Harsh considering the fact that Google has been dedicating resources to privacy and took important steps to that affect with Android O [0] and Android P [1] and now with Android Q.

They hosted a invite-only-industry-experts conference to understand the implications of wide-spread security and privacy issues with Android [2][3].

[0] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/12/double-stu...

[1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/12/android-pi...

[2] https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-s...

[3] https://security.googleblog.com/2018/12/aspire-to-keep-prote...

You would think with all those privacy resources, Google would be able to stop itself from spying. Perhaps a few more conferences will help?

2.) Try this link then: https://apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb (note that these studies don't cover the UI dark patterns encouraging you to give up your privacy 'willingly')

3.) Are we really going to pretend Google's spying is such a fringe idea that it needs a citation to be believed, and not their main business model?

(It seems like collecting information, alone, shouldn't count as harm? It needs to be used for some bad purpose or disclosed to harm anyone.)

First of all, the information is disclosed immediately - to Google. Then it's just a matter of how much more disclosed is gets.

Surveillance has been shown to chill expression (https://www.cjfe.org/how_mass_surveillance_harms_societies_a..., https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chil...), and even just metadata can be used to easily find whistleblowers (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre...).

Will Google now or in the future offer services to help "secure corporate IP" by finding whistleblowers? Is it wise to assume they won't? Keep in mind all the information they gather now will be kept for when they want to misuse it later. What if they get served with a warrant for that information? Such as by a government agency that's helping to quash unions (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43507728)? How certain are you that there's no company that, now or in the future, will offer services to employers to help identify employees with corporate-unfriendly political beliefs?

Then there is the simple fact that information is power, and used to amass even more power, such as when Facebook used data gathered by Onavo to decide which apps to acquire (https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/12/05/facebooks-onavo-sp...). So spying directly helps corporate giants maintain their monopolies.

And all of that harm is without an authoritarian government in place. What about countries that aren't so lucky as to have a mostly freedom-respecting government? How sure are you your own country won't join them in the next ~50 years?

Surveillance is a leash and collar around your neck - just because it's long enough now, doesn't mean you should wait to get it off.

I'm not into guilt by association.

So first show that Google spies, then show that spying is harmful, then show that Google's spying has done specific harms? You sure have high standards.

Now could you explain how the risks and dangers of surveillance don't apply to the surveillance done by Google? Are they somehow immune to government warrants? Are you privy to all of their business decisions, to know that they never abused their vast access to data to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Should we keep handing over all our data to them, and just hope that they'll stay benevolent indefinitely?

It looks to me like you don't want to understand.

They also have a lot of power that could be abused. I like to make a distinction between potential and actual harm, though. Almost everything you do in civilization involves trusting other people to do things for you. Including keeping secrets. Sometimes that trust is broken, but a trustless society isn't possible.

I'm often annoyed by this stuff, but on the other hand if you gave in, I doubt anything particularly bad would happen?

Google's goal isn't to prevent themselves from getting your info, but to prevent random 3rd parties from tricking you out of it. That would seem like a high bar to set a decade ago.