing.

They have enough paid devil’s advocates arguing for them disingenuously; no need to spread their propaganda for free!

From a very quick online search:

* https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/30/google_slurp_ok/

* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine...

* https://variety.com/2019/data/global/google-fined-57-million...

Of course, such fines (etc) are subject to potential change over time because lawyers. But they're definitely not a bastion of good actions and credibility. :(

If you'd rather deal with evidence and reason than with guesses, I can understand that. But dude...c'mon.

I've seen this argument a few times recently. It's not clear to most people what they're signing up to. They've clicked through a EULA, that somewhere in thousands of lines mentions a separate Privacy Policy which they would then have had to load, in order to decipher more thousands of lines of legalese to find the few lines of 'active ingredient' which would tell them what's actually being recorded.

Even when it does technically declare somewhere in there what "might be" recorded (usually in terms like "we record data such as [...]" which don't actually limit what they can record), the company itself will handwave it away as "we're just covering ourselves in case we have to write your name down if you call us for tech support" or similar inanities.

The fact that so many people were surprised about the Cambridge Analytica scandal when selling such access is explicitly Facebook's business model and everyone participated voluntarily should tell you everything you need to know about how much the average user of these services "knows what they're doing".

Devil's advocate is exactly the right word for defending these practices - they're like a Disney villain holding a giant contract scroll and a fountain pen dipped in blood. Don't worry about the fine print, just click ACCEPT, and I'll give you what you want, right?

But do the people they interact with, or invite into their home, know what they are doing? Does Google presume to have consent-by-proxy here?

[0] https://xkcd.com/1432/

Yes, shocking that requesting a router that will report "the sites you visit, device IP address, cookies, and diagnostic data" for market research will take a look at my household's internet traffic...

It's just Nielsen but from Google (Nielsen these days literally works by putting a microphone in your house and collecting all your internet activity). The novelty of this story doesn't have anything to do with these things, just the iOS app.

Yessir, how could there be a problem here? And all those third-parties consented to their communication intercepted and stored by, well, another third-party?

No, this is some CFAA federal crime trojan stuff.

Unlike hidden terms in privacy policies it's made quite clear what's going on here.

however, with the browser extension installed you don't need to - they just read the content after your browser decrypts it.

Don’t know if they are doing this, but it’s certaibly possible to do this at router (or router dumps traffic to google to decrypt).

It’s much easier for google to do this since they make chrome. Another company would have to adjust the cert trust on each machine.

That would require Google either sending the traffic back to google and out again (slowing a lot of things down) or Google putting a signed private key on the router themselves (a violation of CA agreements and a remarkably stupid thing to do in general). If they did that it would not be difficult for someone to extract that key and certificate. This would be a huge security breach.

I agree that it’s a security breach, but it happens all the time. Look at enterprise products like ForcePoint [0] that will do deep inspection on https sessions because they have custom CA installed on enterprise clients. Many companies do this.

Because it’s their router hardware it would be possible to present anyone extracting the intermediate mitm carts and keys. The data are likely sensitive, but that’s what They have already.

Tools like ForcePoint don’t put a “real” CA cert on the device. They typically create a new CA per device, install that into the downstream client CA trusted roots and then generate mitm certs signing with this new cert.

[0] https://www.websense.com/content/support/library/web/hosted/...

Corporations install root certs all the time. It wouldn't require violating CA agreements.

Surely there must have been more to their contingency plan? They have great engineers and I'm surprised there wasn't more than a PR response up their sleeve. Just for example, in retrospect, why did they use the mainline Facebook iOS enterprise certificate to sign this app rather than a cert from one of their subsidiaries or acquisitions -- wouldn't that have de-risked a bit?

Not to me. That’s pretty much how I expect Facebook to operate these days.

Sadly, it’s not just Facebook. Pretty much every time any article posted on HN points out how Company X is misbehaving the thread is flooded with “But... but... Company Y does it, too!” It’s like the SV bubble falls back on the logic of a five-year-old whenever they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

This episode is a win-win.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/facebook-hired-pr-firm-that-...

> Facebook expanded its work with Definers Public Affairs, a Washington public relations firm, in October 2017 after enduring a years-worth of external criticism over its handling of Russian interference on its social network.

> Definers Public Affairs wrote dozens of articles criticizing Google and Apple for their business practices while downplaying the impact of Russia's misinformation campaign on Facebook.

> Facebook also used the firm to push the idea that liberal financier George Soros was behind a growing anti-Facebook movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/technology/facebook-defin...

> Definers began doing some general communications work, such as running conference calls for Facebook. It also undertook more covert efforts to spread the blame for the rise of the Russian disinformation, pointing fingers at other companies like Google.

> A key part of Definers’ strategy was NTK Network, a website that appeared to be a run-of-the-mill news aggregator with a right-wing slant. In fact, many of NTK Network’s stories were written by employees at Definers and America Rising, a sister firm, to criticize rivals of their clients, according to one former employee not allowed to speak about it publicly. The three outfits share some staff and offices in Arlington, Va.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-busted-in-clumsy-smea...

> The social network secretly hired a PR firm to plant negative stories about the search giant, The Daily Beast's Dan Lyons reveals—a caper that is blowing up in their face, and escalating their war.

A thought experiment: imagine a corporate TOS including a clause that specifically prohibits use of devices/software that violates the provider's privacy. E.g. an end user's account can be terminated because they're using Google/FB/other "voluntary" spyware...

All these privacy histrionics are supplanting all other individual rights, personal accountability has to break out of this permission loop, even legally speaking, otherwise no one would be able to do anything.

The problem isn't about installing something on your phone, it's about handing over every single private communication you have with others without getting their approval. It contradicts your first assumption that people have _opted in_.

> All these privacy histrionics are supplanting all other individual rights, personal accountability has to break out of this permission loop, even legally speaking, otherwise no one would be able to do anything.

Are you're suggesting that no consent is necessary for you to put other people's private information on sale?

If you send me a snailmail, I have all right to publish what you right to me (with a few exception, of course).

That's why we got all those email disclaimer nonsense.

[1] https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invas...

The privacy backlash is precisely about people becoming more aware of the latter class of behavior and rebelling against it. Complaining that "no one would be able to do anything" is a straw-man without relevance to the actual social conversation going on right now.

(A quick example of this brand of individualism that offers the individual right, non-declinable, to be analyzed and sanctioned by the government: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18704330)

I see you follow Google closely; close enough to know that privacy concerns have hardly impeded its growth and dominance. Same with all other major tech companies.

Does a privacy minimalist mentality need to be imposed on everyone? (I'm asking rhetorically. In either form, it's not a substantial argument: it's a strawman. Privacy isn't a measurable quantity, and each person or community cares about protecting or revealing different things.)

Edit: Q.E.D. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19039593

I kinda think so, yeah. Everyone flies past the privacy stuff, or gives compromises, or is traded free Farmville points, or given extra coins, or a new shiny feature in exchange for it, their friends are on it, their celebrity is on it, etc.

People will opt-in for all those reasons not realizing or seeing what they gave up or its consequences.

This Google app, unlike Facebook's, do not decrypt traffic.

Now tell me who don't know what they consent to.

I know this is not the same as privacy, but consider it when saying "is consent not enough anymore"

I'll submit this for consideration: you're right, it's 100% fine from an individual standpoint. But there's an aggregate effect of some sort that is a concern. Every move like this changes people's standards and expectations. Call it a "cultural shift", and call us "conservatives" along this particular axis. If we don't want to live in a world where companies pull this sort of shit on _every_ user to the point that the privacy-conscious among us have no choice, we want fewer people around us to be okay with it.

So what does that imply we should do? I'm not sure. Maybe simply push back as we are. Maybe try to impress onto opters-in just what they're selling, and maybe they'll reconsider. Maybe ask Google to simply brand this differently. Call it the "Truman Show Package". So at least everyone is aware that, while the data being collected is valuable, and while everything is 100% a-ok so long as everyone consents, this is NOT NORMAL and nobody should accept it as such.

So, people who fit that "if" clause. I assume it's a significant number of people here.

some people have different value judgements than you do -> those people also probably think statements like yours are paternalistic and condescending.

I think most people would prefer that to receiving a check in the mail, or cash in the mail, or supplying banking details for a direct deposit.

They seem to have cards available for multiple merchants. If they have a decent selection there should be something available from a merchant a given subject actually buys things from. If so, a gift card is pretty much as good as cash.

I, too, like to add unnecessary sensors to devices which considerably increase their value, despite never using them.

And for some reason it's important that you can see the device even though the camera is turned off?

I wouldn't be so thrilled to have a thermostat that requires internet to function at home. Or is that only for those networked features?

Nest did give her control over the entire building's system. IIRC it was actually an employee that shut the system off after a power cycle/outage thinking they were protecting the equipment, but failed to restart it. If she hadn't had the insight the system would have been off all night.

I think it has its perks.

So consumers are paying to buy a router that will allow google to mine and link all browsing behavior to their google account.

Also, if you own a google home, it won't work without all sorts of permissions being enabled at the account level, including web activity and app history [1]

Both of these fantastic privacy violating products are available for Purchase at an electronics retailer near you.

[0]https://on.google.com/hub/support/

[1]https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/864293485439893505

What browser extension is this?

Agreed, but don't minimize the value of logging all DNS requests. You can get an unbelievable amount of deeply personal information from having a list of every DNS lookup. As an experiment, fire up a pi-hole and look at the logs of your own requests. There will likely be a lot of info in there you wouldn't want public.

Readers on HN, you’re supposed to be far more skeptical and employ your Young Reaganite “Trust But Verify” glasses before upvoting blindly like this. Even if the facts are correct, the talking points are clearly presented as (in the favorite words of so many on here) “submarine PR.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html