I have a Fitbit and I love this acquisition. I want to be able to put my fitness data in the rest of the Google ecosystem. The more data Google has on me, the more use I get out of Google's tools.
I really don't care that it has tons of data on me, Google has been super responsible of my data and its uses. The risk/reward is 100% worth.
It reads like sarcasm but it's more a sign that our views do not leak out of our echo chamber.
I have a friend who works for the government and laments at how much red tape there is to acquire or link any dataset and wishes for more data acquisition.
To be fair, her use cases were sincerely benign - being able to target people who qualify for more welfare/govt assistance, and being able to make the govt website more helpful/discoverable for support.
Though she definitely subscribes to her data being used for helpful purposes from bigtech
But that’s the thing. I work for a bank. If I had unlimited access to all transaction data without needing to request elevated access and jumping some more hoops, it would greatly speed up my daily work.
But...it would also greatly increase the damage any hacker could do.
Same applies to Google. It’s super convenient to have everything “on Google”. Until the day Google is exposed/hacked/turns evil. Then it’s a disaster.
Hoping the above won’t happen is not a strategy but a gamble.
I'm not really trying to come out against Netflix here, but I personally think their desire to compete with every other way one could spend their time doesn't have human's best interests at heart. I recognize the agency (most) everyone has to spend their time as they will, but I don't like how I feel mentally if all my free time gets sucked into consuming content. YMMV
In my experience Netflix only checks if you're alive for certain content, not all. I believe it has to do with the licensing model, if they're paying someone for the right to stream that episode they want to check you haven't fallen asleep. So I'm pretty sure it's a money-saving technique, not concern for your wellbeing.
I didn't say that. The GP specifically asked about Apple and Netflix phrased in such a way that Google was already assumed to be 'evil'. I was just giving my 2 cents about how even benign seeming services have their own considerations.
That's actually not true, at least in playlists. I regularly get the "Are you still watching" or whatever it is for YouTube when I put on music playlists.
> Hoping the above won’t happen is not a strategy but a gamble.
Life's a gamble. Crossing the road on your way to work is gamble. Heck it's a gamble that you won't be taken out in the next 12 months by an insidious disease.
The bet I have placed personally is that Google is better at looking after my personal data that I am - so for example I use gmail instead of my own email server.
The difference is you can stop crossing the road and the risk is gone. You can‘t „unexpose“ your data to any company as they most probably will fail to delete your data (or then start to collect again).
I think you'll find a lot of smart tech people do, but don't post on HN because it disagrees with the prevalent view so you just get downvoted, or called an astroturfer.
At first I thought this would be a paid positive troll, but then the post went so far into absurd fandom I figured you couldn't make this up if you tried.
I'm replying in agreement that this is also my opinion. Google could do bad things with my data in the future, but, to date, there is no company I trust more. Contrary to a very vocal crowd on HN, rankings of most loved brands show that many people like Google https://morningconsult.com/most-loved-brands-2020/
I would argue there is a correlation between liking and trusting. Not just data specifically, but overall trust. I'd think data would fall under the umbrella.
The assurance that it's not going to be used for Ads is the only thing that makes this acceptable. Instead of it being on some random fitbit server on someone's Cloud, it'll be held securely on Google servers.
> Google will not use for Google Ads the health and wellness data collected from wrist-worn wearable devices and other Fitbit devices of users in the EEA, including search advertising, display advertising, and advertising intermediation products. This refers also to data collected via sensors (including GPS) as well as manually inserted data.
So this only covers European Economic Area, and it only covers Google Ads.
Really though, how long do we expect that arrangement to last? The Facebook WhatsApp thing makes it pretty clear to me that they can afford to walk back on that arrangement as soon as they feel they can afford to take the PR hit. For something with as small of a market share as Fitbit, I suspect that won't take very long at all.
Google/Fitbit has a legally-binding commitment for ten years.
However, there are probably ways they can leap around that. For instance, new devices and a new platform, using the Fitbit talent and technology, but marketed as a new thing, could probably be used for advertising. Then they just need to get everyone over to their new health platform.
I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession.
> I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession.
I agree, but if they were in the business of extracting significant pro-consumer concessions, I can see some weird incentives building up: imagine a dystopian future in several decades where the only semi-pro-consumer companies are the goliaths that have decades’ worth of accumulated concessions, and consumer startups nearly-universally act in their own financial interest, making them unusable for people who care about their data/privacy/ads/etc., and regulators who are unwilling to burden startups with regulations that restrict them from competing with AmaGoogleFlix.
> I want to be able to put my fitness data in the rest of the Google ecosystem. The more data Google has on me, the more use I get out of Google's tools.
It's good to be able to integrate that information. It's bad to be forced to let Google integrate that information. I dislike it because Google isn't known for letting users choose.
I have an Android phone and use multiple fitness apps/services. Google Fit would be the natural place for me to aggregate all that, so I'm sold on the utility of that. Sadly I think it's at risk of being Google abandonware. I don't recall them ever having added functionality, but I recall at least one time functionality disappeared (they removed the website where you could view your data). The app seemed to keep getting simplified over time.
Google can now cross reference your historic heart rate against your ad exposure. I'm pretty sure they will responsibly use that info to tune them out for your enjoyment.
They also know what you searched, watched or visited before and after having sex.
There's a lot of info they can pull out of that little device.
that's some next level abusive relationship whitewashing.
"google/apple data control monopolies are killing products i like. But that is fine because that makes those products cheap for google/apple and i love them."
The above user is only talking about their personal desires and opinions about Google. They don't speak on behalf of anyone else and don't pass judgement if G is 'good' or 'bad' for society as a whole.
You are claiming that their thoughts are only the result of abusive conditioning.
IMO, that's an extremely arrogant position - "oh, if you disagree with me, it must be because you are not smart enough to actually think for yourself"
Lol, I totally agree. I actually believe that they care a lot about protecting my data -- more than any other data caretaker. Probably because if they abuse our data it would be financially costly. But that's the beautiful thing about capitalism...
Apple has entered the chat. I am sure you’ve heard the argument before: Google is an advertising company. Using your data to sell you products is why they have your data. The more they can get, the higher their profits.
Apple is a hardware company. They don’t want your data and store it begrudgingly because to them it’s nothing but liability. Whenever they can, they will encrypt your data in a way they can’t access in order to not be liable. Their devices are the product, not you.
Based on the above, which company would you trust more?
Apple makes 2 billion a year on advertising projected to go up to 11 billion in 5 years. While a fraction of total rev, I don’t think it’s correct to round off 2 billion and say they are somehow not an advertising company as well. (You don’t have to be just 1 type of company)
That’s exactly my point. Put DDG into your original post. It refutes your own argument which was based solely on how google is an ads company and Apple is a hardware company.
Except Google has a proven track record of collecting way more data than is reasonable for it and sharing it with partners. DDG was created partially in response to Google’s flagrant disregard for privacy. Apple on the other hand was the one phone manufacturer who straight up told the FBI that it’s latest phones cannot be unlocked by them because of the full device encryption they used.
Based on what you wrote I would say Google, because they have so much more to lose. That data is really really valuable to them, whereas to Apple it isn't really.
The point is that it’s not their data and they shouldn’t have it in the first place. It’s your data. I mean do what you want, but I believe your logic here is based on fundamentally incorrect initial assumptions.
The point isn’t which protects your data better from outside breaches (though I would argue Apple does a better job of protecting its phones), but how they use your data and who they can expose it to. Apple provides storage. Google sifts through your data to help them direct you towards products from which they can get kickbacks. It’s not some external entity that you have to worry about. It’s the company to whom you send all your data. And this isn’t conjecture. The only reason Google collects all that data is so they can advertise to you better. The only question is whether you trust that they’ll keep that data usage on the right side of your personal ethical line in the sand. I don’t think Google would sell your dick pics to a third party to make a quick buck. But I also wouldn’t put it past them to use them to figure out what kind of porn you like and help sex toy manufacturers to target you in their ads.
It could be that I've blocked ads in my network or my extreme hate for ads lead to have unpopular opinion about it.
Every company uses my data for analytic purposes.
Ads that I do see in google play are almost same as I see in apple store. Both take my data and try to serve me the best. In fact, I don't think it's necessary evil but what bothers me is pretending that one company save my data better or make me believe they don't analyse my data.
Everybody does it, who says it does not analyse your data, he is lying.
You know apple has news-advertising and searchads that is based on iAds[1] ? Trust me, they need your data to work properly!
If Apple decided to downsize and focus on their core competency, which part of the company do you think they would deem essential to their business? I am sure they make decent money on all their stuff but Apple has also taken a public stance on privacy and their devices aren’t seemingly backdoored as seen in the LEAs trying to get help unlocking them and being told by Apple that they can’t help.
Look it all comes down to trust and I see way fewer reasons to trust Google than Apple. Both deserve a baseline measure of mistrust, but Google has all the incentive to spy on you while Apple has little to none. And when it comes to investigations of “why do you have this data in the first place?” Google’s answer is “we need it to advertise” while Apple’s can only be “we need it for this specific service” and if they fail to show why, they are liable. Google and Facebook have a virtually identical business model: collect, aggregate, advertise. If you don’t trust Facebook, why would you trust Google?
> dropped plans to let iPhone users fully encrypt backups of their devices in the company's iCloud service after the FBI complained that the move would harm investigations
If you are referring to FBI-Apple dispute, if apple is complying with Chinese government, it will comply with USA government. That is how things are.
I'm not defending google, far away from it. They are not much better but they protect user data exactly because apple make fun of them. They now do extreme measures just to protect the privacy so they will not destroy their reputation even more.
No company with surveillance capitalism as their business model should be allowed access to health data from an acquired company without the user explicitly opting in.
However, I sincerely doubt Fitbit would have been worth anywhere near as much under those conditions.
I really don't care that it has tons of data on me, Google has been super responsible of my data and its uses. The risk/reward is 100% worth.