Everything warrants skepticism until proven otherwise. Especially things that are being given out for free. Google might be operating on the up and up, but Google is just a large collection of people and some of them will be ethically lacking. And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
> And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
I can only speak from personal experience. But I would not agree.
Collection of data needs to be covered in a privacy document. You must argue why you're collecting it. There has to be a retention plan, such that data is purged when the user account is deleted, and/or the data expires over time.
You can of course get exemptions, IF there is a valid business reason. But all of this needs to be reviewed and approved by privacy people.
If you want to get things done. The paperwork is a strong incentive to avoid keeping data you don't need.
Note. privacy reviews cover more than I mentioned here. This was just a highlight.
> The paperwork is a strong incentive to avoid keeping data you don't need.
The paperwork is a modest incentive to avoid keeping data Google doesn't need. The problem is that what people need is not necessarily the same as what Google's surveillance and manipulation profit machine needs.
I don't need Google to keep a hyper-detailed record of every site I visit, but Google's business model means that they "need" to do it. So they do.
>> And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
You see, Googlers are incentivized not to see the ethical catastrophe that is collecting the data they "need" to collect in order to implement and enhance Google's surveillance and manipulation profit machine.
Sure, if some data are irrelevant to the surveillance and manipulation profit machine, there is a modest incentive not to collect those data. The problem is that Google "needs" a great deal of highly personal, sensitive data whose aggregation poses societal risks that can hardly be overstated. But, since Google--and therefore, Googlers' salaries, bonuses, and RSU gains--"needs" those data, Googlers are incentivized to rationalize its collection, aggregation, and exploitation.
> “You can of course get exemptions, IF there is a valid business reasons.”
For an ad revenue driven business, that’s a pretty big exception.
Ad targeting / re-targeting benefits from a richer picture of the user’s personal life choices. Maybe only a couple percentage points, but every % of a billion adds up.
Your comment is 'dead' (at my time of posting) when you simply stated that you disagree and politely brought up some factual supporting points. I didn't expect such hivemind-like behavior from HN...
Internally, Google employees have quite a large incentive to NOT collect unnecessary data. It's a fundamental tenant. Don't collect any data unless it's for a specific tangible feature that benefits the user.
