Unredacted Suit Shows Google's Own Engineers Confused By Privacy Settings (arstechnica.com) 51
schwit1 writes: Newly unsealed and partially unredacted documents from a consumer fraud suit the state of Arizona filed against Google show that company employees knew and discussed among themselves that the company's location privacy settings were confusing and potentially misleading. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich's office launched its own investigation following the AP report, and in May 2020 the state sued Google, alleging that the company violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
The new version of the suit includes a number of employee emails and chat logs where Google employees agreed with the AP story, and these employees highlighted their own frustrations with the settings. Among the highlights: "The current UI feels like it is designed to make things possible, yet difficult enough that people won't figure it out."
"Some people (including even Googlers) don't know that there is a global switch and a per-device switch."
"Indeed we aren't very good at explaining this to users. Add me to the list of Googlers who didn't understand how this worked and was surprised when I read the article ... we shipped a UI that confuses users."
"I agree with the article. Location off should mean location off, not except for this case or that case."
"Speaking as a user, WTF?" another employee said, in additional documentation obtained by the Arizona Mirror. "More specifically I **thought** I had location tracking turned off on my phone. So our messaging around this is enough to confuse a privacy focused (Google software engineer). That's not good."
The new version of the suit includes a number of employee emails and chat logs where Google employees agreed with the AP story, and these employees highlighted their own frustrations with the settings. Among the highlights: "The current UI feels like it is designed to make things possible, yet difficult enough that people won't figure it out."
"Some people (including even Googlers) don't know that there is a global switch and a per-device switch."
"Indeed we aren't very good at explaining this to users. Add me to the list of Googlers who didn't understand how this worked and was surprised when I read the article ... we shipped a UI that confuses users."
"I agree with the article. Location off should mean location off, not except for this case or that case."
"Speaking as a user, WTF?" another employee said, in additional documentation obtained by the Arizona Mirror. "More specifically I **thought** I had location tracking turned off on my phone. So our messaging around this is enough to confuse a privacy focused (Google software engineer). That's not good."
Re: (Score:2)
Did they use google docs?
Is there any Privacy Policy (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it is legal verbiage that is difficult for the layman to understand.
We believe this better clarifies what you were saying. Thank you.
Biggest Android Privacy Problem: Microphone (Score:2)
In order to prevent Google from listening in on you, you have to take Microphone permission away from the Google app. But that also breaks the microphone "button" so you can't use voice search even when you want to.
This is obviously done deliberately.
This is sleazy AF.
I would like Google to fix this, but they don't want to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to prevent Google from listening in on you, don't buy Google-controlled devices.
FTFY.
Re: Biggest Android Privacy Problem: Microphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually can't anyone compile the Android source? What's stopping you then besides shit posting all day?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually can't anyone compile the Android source?
Anyone with a godly PC, sure. The memory and disk requirements alone put it out of reach of most people.
Re: Biggest Android Privacy Problem: Microphone (Score:2)
Bullshit, I run self-compiled (and often patched) only, and AOSP wasn't anything that big.
The times of long compiles are over. Even beasts like LibreOffice only take a few minutes on an average machine nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I tried to build Android on my 16GB, multi-TB-disk potato, I ran out of resources long before it was finished.
Maybe they've done a lot of work to streamline the build, I hope so. But last time I tried, I couldn't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck me for using Linux, right?
Sounds like you're abusing moderation so you're commenting as an AC.
Re: Biggest Android Privacy Problem: Microphone (Score:2)
And how's that gonna help, you dumb fuck?
Did you even think about that for ten seconds?
I don't even need to add arguments. My old comment already contains all the arguments against your clueless comment.
Who gives you circle-jerk of retards mod points?
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, I was running macOS as I wrote this.
There's isn't hundreds of options for computers and smartphones. Pick one and live with it.
Re: Biggest Android Privacy Problem: Microphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people might reasonably prefer a relatively crude but secure phone with only basic features even if it cost as much as a high end flagship. Not many, it is true, but just because that's not a choice you would make doesn't make that choice ridiculous or contemptible.
The economics is that if you want advanced or refined features, that a lot of fixed costs up front that have to be amortized across the user base. As long as not many people care about privacy, then privacy-conscious users are going to have to put up with high prices and crude features.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a lack of "White Box" mobile device options, where you can build your own with your own specs and OS. Or buy it from a general phone assembler (like the old computer stores of the 1980's and 1990's. We are stuck currently with Big Name brand phones with Big Name Brand OS's who are all out to maximize profit first and sell devices as just a way to show the shareholders that they do something.
They have used their size and general control of the market to make it difficult to get into that market. Say
Full list of settings (Score:1)
If Location Off doesn't turn it off everywhere, where else do I look? What is the full list of settings that controls location?
Re: Full list of settings (Score:2)
The core problem there is legislation still not having caught on to lock-in being a version of the same crime as monopolism. Because we're slacking off when we should be lobbying harder than the criminals, to make it a capital crime.
That is what makes locked boot-loaders legal in the first place. And everything else follows from there.
Re:Full list of settings (Score:5, Informative)
Go to your Google Account on the web and there is "manage your data and personalization". Click on that and then "location history". In there is the global location history toggle.
There is also a little drop down labelled "devices on this account". If you expand that you can disable location history on a per-device basis, assuming the global toggle is turned on.
That seems to be the big that was confusing people. It's well hidden on the web and if you disable location history on the device it only disables it for that one device and not globally for your account.
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably turn wifi off too.
No credible privacy option for mobile devices (Score:4, Interesting)
Either you're in the Apple ecosystem where they spy and market your data or you're in the Google ecosystem where they spy and market your data. No other platform has a meaningful market share.
Is it just not possible to charge customers a fair price for a mobile platform or is greed just such an overpowering motivator that the temptation to dip into that extra revenue source too great to be resisted?
Best,
Google abandoned "Do no evil". (Score:2)
It seems to me that Google (Alphabet is not a good name.) is not nearly as well-managed now that Sundar Pichai is the Chief Executive Officer & Director.
In my opinion, Google was better when Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt were more in charge. Those were the days of "Do no evil."
Now: Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct [gizmodo.com].
Google's Chrome browser installs system services. (Score:2)
Open Source Mobile OS Alternatives To Android (Score:2)
Google's abuse will eventually cause Google to make less money. Severe damage to the company's reputation will eventually result in severe damage to profits.
None are working: 7 Open Source Mobile OS Alternatives To Android in 2020 [itsfoss.com]
For example: PostmarketOS [postmarketos.org]. Quote: "The idea is to enable a 10-year life cycle for sm
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there's always LineageOS (what's left of the cyanogenmod project) too. That might be an option for supported devices (such as my recently orphaned Essential PH-1 phone).
https://lineageos.org/ [lineageos.org]
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, Google was better when Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt were more in charge. Those were the days of "Do no evil.".
I'd say that, given how Google has/is behaving in general, if Eric Schmidt was "adult supervision" while Google was "growing up", he was a pretty shitty "parent".
Re: (Score:2)
Those were the days of "Do no evil." Now: Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct [gizmodo.com].
It's worth noting that the Gizmodo headline is a lie, as explained by the last paragraph of the article. Google did not remove the "Don't Be Evil" exhortation from the Code of Conduct, only moved it.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple actually sell your data? Third party apps might but what about the OS itself?
Re: (Score:3)
They used to make a ton of noise about how they were the privacy focused company and would never sell user data to third parties. I haven't heard that mantra repeated near as often in the past year or so, which leads me to suspect their policy may have slipped in the face of someone tossing money at them. Though at this point, there's no concrete evidence it's happened.
Re: No credible privacy option for mobile devices (Score:2)
Well, how do you think they get a market share in the first place, without you not blindly following the herd?
There will NEVER be privacy with Google. (Score:3)
It is mutually exclusive with their business model. So say you want privacy from Google is to say you want Google to die in anything but their name.
That is a noble wish, but it's not going to happen out of their own free will.
All we will get, is juuust enough lip service, lying and spinning, that they can muzzle criticism with "But we did enough!", and politicians can claim that too.
For anything beyond that... move your own ass and stop using Google. It's not even hard.
Re: (Score:2)
It is mutually exclusive with their business model.
Not really. Before ultra-specific ad targeting based on individual usage patterns existed, businesses used the broader, less specific, but still specific enough targeting of ads at content.
For example, a FPS game that shows ads has can be pretty sure their players are mostly young male in a certain purchase power range, so any business wanting to target that demographic could buy ad space on that game and have its brand or product well publicized, without the need for any additional knowledge about user Joh
Whoosh! (Score:3)
This isn't about knowing anything per se: it's about being able to figure out how the UI works. If a bunch of software engineers can't manage that, how is the general public supposed to be able to do it?
Re: (Score:1)
Users often know how the software works better than the engineers do, because the engineers just write the features, they don't actively use it day to day.
Even if it's your own codebase, the engineer may not really know how it works in the UI. They may have to spend hours re-creating use cases, and even find unexpected issues. It's very common, and why there are roles (QA, QC, QE, UX) just to deal with the customer interface.
So really it's not surprising at all that engineers would be confused. But it would
Re: (Score:2)
You're still missing the point. This isn't a line-of-business application for a specific type of user. The target audience is the general public, so all of the engineers are part of the target user group, and more specifically can be expected to be among the more technically literate and more intelligent segments of the target user group.
Are we asking the right questions (Score:2)
I don't know the details of every switch on some of the complex software products my company produces either; that does mean they are overly complex. The are specialized tools for specialized work by people who make it there business to know those details and look them up and validate them when they don't or are unsure.
If a Google engineer can or can't recall every detail by rote; its is Android an appropriate solution for a handset platform targeted at general consumers. I think the answer to that might b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google SOP (Score:2)
"we shipped a UI that confuses users"
What, like Android, Chrome, Gmail...?
The only thing Google is consistent about is confusing users. But I'm not sure if they are following Apple (iOS) or the other way around.
Nothing-burger metric (Score:3)
For example, oil pipeline maintenance. I know how to code my piece, but if you put me in front of the UI, I wouldn't have a clue because I am not qualified to monitor oil pipelines. I am a specialist and I only know enough how to work on my features and test them. By design, my company doesn't want me touching other pieces, for privacy sake. Sure, it's a little different if you're doing something consumer-facing, but I imagine the average Googler has too much on their plate to spend much time learning how to use their privacy settings if they're working on an unrelated feature.
This information tells us nothing. For a company their size, they could make the world's most intuitive and well-documented feature and I am sure someone in the company would get confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure you are making a valid comparison. The location privacy settings are not a mission-specific tool for an individual or sub-group of employees, they are tools designed for the general public to use. By definition, they should be usable by the average uniformed outsider who has functional literacy.
The fact so many Google employees cannot make a tool set intended for consumers work means either Google has way too many incompetent or functionally illiterate employees (both so highly unlikely as to be st
New question on Google interview (Score:1)