Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kungfutiger

Google Play Reviews Outs You!

Recommended Posts

Guest xyzzy frobozz

The Internet isn't an alternative reality, it's deeply intertwined with everyday life.

In what reality do you walk around with a name tag on?

 

But it's got nothing to do with being naughty. It's about extending yourself into the digital world. All these hypothetical situations reek of paranoia.

Again.

 

Do you give your name to anyone in the street that passes by?

 

Perhaps you do, but most people don't.

 

I failt to see why the intertoobz should be any different. My name is mine, to give or withhold as I see fit. It belongs to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Internet isn't an alternative reality, it's deeply intertwined with everyday life.

In what reality do you walk around with a name tag on?

 

No, but if I'm talking to a group of people I'll introduce myself.

 

But it's got nothing to do with being naughty. It's about extending yourself into the digital world. All these hypothetical situations reek of paranoia.

Again.

 

Do you give your name to anyone in the street that passes by?

 

Perhaps you do, but most people don't.

 

I failt to see why the intertoobz should be any different. My name is mine, to give or withhold as I see fit. It belongs to me.

 

And you're still free to do that by using alternative services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what reality do you walk around with a name tag on?

 

...

 

Do you give your name to anyone in the street that passes by?

 

Perhaps you do, but most people don't.

 

I failt to see why the intertoobz should be any different. My name is mine, to give or withhold as I see fit. It belongs to me.

^QFT. I said these exact underlined words to someone the other day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

The Internet isn't an alternative reality, it's deeply intertwined with everyday life.

In what reality do you walk around with a name tag on?

 

No, but if I'm talking to a group of people I'll introduce myself.

 

But it's got nothing to do with being naughty. It's about extending yourself into the digital world. All these hypothetical situations reek of paranoia.

Again.

 

Do you give your name to anyone in the street that passes by?

 

Perhaps you do, but most people don't.

 

I failt to see why the intertoobz should be any different. My name is mine, to give or withhold as I see fit. It belongs to me.

 

And you're still free to do that by using alternative services.

 

Sure, you can use alternatives.

 

The problem the OP had was that there was a change in the terms of service. Not only was there a change in those terms, but those changes were poorly communicated (if at all). More problematically, the changed terms assumed that everyone would agree to the changes. This resulted in at least once case of a user of the service having their name posted to the internet without their knowledge.

 

Surely you can see how that particular case is problematic?

 

Going back to our analogies, I think your analogy of "talking to a group" is a poor one. It is assumed that when talking to a group, when introducing oneself, one's name (and whatever other details one chooses to share) will be shared only with that group and perhaps a few others via word of mouth.

 

That conversation is not available for anyone with a computer and a cable.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, you can use alternatives.

 

The problem the OP had was that there was a change in the terms of service. Not only was there a change in those terms, but those changes were poorly communicated (if at all), and assumed that everyone would agree to the changes. This resulted in at least once case of a user of the service having their name posted to the internet without their knowledge.

 

Surely you can see how that particular case is problematic?

He ignored the massive popup that appears asking for your confirmation. If you use services by blindly clicking ok to everything, then there's a problem. If Google were slipping one past people, it'd be headline news.

 

Going back to our analogies, I think your analogy of "talking to a group" is a poor one. It is assumed that when talking to a group, when introducing oneself, one's name (and whatever other details one chooses to share) will be shared only with that group and perhaps a few others via word of mouth.

 

That conversation is not available for anyone with a computer and a cable.

Sure, but you know this going in. You aren't given a false sense of isolation. You have the choice to make a comment under your real name, a false name, or not commenting at all, just like in real life. You're aware that it'll be public.

 

What if we abstracted away the real name and just linked it to your social network page, with whatever name you use there. Is that ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Sure, you can use alternatives.

 

The problem the OP had was that there was a change in the terms of service. Not only was there a change in those terms, but those changes were poorly communicated (if at all), and assumed that everyone would agree to the changes. This resulted in at least once case of a user of the service having their name posted to the internet without their knowledge.

 

Surely you can see how that particular case is problematic?

He ignored the massive popup that appears asking for your confirmation. If you use services by blindly clicking ok to everything, then there's a problem. If Google were slipping one past people, it'd be headline news.

 

Going back to our analogies, I think your analogy of "talking to a group" is a poor one. It is assumed that when talking to a group, when introducing oneself, one's name (and whatever other details one chooses to share) will be shared only with that group and perhaps a few others via word of mouth.

 

That conversation is not available for anyone with a computer and a cable.

Sure, but you know this going in. You aren't given a false sense of isolation. You have the choice to make a comment under your real name, a false name, or not commenting at all, just like in real life. You're aware that it'll be public.

 

What if we abstracted away the real name and just linked it to your social network page, with whatever name you use there. Is that ok?

 

OK, I see where you're coming from.

 

I guess at this point it's useful for me to bring my argument back to a central assumption from which I and others worked from - that the OP's version of events is as s/he has retold them here, and that the terms of service changed without any forewarning.

 

If that is the case then that, in my opinion, is an unacceptable breach of the OP's privacy. I'd then take that a step further and say that any variation to previous terms of service should have to be expressly acknowledged prior to the terms changing for that user. Something to the effect of "Do you agree for your real name to show in place of your previous handle/nickname/alias". An "opt out" isn't good enough, as it may not allow inactive users to opt out prior to a change taking place.

 

Apart from that caveat, I agree with what you're saying.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise I currently have a payment outstanding to my business, with only the client's first and last names and PO Box address to go off. Not listed in the White Pages in the suburbs surrounding his PO Box, but less than half an hour of searching had his full name, date of birth, country of origin, current residential address, mobile number, home phone number etc. All legally obtained; all a matter of public record; all because he wasn't careful enough about managing his online presence. I'm pretty sure he'll get a tad flustered when he finds a letter of demand in his home mailbox today addressed to him by full name =D

It worked =P After 3 months of promises and no action, he received that letter at his personal address today and emailed tonight advising he's sent payment via direct deposit. Can't count the money until it's in the bank, but I'm ever hopeful...

 

Amazing what intruding a little into someone's perceived zone of security and anonymity can achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're still free to do that by using alternative services.

yeah, just like when a tyrant is in the process of taking power in a democratic country, those who object are 'free to move to an alternative country'.

 

its rarely that simple, and you know it. or at least you should.

 

vomiting this kind of rhetoric, as unthinkingly as you appear to, just makes you sound like the mouthpiece of Fabian style fascism.

 

the situation we are in now, is that certain .coms (Google, Facebook, etc) have been given a free ride to the status of social institution. this has happened in the absence of any formal process, in the absence of considered public review — because we never got a chance to catch up. not because people dont care about issues such as privacy. but because when it comes to the internet, the average person is no more educated and equipped to properly safeguard their rightful interests than many an Australian aboriginal was in 1870 when the nice missionary people were promising so convincingly to take real good care of their babies.

 

"Well, sure, I suppose you can have ...EVERYTHING... Mr Google. I know you will take good care of it". in a world where information is increasingly exploitable in previously unimaginable ways (and never ever goes away), in a world where banks are starting to judge loan risk by factoring in metrics from customer's so called 'social graphs' — we are relinquishing our futures to private companies. practically for free! as it stands today, Google knows more about their most enthusiastic users than any totalitarian regime has ever dreamt of knowing about the citizens in their loving care.

 

they got there by inertia selling to a captive market. well no, actually thats not quite the correct term is it? because there isnt actually a formal term for their every incremental (mis)use of the power which has landed in their lap. but inertia selling was unethical before there was a name for it, or a law against it. and if there was a considerable lag between widespread recognition of that crime and the drafting of legislation to curtail it (which i am guessing there surely was), just think of the multitudes of analogous lags that exist today between every liberty taken by these info tech companies and whatever online populaces would have to say on the topic of their eternal encroachments into private lives, if only they had the first fucking clue about what is actually going on. more than ever, the absence of a specific law against a practice cannot indicate tacit moral approval 'by the people'.

 

suppose for a second a majority of Youtubers do not approve of this. do you suppose a majority will go on strike? will Youtubers the world over unite in solidarity and urge everyone to take a stand against the new terms of service?

 

hell no they won't. and when they dont, and it goes ahead with barely a fuss, people like you will proclaim this new measure the will of ze people.

 

and it will be a lie.

 

not that i am suggesting the absence of such a majority would be particularly telling. because that would depend on the sort of outrageous assumption i am not prepared to make: that internet users en masse are actually in a position to know what the hell they are getting themselves into. people often dont. for example, i know a guy who exposed his residential address to the whole world when he registered a domain name. if he could take it back i am guessing he would. but whilst i should probably tell him its his own stupid fault for not thinking ahead, or not reading the fine print, i would never casually suggest that if it makes him uncomfortable in any way he should simply move. because, that would be smarmy and disingenuous and, well, cuntish.

 

when it comes to the internet — "a natural extension of our own lives" — people are so heavily invested in their online profiles and accounts to such a degree that they 'can't' and/or won't simply move to alternate services. for many, we are talking about a form of online presence which is deeply enmeshed into the shared histories of their lives. most will acquiesce out of ignorance whether they like it or not. many wouldnt know how to begin to make a move anyway (putting aside the glaring question of what would even qualify as a comparable service). some of whom were minors when they first created their accounts, or for more general reasons it could be argued were (or are) not in a fair position to weigh up the full implications of exposing their real full names. all of which google knows full well, and is more than willing to exploit. including those for whom a number of protective pseudonyms will ultimately be steamrolled away by association with an original gmail account by an association with google+. all voluntarily, all the way — of course! ;)

 

never all at once. by degrees,

 

Posted Image

 

of course! until all but the most resolute of objectors finds their resolve swept away by the sheer dominance of the steamrolled masses. not just because people with good intentions are prone to frailties like tiredness. but because theres a point where resistance become neither socially acceptable nor economically viable. until the official record of human history (Google Analytics) will show that nobody ever had any kind of concern.

 

back in the day, you could keep selling alcohol to someone as long as they kept buying. if they died from alcohol poisoning, it was morally and legally their own stupid fault. eventually though, most governments of good conscience woke up and took measures to address the full implications of buyers whose ability to know what is good for them has been compromised. companies like Google, effective monopolies wielding powers for which there are no precedents, are operating in the absence of properly codified duties of care. they will keep chipping away. as long as you keep paying (with your personal information), they will keep selling. and make no mistake about it; they will keep on selling well past the point the transaction ceases to be good for you, or us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, linking your real name to online comments is like wearing a name tag (with contact number) out to a bar.

Even if you have the best intentions you have no idea what other people might be thinking.

 

There is a reason that the number plate on your car can't be looked up in a publicly accessible database.

 

Now as for targeted advertising. I can't stand it, all targeted advertising means is that I get spammed for things i just bought and don't see any new products that i might want.

(i reciently bought a tablet online and visted the harvey norman website to complain about poor customer service in their stores, now i'm getting nothing but ads for tablets form harvey norman.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, targeted marketing. I exchanged an email though my google apps account with a prospective employer and now all I get is ads for glasses.

 

.:Cyb3rGlitch:. is right that it's a choice as to how much you want to divulge. I've dipped my toes in the water with Google services and while what it provides in the way of functionality is nice, the flipside to that is what I am giving away which makes me uncomfortable and I don't think it's unfounded paranoia.

 

So what is the Facebook, G+ alternative that doesn't stalk you? How much do I pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm poking people to see how they really feel. If it makes you feel any better, I got a high distinction in my ethics class, I'm well aware of privacy issues.

Getting a HD in an ethics class means bugger all as to your ethics as a whole.

 

Knowing the answers that are wanted does not equal having the correct mindset to actually adhere to the values that are meant to be promoted.

 

Do note that i am not calling your ethics into question, just your statement that you passed a course in them having any indication as to you as a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm poking people to see how they really feel. If it makes you feel any better, I got a high distinction in my ethics class, I'm well aware of privacy issues.

Getting a HD in an ethics class means bugger all as to your ethics as a whole.

 

Knowing the answers that are wanted does not equal having the correct mindset to actually adhere to the values that are meant to be promoted.

 

Do note that i am not calling your ethics into question, just your statement that you passed a course in them having any indication as to you as a person.

 

Ethics classes don't run like you seem to think they do. We were not taught "the right answer" at any stage. We were given lectures about different philosophers who have tackled the concept of what is ethical, and were assessed in group meetings where we had to analyse past mishaps in user security, worker death, responsibility etc. There was no final exam, so there was no easy way to just regurgitate what you've read, you had to think for yourself.

 

My contribution to this thread was my attempt to do something similar, were we consider all perspectives and are free to play devils advocate to get a real sense of people's concerns.

 

I do agree that this grade doesn't necessarily reflect my overall ethics, but at the very least, given it focused a great deal on computing related issues, it has some bearing in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who wants to "consider all perspectives" you have done an excellent job of sticking dogmatically to just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who wants to "consider all perspectives" you have done an excellent job of sticking dogmatically to just one.

That's because the majority of users here have already argued alternate sides. I haven't dismissed it.

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're still free to do that by using alternative services.

yeah, just like when a tyrant is in the process of taking power in a democratic country, those who object are 'free to move to an alternative country'.

 

its rarely that simple, and you know it. or at least you should.

 

vomiting this kind of rhetoric, as unthinkingly as you appear to, just makes you sound like the mouthpiece of Fabian style fascism.

Are you really suggesting that changing between Internet services is akin to moving country? We're talking about Google here, the same company that started the Data Liberation Front, it's unbelievably easy to move to another service if you don't like how it runs. Google doesn't have a monopoly on anything, if they did, they would be copping crap from all over. Don't like YouTube? Use Vimeo. Don't like G+? Use Facebook, or Diaspora. Don't like Google Search? Use Bing, or Yahoo. Google aren't suppressing competitors here, they just happen to be really damn good at what they do using a free model supported by ads. Ads don't work well unless they're targeted. They need data to make this happen (which is anonymous if you choose not to give them details). If you don't like this move on, this has been Google's business model from the start, there's no 'tyrant' here taking over, this was how the 'country' was founded.

 

the situation we are in now, is that certain .coms (Google, Facebook, etc) have been given a free ride to the status of social institution. this has happened in the absence of any formal process, in the absence of considered public review — because we never got a chance to catch up. not because people dont care about issues such as privacy. but because when it comes to the internet, the average person is no more educated and equipped to properly safeguard their rightful interests than many an Australian aboriginal was in 1870 when the nice missionary people were promising so convincingly to take real good care of their babies.

 

"Well, sure, I suppose you can have ...EVERYTHING... Mr Google. I know you will take good care of it". in a world where information is increasingly exploitable in previously unimaginable ways (and never ever goes away), in a world where banks are starting to judge loan risk by factoring in metrics from customer's so called 'social graphs' — we are relinquishing our futures to private companies. practically for free! as it stands today, Google knows more about their most enthusiastic users than any totalitarian regime has ever dreamt of knowing about the citizens in their loving care.

 

they got there by inertia selling to a captive market. well no, actually thats not quite the correct term is it? because there isnt actually a formal term for their every incremental (mis)use of the power which has landed in their lap. but inertia selling was unethical before there was a name for it, or a law against it. and if there was a considerable lag between widespread recognition of that crime and the drafting of legislation to curtail it (which i am guessing there surely was), just think of the multitudes of analogous lags that exist today between every liberty taken by these info tech companies and whatever online populaces would have to say on the topic of their eternal encroachments into private lives, if only they had the first fucking clue about what is actually going on. more than ever, the absence of a specific law against a practice cannot indicate tacit moral approval 'by the people'.

 

suppose for a second a majority of Youtubers do not approve of this. do you suppose a majority will go on strike? will Youtubers the world over unite in solidarity and urge everyone to take a stand against the new terms of service?

 

hell no they won't. and when they dont, and it goes ahead with barely a fuss, people like you will proclaim this new measure the will of ze people.

 

and it will be a lie.

 

not that i am suggesting the absence of such a majority would be particularly telling. because that would depend on the sort of outrageous assumption i am not prepared to make: that internet users en masse are actually in a position to know what the hell they are getting themselves into. people often dont. for example, i know a guy who exposed his residential address to the whole world when he registered a domain name. if he could take it back i am guessing he would. but whilst i should probably tell him its his own stupid fault for not thinking ahead, or not reading the fine print, i would never casually suggest that if it makes him uncomfortable in any way he should simply move. because, that would be smarmy and disingenuous and, well, cuntish.

 

when it comes to the internet — "a natural extension of our own lives" — people are so heavily invested in their online profiles and accounts to such a degree that they 'can't' and/or won't simply move to alternate services. for many, we are talking about a form of online presence which is deeply enmeshed into the shared histories of their lives. most will acquiesce out of ignorance whether they like it or not. many wouldnt know how to begin to make a move anyway (putting aside the glaring question of what would even qualify as a comparable service). some of whom were minors when they first created their accounts, or for more general reasons it could be argued were (or are) not in a fair position to weigh up the full implications of exposing their real full names. all of which google knows full well, and is more than willing to exploit. including those for whom a number of protective pseudonyms will ultimately be steamrolled away by association with an original gmail account by an association with google+. all voluntarily, all the way — of course! ;)

 

never all at once. by degrees,

 

Posted Image

 

of course! until all but the most resolute of objectors finds their resolve swept away by the sheer dominance of the steamrolled masses. not just because people with good intentions are prone to frailties like tiredness. but because theres a point where resistance become neither socially acceptable nor economically viable. until the official record of human history (Google Analytics) will show that nobody ever had any kind of concern.

 

back in the day, you could keep selling alcohol to someone as long as they kept buying. if they died from alcohol poisoning, it was morally and legally their own stupid fault. eventually though, most governments of good conscience woke up and took measures to address the full implications of buyers whose ability to know what is good for them has been compromised. companies like Google, effective monopolies wielding powers for which there are no precedents, are operating in the absence of properly codified duties of care. they will keep chipping away. as long as you keep paying (with your personal information), they will keep selling. and make no mistake about it; they will keep on selling well past the point the transaction ceases to be good for you, or us.

Fair points, but it does have the assumption that this data is being mined to be abused. And, maybe, some companies are willing to abuse it, which opens another can of worms about Internet regulation.

 

The government knows a lot about us, and we freely give them this information. Is it a concern that people trust private businesses with similar data if it were their choice? I personally trust Google with my data because they provide me personalised services in return, and are transparent about their practises. It also helps that I know a few Google engineers. If that includes using that data to target ads using their in-house system, so be it. If they were to change their policy in order to resell that data, I would have a very different stance.

 

There are advantages to revealing information to a company. My device can alert me before appointments that I need to leave within X minutes to get there on time using public transport, and it'll then give me exact route numbers and a map, without me ever asking for it. This is what Google does, they automate, their engineers are into prediction and AI. Could this type of technology ever exist with absolute anonymity? Absolutely not! It's a matter of trust. If you don't trust your data with anyone but the government, then that's perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean there's doom and gloom for people who live publicly.

 

I was a freelance journalist, and now I'm a freelance developer. My name is public because these industries generally don't use pseudonyms (possibly why there's so many devs on G+). Does this mean these people get abused non stop? Nope. In fact, you were the very first to abuse my information. You're telling me that anyone who has a public presence is somehow deserving of abuse from privacy advocates? You're worse than Google, they've never betrayed my trust anywhere near what you have. Congratulations?

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vomiting this kind of rhetoric, as unthinkingly as you appear to, just makes you sound like the mouthpiece of Fabian style fascism.

Vomiting this kind of rhetoric, as unthinkingly as you appear to, just make you sound like the mouthpiece of the narcissist tinfoil hat wearer alliance.

 

And now you're banned. Congrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

He's only been suspended.

And....... why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread is in Atomic Feedback. He posted private information on the forum, which is a 'Very Bad Thing'. We don't normally discuss suspensions/bannings, so let's get on with the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the fact we eased on the usual instant ban for posting a users private information is clearly a sign that I can't accept alternate point of view. Absolutely. Fight the power, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×