Says ceo of a company who’s business model is predicated in tracking people.<p>Much like facebook’s idea of privacy, they are conflating your actual privacy with themselves not selling your raw data. Eg. Just because they track you, and have access to all your data, doesn’t mean they’re violating your privacy - the line only occurs if they sell that information directly.
Way back when, I had two Android phones and really liked them. I switched to Apple phone, tablet, and watch because of privacy.<p>The title is a little strange, almost like saying you don’t need those luxury Apple devices to get privacy, but that is wrong. For the mass market, I think Apple is the company that is least bad on privacy. I use some Google services like GSuite, Play Books, and Play Movies heavily but I cringe a little.<p>Not counting GCP, just consumer offerings: if Apple provided a good email service that supported custom domains, I would just use them for everything except deployment platforms like GCP and AWS.
This NYT 'opinion' piece is a textbook piece of public relations writing, perfectly pitched and complete with interesting illustration of 'the author' looking earnest...
Yes it's lip service but this whole narrative about online/digital privacy was seize on by traditional media to bash tech companies while driving traffic to their properties. It also gives some academics and "experts" an outlet to promote their books.<p>You have the right to choose not be watched while you're going to the bathroom but the whole online privacy "controversy" is a means by which foreign countries and other interested parties try to justify stifling US tech companies it's also more nonsense for the self appointed "elites" to philosophise over and pretend to know what's best for society, regular people don't care about it nor should they.
This is pretty much the same tactic finance companies are using to stem the growing political fallout. First get in front of it by acknowledging the problem, then explain how you're not part of the problem, and most importantly, outsource the solution to "legislation".
I scanned this essay for the inevitable "there is more work to be done" line. This time it's "we know our work here is never done, and we want to do more to stay ahead of user expectations."
This I/O was all about On-Device ML. As ML chips get more powerful, a lot of these cool features that were only possible on the cloud will be moving to the device, lowering latency and working in poor network conditions. Google's use of Federated Learning is interesting too.
I'm not sure why everyone here is so concerned about the fact Google collects data, but doesn't actually sell it? Google might connect ads and your data anonymously, or use algorithms applied to your data for their services, but they've never been shown to actually give your data to anyone, nor to abuse it in any way.<p>Compare this to how lazy other companies have been with data breaches (Apple, Sony, Equifax, a ton of others), or companies that will actually sell your data (phone providers, credit card providers, various discount cards, etc..), I don't see why Google is always targeted.<p>When I had a Hotmail account back in the day, it got hacked (and I've always had strong passwords). Gmail has never been hacked. Windows has ads and spyware throughout Windows 10, Google shows you ads when you search for something. Yet MS gets a pass these days, people forget about Apple's weak account security in the past not to mention apps abusing permissions, but Google is constantly demonised.<p>I don't get it. Of all the tech products I've had over the years, the Google ones have been the best, the most secure, the most useful. They collect more data, but as far as I've seen, they also protect it the most.
If use Google while not logged in, sometimes you see the “Privacy Checkup Time” alert.<p>Feels like a trick: Login, give us your info, and then privacy checkup.<p>Just thought it’s funny. Either way, can’t complain the for the efforts being done
This is just a response to the ScreenTime piece that ABC and Dianne Sawyer just put out. Really great watch but it did make Google look bad (and Apple pretty good).
Yes, it should be bottled made available as cheaply as possible branded in two different flavors Google Privacy In A Can™[0] and Google Privacy On The Go™[0]:<p>"So right away, let us cast aside the technological protocols, that are usually referred to as “the internet”, that of which was built upon that make accessing or publishing information public between two or more machines…<p>Because talking about such things would require most internet users to cast aside social constructs they willingly suspend on a daily basis upon engaging with such technology/services (without any care to understand for oneself, one might add) and then demand collectively in retrospect to have their cries pacified while continuing to use such services (of which, most for free).<p>Yup, let us look past all that and believe (because that’s all we can do for ourselves) that institutions/organizations/companies/governments, that all consist of our fellow human beings in all of our qualities and flaws, can provide for the individual that which he chooses not to do for himself, to a satisfactory level in which his desires are forever coddled and placated."<p>[0] We will give access to our preferred government bulk data buyers on the grounds of National Security.
I suggest that Google's dependency on knowing everything about you puts them in a completely existential crisis with respect to privacy - your data is in their DNA, there's just too much at stake.<p>MS and Apple can be far more aggressive in this regard because they simply don't really need your data in the same way to make money.