Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Monday July 25 2022, @07:18AM   Printer-friendly

We the users want Google to delete our intimate data. Our rights depend on it.:

This is a moment I've long worried would arrive. The way tens of millions of Americans use everyday Google products has suddenly become dangerous. Following the Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, anything Google knows about you could be acquired by police in states where abortion is now illegal. A search for "Plan B," a ping to Google Maps at an abortion clinic or even a message you send about taking a pregnancy test could all become criminal evidence.

There is something Google could do about this: Stop collecting — and start deleting — data that could be used to prosecute abortions. Yet so far, Google and other Big Tech companies have committed to few product changes that might endanger their ability to profit off our personal lives. Nor have they publicly committed to how they might fight legal demands related to prosecuting abortions.

[...] Most of us understand on some level that Google and other tech companies invade our privacy. But Silicon Valley has made us think the stakes are quite low. Google provides useful products, and in exchange we might be targeted with annoying ads. Big whoop.

Until now. The danger of all that data feels different after the end of Roe, said Shoshana Zuboff, an emerita Harvard Business School professor who popularized the term "surveillance capitalism" to describe Google's business. "Every device becomes our potential enemy," she told me.

Zuboff, whose writings are like the "Silent Spring" of the digital age, is very concerned about where our surveillance society goes from here. "The harsh reality is that while we're now worried about women who seek abortions being targeted, the same apparatus could be used to target any group or any subset of our population — or our entire population — at any moment, for any reason that it chooses," she said. "No one is safe from this."

Of course, Google isn't alone in collecting intimate information. In the past week, many concerned patients have focused on the privacy practices of period-tracking apps, which store reproductive health data. Other Big Tech companies facilitate data grabs, too: Facebook watches you even when you're not using it, Amazon's products record you, and Apple makes it too easy for iPhone apps to track you.

[...] The sheer volume of Google's surveillance also makes it likely the most attractive police target. Across all topics, it received more than 40,000 subpoenas and search warrants in the United States in the first half of 2021 alone.

That means whatever Google does next, it can't remain neutral — and will set the tone for how the entire industry balances our rights with the business imperative to grab more data.

The author continues on with four things that Google can do and how it would help: delete search queries and web-browsing history, stop saving individual location information, make Chrome's 'Incognito mode' actually incognito, and better protect texts and messages. And of course, this isn't an issue only for Google.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Rampant Data Broker Sale of Pregnancy Data Gets Fresh Scrutiny Post Roe 41 comments

Rampant Data Broker Sale Of Pregnancy Data Gets Fresh Scrutiny Post Roe:

For decades now, privacy advocates warned we were creating a dystopia through our rampant over-collection and monetization of consumer data. And just as often, those concerns were greeted with calls of "consumers don't actually care about privacy" from overly confident white guys in tech.

Nothing has exposed those flippant responses as ignorant quite like the post-Roe privacy landscape, in which basic female health data can now be weaponized to ruin the lives of those seeking abortions, or those trying to help women obtain foundational health care. Either by states looking to prosecute them, or individual right wing hardliners who often have easy, cheap access to the exact same information.

The latest case in point: Gizmodo did a deep dive into the largely unaccountable data broker space and discovered there are currently 32 different data brokers selling pregnancy status data on 2.9 billion consumer profiles.

Via browsing, app, promotion, and location data, those consumers are quickly deemed "actively pregnant" or "shopping for maternity products." Another 478 million customer profiles are actively labeled "interested in pregnancy" or "intending to become pregnant." As is usually the case, companies (the ones that could be identified) claimed it was no big deal because the data is "anonymized":

Related: Okay, Google: To Protect Women, Collect Less Data About Everyone


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday July 25 2022, @08:51AM (7 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 25 2022, @08:51AM (#1262745)

    In the battle of virtue signaling vs. profit, who will win?

    Ok, we all know how it's gonna end, but I want to see the mental gymnastics olympics when they try to explain why continuing to violate our privacy is zero problem.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @09:51AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @09:51AM (#1262748)

      explain why continuing to violate our privacy is zero problem.

      But they do NOT have a problem in violating your privacy - they already solved all the technical and business problems which impeded their ability to do so.

      The problem is yours and you have at least two ways towards solving it:
      - stop giving away your privacy by agreeing to their contracts of adhesion. This is a thing you can do
      - make it their problem by increasing the cost of pursuing their business of violating your privacy. This is a thing that the people you elect could do (eg GDPR), if only they'd value your vote more than the money the lobbies pour on them.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday July 25 2022, @10:18AM (3 children)

        by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 25 2022, @10:18AM (#1262752)

        They solved the technical and business problems, but this is neither. This is a PR problem.

        They wanted to give themselves a progressive image. And that requires them to support women's rights. So what are they going to do, drop the progressive charade or forgot profit?

        Ok, wrong question. The actual question is, how will they justify dropping the progressive charade.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 25 2022, @10:48AM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @10:48AM (#1262756) Journal

          They solved the technical and business problems, but this is neither. This is a PR problem.

          Which will be solved by PR countermeasures - you are not the customer, you are the merchandise.

          They wanted to give themselves a progressive image. And that requires them to support women's rights. So what are they going to do, drop the progressive charade or forgot profit

          They dropped the charade quite [gizmodo.com] a good [theguardian.com] while [eff.org] ago [forbes.com] - in regards with privacy, they started to drop it since 2012 [wikipedia.org].
          Either you slept for the last 10 years, you are naive or you have an agenda.

          PS: as for your use of the "progressive" term, what meaning you intend for it in the context?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 25 2022, @06:39PM (1 child)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 25 2022, @06:39PM (#1262859)

            Google still wants a nice, progressive image. First, of course, to attract the matching workforce. Then because the majority of their customers also wants to present that image. And of course the portion of their product that actually gives a fuck about that also would like to see that. So yes, there is a good incentive for Google to appear progressive.

            "Progressive", in this context, is pretty much what most of Europe (with the exception of Poland and Hungary) would consider normal. You know, that people should be treated the same no matter of race, gender, sexual orientation and so on, and that laws should be rooted in reality instead of the sensibilities of an imaginary OCD patient.

            That this is "progressive" instead of "normal" in the US also says a lot...

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 25 2022, @11:53PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @11:53PM (#1262925) Journal

              First, of course, to attract the matching workforce.

              Good point. There's a continuous tension there, going all the way back to the moment Google started to drop the "don't be evil" facade.
              Even before that period, Google wasn't as a saint as it tried to pose, the employee anti-poaching collusion [wikipedia.org] goes back to 2005.

              Then because the majority of their customers also wants to present that image.

              I doubt tho the advertising scums (who make the bulk of the customers) care much about it.

              "Progressive", in this context, is pretty much what most of Europe (with the exception of Poland and Hungary) would consider normal.

              Thanks, clear now.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday July 26 2022, @09:19AM (1 child)

      by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday July 26 2022, @09:19AM (#1262959)

      goes something like this: searching for specific methods to kill an adult and get away with it, with the clear intention of actually doing it, will get you visited by the feds.

      why would doing the same for an infant be any different?

      not a lot of gymnastics, sorry the show wasn't what you expected.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:18PM (#1263093)

        Define "infant."

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Monday July 25 2022, @09:19AM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Monday July 25 2022, @09:19AM (#1262746)

    If they delete all data and stop tracking you if you even search for anything abortion related or go even close to their buildings those places will get a lot more popular. Not necessarily for said services they provide but after all those are now then safe-spaces from big brother Google and friends and their ever watchful gaze. Just toss in some random searches for anything related to while you are at it to either poison the search history hide what you are actually searching for.

    So I don't really see any of this happening as it would totally break Googles (and friends) entire business plan of collecting everything all the time and then monetize said data. So when Google say delete all I somehow never believe them, same as with all tech companies. There is no deleting. There is only making things unavailable for the standard user. Cause deleting data would be like actually burning money.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 25 2022, @10:16PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday July 25 2022, @10:16PM (#1262914) Homepage
      At least in Texas, if their search engine helped you find an abortion, can't they be sued under that stupid law that passed some time in the last year: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-republican-abortion-civil-lawsuits/ . So if they're sane, they're never going to leak information that connects them to your abortion.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2022, @10:07AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @10:07AM (#1262751) Journal

    A lot of people have been saying that for a long time. Google is not 'entitled' to ANY OF YOUR DATA. If Google is collecting and selling abortion data in the US, then Google is also collecting and selling activist's data across the world. How many people have been killed, because Google and other big tech companies have betrayed them to one government or another? It's impossible to know, impossible to even guess.

    Everyone here knows that I have little sympathy for women seeking abortions in most cases. But Google should not have that information!!

    The whole concept of 'targeted advertising' is just fucking WRONG! The idea that either business or government should have that data is just fucking WRONG!

    Revisit 1984. Recall everything that was wrong with the dystopia. And, it's going to happen if people don't take a stand against it. That stand needs to happen sooner, not later, before it becomes illegal to badmouth either government or the corporations.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Monday July 25 2022, @10:53AM (1 child)

      by driverless (4770) on Monday July 25 2022, @10:53AM (#1262757)

      The thing is, Google doesn't have to collect abortion data, it can tell whether someone is pregnant from metadata, in the same way that Target knew a teenage girl was pregnant before her family did [forbes.com]. So Google can determine whether a baby machine should be producing a baby in nine months time, and this can be coordinated with medical records to confirm that it did indeed produce a baby. If a baby is not produced, the Gileadan council can have the baby machine prosecuted for infanticide. It's Decree 770 [borgenproject.org] but updated to work through modern IT.

      • (Score: 1) by aafcac on Monday July 25 2022, @03:32PM

        by aafcac (17646) on Monday July 25 2022, @03:32PM (#1262798)

        Yes, but they don't have to collect much data to function. The reason they do it, and likely won't stop, is that it allows them to sell it to the government as a way of avoiding those pesky constitutional issues surrounding warrants.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @10:54AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @10:54AM (#1262758)

      If Google is collecting and selling abortion data in the US

      It does.

      hen Google is also collecting and selling activist's data across the world.

      It does too, among many others. What, does anyone think the activists are some kind of precious snowflakes that need protected? They surely aren't contributing to Google's bottom line more than other merchandise.

      How many people have been killed, because Google and other big tech companies have betrayed them to one government or another?

      Oy! Now, this is private data Google has no compulsion to share it with you.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2022, @01:21PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @01:21PM (#1262778) Journal

        What, does anyone think the activists are some kind of precious snowflakes that need protected?

        Unless you're being sarcastic, you're kinda missing the point. All of us should be "protected" from Google's prying eyes. Only a few decades ago, anyone possessing, sharing, or selling such data would have been looked down on as peeping toms, eavesdroppers, gossips, spies, and worse.

        If the Stasi is after you, that's one thing. If Google is collecting information for the Stasi, that is quite another thing. The world, collectively, and nations individually, need to put an end to it.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 26 2022, @01:19AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 26 2022, @01:19AM (#1262930) Journal

          All of us should be "protected" from Google's prying eyes.

          It's the business model, implementing that protection means driving Google extinct. Or (don't hate the player, hate the game) whoever would replace Google.
          Not gonna happen soon - too much money get the politicians drooling over it.

          Keep this in mind: even today, when US pushes for "internet freedom" into other countries, it really means "freedom to do anything business on the internet, the freedom of the people be damn'd".
          And it's not only the US govt. Do you remember the reaction of US populace to "the right to be forgotten, about 5-6y ago"? Very much on the line of "fuck you, scum, I need to know for eternity what you've been doing; even if it's slander, I'll be the judge of that".

          If the Stasi is after you, that's one thing. If Google is collecting information for the Stasi, that is quite another thing. The world, collectively, and nations individually, need to put an end to it.

          A couple of word for you: surveillance capitalism [wikipedia.org]- that's heck fewer words than your descriptive example and it means the same thing by consequences (yes, the corporation is free to sell or provide your data to any entity, govts included).

          Then realize that US is actually lagging when it comes to acting against it. It is like they are reluctant to do something; oh, wait, actually they are against doing something, it would mean less money, quarter of a $trillion from Google alone last year [statista.com]. That's around $800 for every usian head (only from Google) - so, fuck you, Runaway1956 along with all your conationals, you ain't gonna get out of this panopticon any time soon. If you want it, migrate to Europe, not perfect but it is much better

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday July 26 2022, @04:28AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 26 2022, @04:28AM (#1262944) Journal

            If you don't believe me, here [soylentnews.org]'s something to ruminate on.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 25 2022, @10:23AM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @10:23AM (#1262753) Journal

    Browsing headlines this morning, and found this:

    Summit Learning, a digital learning platform funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, recommended that schools monitor some parents' online activity, such as their critical comments and Facebook groups that are public.

    Summit recommended that schools should "Listen to online conversations" from parents and provided instructions on how to do so. Fox News Digital uncovered Summit Learning's recommendations in the internal portal that is not available to the public but to educators who use the platform.

    The digital platform is used by hundreds of schools around the U.S. and was developed, in part, by Facebook engineers who continued to work with the platform until Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's organization entered into the partnership in 2017.

    Schools attempting to implement Summit have met pushback from parents concerned about students' data security, among other aspects of the program. For example, after Cheshire Public Schools in Connecticut entered into Summit in 2017, parents' "opposition" caused the program to be terminated, according to Summit. The Cheshire superintendent acknowledged that the platform would have access to students' names, emails and analytics on their performance.

    Furthermore, research from The National Education Policy Center, which is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, alleged that Summit's contracts with schools "presents a potentially significant risk to student privacy and opens the door to the exploitation of those data by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and possibly by unknown third parties—for purposes that have nothing to do with improving the quality of those students’ educations."

    Summit Learning disputed the researchers' allegations, calling them "incorrect."

    "Protecting student privacy is a top priority and something we take very seriously," Fox News Digital was told. Summit's privacy policy states that they "don’t sell or use personal information to make money" and that they "don’t use student personal information for anything other than educational purposes."

    Why is Google claiming to protect student's privacy? Because Google first invaded everyone's privacy.

    Again, Google is not entitled to any of that data! Get Google out of education, and out of your life.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @11:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 25 2022, @11:26AM (#1262761)

      Again, Google is not entitled to any of that data! Get Google out of education, and out of your life.

      Show me your tax money, paisano, and you may get your wish in the form of a govt-run "Google for students"?
      What?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bart9h on Monday July 25 2022, @02:19PM (2 children)

    by bart9h (767) on Monday July 25 2022, @02:19PM (#1262789)

    How about you people start giving away less data?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday July 25 2022, @03:56PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Monday July 25 2022, @03:56PM (#1262814) Journal

      This is very hard in today's world, where an employer requires you to use Microsoft's Authenticator app and doesn't even pay for your phone service. A right to privacy seems to have been thrown out when "with a computer" became a thing. There needs to be more common person protections with regards to gathering of data.

      Your idea could have worked, if it was pushed hard, just 10 or 20 years ago. To comply with your idea. Now, you have to be a hermit living in the woods, with no internet, phone, or the like. With the nearest grocery store some hour's drive away or so.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday July 25 2022, @03:59PM

        by Freeman (732) on Monday July 25 2022, @03:59PM (#1262817) Journal

        May have to also put, grows own food and gets own water in there as well. What with the push for electronic currencies. You will soon, not be able to purchase something, without a debit/credit/crypto card.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Monday July 25 2022, @07:53PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 25 2022, @07:53PM (#1262880) Journal

    Don't need privacy, done nothing wrong, got nothing to hide. Why would anyone object to living their life online? Then an oppressive regime gets into power and has all that personal data available and all the surveillance infrastructure. Now you are one of the undesirables. You may have committed thoughtcrime. What do you do? What happens to you?

    1984 was a very frightening and precient novel. It didn't say how the surveillance infrastructure got there. Now we know people enthusiastically signed up to it of their own free will.

    Oh dear.

(1)