Not OK, Google - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/05/not-ok-google/ <comment><USER3> Google Now has done the same for me, told me how long it will take to get to a bar I frequent. My reaction was quite exactly "Oh that's neat, thanks!" and I went and had a great burger that night.

Totally OK for me Google. I respect that people have different privacy thresholds, but I think the fact that it's different for everyone is being lost in articles like this.

<comment><USER4> One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the population who don't use Google much. The simplest example being, even if you don't use GMail, still some part of your emails inevitably end up in GMail inboxes. Now also consider this: just being a guest in a Google-stuffed house means you are under surveillance.

So no, it is not just my problem or your problem, it's everyone's.

<comment><USER3> Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times.

I think this example serves both our points. To your point, it's totally leaked this other person's info into my "google world" because I'm on gmail. On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just because of typos when he fills out online forms. Perfect privacy requires a lot of vigilance in a digital world, with or without google/gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a fairly uncommon name and predominately use Gmail. Still, I receive a surprising amount of other people's mail in error. Apparently lots of people guess at email addys. I do often wonder at both the lack of privacy this engenders and what the Goog machine must make of it all.

<comment><USER5> I definitely worry about my life being affected by situations like this.

I receive a ridiculous amount of other people's email - for serious things like email account reset, to banking info. When the Ashley Madison hack happened, my email address was there multiple times! Imagine if my then- partner had bothered to look, what a mess that would be.

<comment><USER6> Lay down a trail of public comments for plausible deniability. Smart!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I think is interesting is that many of us nerds have probably innocuously fantasized about having a Star Trek-like AI assistant with us, but now that they're taking the first steps towards that, we're starting to realize that in order for it to do everything for us, it has to know everything about us, too.

<comment><USER8> Nobody was thinking about "the cloud" back in those days. Back then, your data, you programs all lived and ran on your own computer in your home. Most people didn't go online, and if you did, it was mostly to read and download data to use locally on your own computer. Connections were intermittent and slow. The idea that your own data would be stored online was almost unimaginable; even using network-depending applications like usenet or email involved downloading everything first before using it. Online applications were hardly even dreamed of.

Our expectations of how "Star Trek AI" would actually be implemented were completely different than how highly connected cloud-based services like Google Assistant work today.

Anyway, the point being, if the assistant lived entirely in your own computer, it would entirely different. Most people are not concerned about what their "computer" knows about them, they're concerned about what companies and their employees do.

<comment><USER9> > Our expectations of how "Star Trek AI" would actually be implemented were > completely different than how highly connected cloud-based services like > Google Assistant work today.

The trope-namer (Star Trek AI) was a ship-wide AI - when considering the ship sizes, it definitely is closer to the "cloud" model and not limited to a private instances on officers' bunker/bridge terminals/tricorders. Perhaps a hardcore Trekkie could answer this question: is there any canon that defines the AIs scope? Is restricted to just one ship, or could it possible be a Federation-wide presence with a presence/instances on ships?

<comment><USER10> The AI for the Enterprise D was run from three computer cores on the ship (two in the saucer, one in the engineering section), made up of Isolinear Chips subjected to a small warp field (iow, it makes computes using light faster than the speed of light). Subspace communication bandwidth is too limited (and potentially affected by latency, since it had to travel through repeaters throughout the galaxy) to provide realtime cloud computing as we experience it.

There are some cannon exceptions to this (such as in Nemesis where the subspace communication interruption affected the star charts), but even then the functionality of the ship was not impacted.

The Star Trek ships are very analogous to our own ocean-bound ships, where satellite communication is possible almost anywhere, but they don't rely on it.

So, yes, the AI is completely confined to the ship.

<comment><USER11> What about when someone was (permanently) transferred between ships?

Was there ever an indication that their AI-level data was transferred along with their personnel file? For example did the replicator know what food to offer them on day one?

If so, then it's seems reasonable to assume that the Enterprise's AI data was backed up at Federation HQ during routine maintenance, and that the "IT department" at Federation knew exactly what you liked to do on the Holodeck.

<comment><USER10> > did the replicator know what food to offer them

Through specific indication from the user. Recall the constant utterance of "tea, earl grey, hot"?

Ultimately, I imagine the user's information (documents, etc) was passed directly between ships, or through (as you say) Federation HQ.

> Enterprise's AI data was backed up

Ultimately, I think this is where AI will differ from ML. An AI won't have data that isn't a part of the AI - i.e. you couldn't separate out information specific to Picard from the rest of the AI code. An AI might be able to "scribble" down some notes about interacting with Picard and pass them off to another ship's AI, but the second AI would never treat Picard quite the same way as the first, even with those notes.

This stems from my belief that how ML interprets data is different from how an AI would. If you were to copy all of the data used to build a ML model and apply it again, you'd end up with the same ML model. An AI, on the other hand, if built twice twice from the same data would end creating two separate AIs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, at the risk of making myself ridiculous and branded a Luddite:

I've totally passed on the 'mobile revolution', I do have a cell phone but I use it to make calls and to be reachable.

This already leaks more data about me and my activities than I'm strictly speaking comfortable with.

So far this has not hindered me much, I know how to use a map, have a 'regular' navigation device for my car, read my email when I'm behind my computer and in general get through life just fine without having access 24x7 to email and the web. Maybe I spend a few more seconds planning my evening or a trip but on the whole I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

To have the 'snitch in my pocket' blab to google (or any other provider) about my every move feels like it just isn't worth it to me. Oh and my 'crappy dumb phone' gets 5 days of battery life to boot. I'll definitely miss it when it finally dies, I should probably stock up on a couple for the long term.

<comment><USER13> I'm even more Luddite than you are. I don't have a phone at all (landline or otherwise). You wanna reach me, you email me. The people in my life that care about me have come to accept this. For other things, I read paper maps, plan appointments ahead of time[1], memorise routes, and look up stuff online from my laptop when I find a place to sit down and wifi.

Reading stories like this makes me want to carry a personal tracking device even less.

\---

[1] People tend to have fewer emergency reasons to cancel when they can't reach you 5 minutes before the appointment.

<comment><USER12> Can you mail 911 where you live? If not, for that reason alone I would carry a phone.

<comment><USER13> People always say that. What about the real emergencies? There's a lot of anxiety and dread that carrying a phone seems to alleviate.

I live in a big city. There's always a phone nearby, including landlines and payphones (they're still there precisely for emergency reasons). There are also passerbys who can help me. The risk of being all alone, having an urgent need to call 911, and be unable to do so is much too small to warrant carrying a phone around at all times.

<comment><USER14> What city do you live in where there are always payphones around?

All the cities I've been in have had virtually all their payphones torn out long ago.

<comment><USER13> Canada still has payphones.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- business/canadians-...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on- business/canadians-arent-ready-to-cut-cords-with-payphones-just- yet/article23221439/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I feel like an old fool fighting against its time, but to me all those new applicances are scary not because of privacy (have my data, I couldn't care less), but because of how they shape our world.

Most of the coolest memories I have were the product of something spontaneous, or mistakes, that become close to impossible with a computer and internet in your pocket 24/7.

Assessing what's around you, talking to strangers, actively looking for something without it instantly popping in suggestions after you've typed 4 characters, all those things have been a great source of circumstance-based, little everyday life adventures.

This is the difference between risking buying a random book, or browsing reviews and picking a 5 star one to download.

This is the difference between discovering a place you'd never thought existed while waiting for someone and poking your nose around, instead of standing there, frantically watching their dot on the map get closer to you.

This is the difference between the mesmerizing feeling of playing the first expansions of world of warcraft, versus the tiring experience of the super streamlined versions that followed. Yes, they are less frustrating, but they don't bring tear to your eyes when you thing about them, they just feel averagely satisfying.

A few minutes ago I got up to open the door for my cat, and in a few minutes she'll be back and I'll be interrupted again. I feel like those interruptions are precious. They keep you connected to reality. I could install an RFID cat door, hell I could make a voice activated one in a couple weekends, and I would not be annoyed anymore. I would also never have seen all the things I witness every time I get to that damn door.

<comment><USER16> If the twilight zone taught me anything, it's that humanity will always have a rebel. If you make life so safe and easy that free will is no longer necessary someone will demand free will.

<comment><USER15> We might get to the point where society is so safe and easy that insurance company start selling "Risks and Uncertainty" packages.

<comment><USER16> That reminds me of the TNG episode where two sides of a war long ago switched to simulating attacks. When there's a strike the casualties are required to report to termination "centers" to comply with the simulation.

<comment><USER17> That was Star Trek original series, Season 1 Episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon". Brilliant episode.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon)

<comment><USER16> Right, I TOTALLY said TOS. (Damn faulty memory!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For consumers this will be a choice between keeping their data private and having intelligent systems that perform better.

So far I haven't seen much, but based on my limited experience I believe customers are going to continue handing over their data to Google and Facebook in exchange for personalised services.

The truth is, the only times my smartphone has actually felt _smart_ is when Google has been mining my information from various services (mainly Gmail and Calendar) and presented it to me at correct time, enhanced with other information they have gathered from web.

I don't think there will be any major backslash from consumers. The old comparison about boiling frog applies here.

<comment><USER19> There 50 million domestic workers in the world: living, breathing, naturally intelligence, autonomous human beings that people welcome into their homes. Not surprising, given that during almost the entirety of our evolutionary experience everyone one knew knew everything about one. The notion that people would object to a company knowing some things about one in order to place slightly more relevant ads is silly. It just doesn't seem that way in a message board echochamber because their are rewards for self righteous indignation, and not for making the commonplace observation that people willingly make tradeoffs without being victims of "false consciousness".

<comment><USER20> Almost everybody screens their cleaners and babysitters in some way. Either they are connected through well known friends and family, or for the rich they get checked out for criminality/dangerousness by professional services.

Even then, we have 'nanny-cam'.

<comment><USER21> Which is why giving your credit card info to Google, Apple, or Amazon is more sensible than giving it to cheapelectronics.com.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have an open ended question-- mostly born out of ignorance; But why is this a bad thing? Isn't an artificial assistant that not only knows and understands us but anticipates our needs incredibly useful? In the process, sure they'll collect your info for better advertising, but short of Totalitarian Surveillance or Data Breach Concerns (The former is a bit of a reach if you live in the west, and they can survey you anyway if they really want to, the latter also seems somewhat unlikely)-- whats the issue here? Genuinely asking because I'm trying to understand.

<comment><USER10> > But why is this a bad thing?

Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not _that_ large.

Totalitarian Surveillance is here. In the west. Secure document releases aside, it's too easy to do to imagine a state actor _not_ doing it.

Data breaches of differing severities occur every day, at nearly every company. I would have thought Yahoo was big enough and smart enough to avoid it; but no. Not Yahoo, not Sony, not security contractors, not credit bureaus, not Apple (a'la celebrity photo leaks), not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).

<comment><USER23> >Do you trust every single person at Google, and every single person at every third party company Google shares your data with, now and in perpetuity, to never abuse the data collected on you? Personally, my circle of trust is not that large.

(Have worked at google in the past, may in the future, am not currently). You say this as though anyone at Google (or Microsoft or whatever) can go in and search for 'falcolas' and look through your GPS history.

I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had that power. I honestly think that the best thing Google could to is publicize their internal training and documents on personal information, because the regulations and such made me a lot more comfortable with giving Google the sort of amorphous entity my data, because no person is going to be looking at that data.

>, not Google (stories abound of individual GMail accounts being hacked).

One of these is not like the others, unless you're talking about something I'm not aware of. Hacking an individual GMail account requires guessing/taking someone's password, which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure (Unlike the yahoo, sony, apple, etc. examples), its an attack on a bad password.

<comment><USER10> > [...] which is not an attack on Google's infrastructure

This strikes me as a matter of semantics; does it really matter if I'm targeted whether they hacked my account or hacked Google?

> I'm honestly not sure if there is a single individual at the company who had > that power.

Think harder. Who has the root access to the servers holding the data? Could the existing infrastructure and data segregation ever change? How many external checks and balances are in play that can't be manipulated by internal forces (i.e. is there anything stopping Google, or holding Google accountable if their data protection policies change)?

<comment><USER24> I'm sorry but if you think that far ahead, then how do you do anything?

Do you go out in public? because if you do, some company could be recording you on CCTV, and the company that makes the CCTV equipment could sell the business to Google who could update it to use the CCTV footage in AI learning, which means that someone could eventually lookup your face and see you were at a smut store 6 years ago.

At some point you need to draw the line, there is no perfect privacy.

<comment><USER10> You are, of course, correct. Especially in this day and age, perfect privacy is nearly impossible.

That said, you can limit your exposure. Adding all of these Google implements creates a far greater surface to lose privacy through than not using all of these Google implements.

People routinely underestimate how much can be gleaned about your from correlating such "incidental" data. Thus I feel it's important to remind them of what it can cost them.

Is the benefit worth the cost? To some, yes. To me, no. And that's why I posted this, an explanation of why I don't find this level of information gathering and correlation by a private and profit driven company acceptable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Here's why I am afraid of Google. Google could have the best intentions, but its wife NSA that Google occasionally sleeps with doesn't. Everything you say to Google Home could possibly be recorded. Storage and Computing power for google is cheap. They can record everything you say in your home. Their algorithms can connect all sorts of information about you. If trump wants to create the next Muslim holocaust, Google and FB have the perfect information.

This is what Elon means when he says AI is like inviting the devil. We have this algorithm in our mushy brain. Its takes about 20 years to train and lives for about 80 years. Its communication bitrate is pretty low (mostly blabbering through mouth) and doesn't retain much information. Only patterns.

Now imagine this algorithm from the mushy brain is run on a silicon chip, with gigabit bitrate, retains almost everything indefinitely and can learn from entire history of humanity.

That algorithm would just need to deceive us until it was powerful enough to wipe us in one sweep.

Google already manipulates humans psychologically to click on their ads en- masse. Giving them more of your personal data is just feeding the devil.

<comment><USER26> How does Google manipulate humans to click on their ads?

<comment><USER27> The story of how Target discovers and targets recently pregnant women is a good example [1].

An interesting quote: "we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."

There's no reason to believe Google isn't doing the same thing. And I strongly suggest reading the original article[2], if only for the first two or three paragraphs.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how- targe...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target- figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#598ee2f234c6)

[2] [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping- habit...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html)

<comment><USER26> Sure, the ads are targeted specifically for you, that's not manipulation, which would be misleading someone to do something.

I realize there's a grey area though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "AI" is incredibly overhyped. Most of the features and applications I've seen can be relegated into the "that's neat" category, before they are turned off and never used again.

Google recently started telling me how heavy the traffic is on my commute because they've figured out I do it every day, and when I'm doing it. That's nice, but I don't care. I could already get that information from my car's GPS and seeing how red the roads were.

I wonder how much infrastructure, fancy pants machine learning and effort when it to just creating those useless alerts?

Google, as a problem, has already solved the problem they were created to solve: search the Internet. Now they need to find something for all those twiddling thumbs to do, so we get braindead features that tell me what I already know.

<comment><USER29> > That's nice, but I don't care. I could already get that information from my > car's GPS and seeing how red the roads were.

I guess people have different experiences. Personally, I know how to get home from work, so I don't feel the need to turn on my GPS every time I drive home. So I appreciate getting notified when there's notable variances in drive times, without me having to look for it every day.

<comment><USER30> How often is it correct? I use Waze infrequently (mostly it's turned off in privacy) but it often gets things wrong (it's better than Apple's maps or Google Maps).

I need to get home on time to pickup kids, but mostly just leave a bit early...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Imagine you're a something like a muslim in the US, and somoene like Trump is elected 5 years from now. You've been here all your life, you have a job, you pay your taxes, you're just a person who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Much like a jewish person in Poland in the 1940's. Now even back then, it was not easy to escape persecution... but it was possible. In a google world though, there's nothing preventing a corrupt government, or even a corrupt corporate governence from take over, or leveraging this data to your disadvantage. Perhaps your car recognizes you, and locks you in until police come, perhaps you felt safe enough to go to a bar, and that data was forwarded.

Perhaps an exaggeration, the point is, even if you trust google today. There's no guarantee that data will always be held by the people who are google today. We know for a fact the NSA had access to all google data up until at least the snowdon leaks. To me that's the concern about privacy, you have no idea how it can be used AGAINST you in the future.

<comment><USER32> Everytime someone responds with "I have nothing to hide" I replied along the same lines as you. But I thought about it a bit more and I think the data they have on you is only a small problem when you look at how technology progressed since WWII. Imagine how much easier it would have been today for the SS to extract jews from their hiding places. We have satellites, helicopters with IR camera's, hell, even radars that see through walls.

<comment><USER33> Bad actors exist. Hence why with every new technology comes new responsibility to use it properly - from nuclear fission to robotics to neural networks. That doesn't mean we need to reference how WW2 Nazis would use it every time a new technology is developed.

<comment><USER34> "What would the Nazis do with this?" is not wholly inappropriate. It's basically a way of looking at the worst case failure mode, like asking "what would happen to this nuclear reactor if all cooling and backup systems fail at once?" or "what happens to people in the capsule if the rocket explodes during max-Q?"

In this case it's "what's the danger of all this lazily deployed insecure ubiquitous surveillance gear in a political worst case scenario like a descent into totalitarianism, mafia statism, etc.?" That's not an unlikely thing. Complex societies undergo bouts of collective insanity or descents into pervasive corruption with disturbing regularity on historical time scales.

Personally I think the USA is one 9/11 scale (or worse) terrorist attack or one seriously painful economic crash away from an American Putin or Chavez (or worse). Which we get depends on which side manages to field the most charismatic demagogue. If that happens all this total surveillance stuff will be mobilized against dissenters on an industrial scale and _with a significant amount of public support_.

You limit things like surveillance to limit moral hazard. Future generations are likely to look back on the wanton deployment of all this stuff and say "what were they thinking!??!?"

<comment><USER33> >You limit things like surveillance to limit moral hazard.

Not quite sure how you got that out of "with every new technology comes new responsibility". That's neither singling out surveillance nor limiting to moral hazard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> From the article- "In other words, your daily business is Google's business."

From Google- "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information, and then expect their consumers to give them a pass and not call them to account for how they privatize user information.

Looking at the information that Google organizes and makes accessible and useful I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water temperature history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented when compared to "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search history", "an archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via Nest", "who I associate with via Google's communication suite". Google is organizing exactly that data which Google can monetize, which is not the world's data. Not a lot of people want to buy data on deforestation so it's much more difficult to get Google to put resources into that. How many people chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll never know, and Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable data set.

Simply stated, Google needs to stop acting benevolent and start fessing up to attempting to be omniscient in order to be all knowing about its users, not "the world's data".

<comment><USER36> [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation)

<comment><USER35> First off let me put this out there, people that send me "lmgtfy" links annoy the f#ck-sh#t out of me. I'm proficient at utilizing search engines, thanks pal.

More directly to the point, I was (clearly) comparing the _relative_ resources Google invests in some data sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google invests comparable resources in this type of data compared to the resources it invests in understanding Google's users' data sets?

<comment><USER21> Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Earth data for researchers existed before the Google Assistant was even an idea.

Not sure what your point is, either: do you want to get a notification in the morning saying "try to leave early today, as an accident has caused increased traffic," along with another one saying "remember to save to buy an electric car"?

<comment><USER35> Not talking directly to the awesomeness of each of their individual products, which I would be the first to admit, they have many. And not speaking directly to their Assistant product. Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great counter arguments. My central point was, Google puts it's resources best where there is the best return. I did not say, Google never created anything which makes non monetized information more freely available. With this being Google's central philosophy and guiding corporate light, it's a hard sell to continue to paint it as a benefactor to all of humanity.

Gmail was initially a product started by one guy at Google, and was not a project born out of Google corporate philosophy or business strategy. --> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail)

Google Books has been mired in lawsuits brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers with the issues including copyright, privacy, censorship issues. --> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement)

Re: Google Earth... This one is fully being leveraged for monetization, especially with mobile's commercial possibilities finally being realized. From Wikipedia: "Google Earth is a virtual globe, map and geographical information program that was originally called EarthViewer 3D created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004 (see In-Q-Tel)."

some more reading on one take on Google books: [http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever- happene...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-ever-happened-to- google-books) [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google- books-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not- a-lib_b_317518.html) [https://gigaom.com/2013/01/14/google-books-and-the- librarian...](https://gigaom.com/2013/01/14/google-books-and-the-librarian- backlash/) [http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2011/09/the_google_books_projec...](http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2011/09/the_google_books_project_now_t.html) [https://www.wired.com/2009/05/libraries-warn-of- censorship-p...](https://www.wired.com/2009/05/libraries-warn-of-censorship- privacy-cost-in-googles-digital-library/) [https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_...](https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/award_articles/6.4baksik.pdf)

<comment><USER21> Again, what's your point? That it's bad that Google tries to make a business out of organizing the world's information? It's the only way to keep doing it. You say:

> One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's > information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information

One wonders what's that 99.9% that you miss. You mention:

> I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water temperature > history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented

What equal representation do you want? A notification when you arrive at home telling you "this is some new discovery on dolphin linguistics"? For what it's worth, even that I'd bet you can get, by letting Google Now know of your interest in the topic, or subscribing to a science news channel in YouTube.

> How many people chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll > never know, and Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable > data set.

Is it even known? Google's certainly not going to do the research; research isn't organizing. Would such an investigation even get funding from anyone, to pay the researcher? But supposing it's done, and it's published in some paper or some book, what's your best chance at finding it? Google Search, Scholar, or Books.

> I was (clearly) comparing the relative resources Google invests in some data > sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google invests comparable resources in > this type of data compared to the resources it invests in understanding > Google's users' data sets?

> Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I > honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great > counter arguments.

Because before Google was investing a dollar in any of:

> "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search history", "an > archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via Nest", "who > I associate with via Google's communication suite"

it was already investing plenty of resources in those products I mentioned.

<comment><USER35> Troll?

<comment><USER21> If you prefer that, instead of answering :)

<comment><USER35> troll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm confused as to why in this thread there's very little contrastive commentary on the different stance taken by Apple and Google about privacy.

Apple has made preserving user privacy a paramount goal, investing in research and technology to achieve it with minimal loss (however much it is) of (intelligent) functionality.

I find that a very strong point for the Cupertino based company.

(edited for legibility)

<comment> irq-1 Apple wants (or wanted?) control for themselves. DRM everything; control the products after sale; wall the garden. They became the thing they hated back in 1984.

After Snowden made Apples collaboration with the government economically untenable, Apple may now be willing to let users have control. They fought the FBI to protect privacy on a transparently political charade. They've built hardware and software key protection into the iPhone.

But this is a change, and maybe it's a lie, or maybe it will change back, or maybe they just won't succeed. I'm not rushing out to buy a Mac Book.

<comment><USER38> I am sorry, but you still believe apple is safe? I mean id love to believe in that there still is some part of tech left, that will not be the reason for reprisals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The idea behind so called checks and balances in the political arena is now needed in the tech arena - more specifically the megacorp arena.

People say, competition will ultimately take care of it. Yet, there really isn't a serious competitor for Google's search engine. And don't even get me started about social networking with respect to your private lives, where the only player is FB as far as I can see.

People say they don't want the government involved, and often for good reason. But if there is no expectation that these tech giants will self-police when it comes to privacy, and people don't want these organizations to be policed by the government either, then how exactly does this play out? How far is too far before we start demanding more respect for our rights from these organizations?

Another thing to think about: when dealing with tangible goods, the creative destruction of capitalism is somewhat reasonable to justify because it is usually easy to see. How does it work with information? Suppose FB just completely blew it for a few quarters in a row, and starts tottering towards its demise, what happens to the "defensible barrier" called data? Does it belong to FB to do as it sees fit, like the assets of a company about to be liquidated? Or is FB going to "return" it to the people from whom it got it? If some other company now got possession of its assets, including data, what is the expectation around what are reasonable uses for such info? Or, is FB, with its trove of data about every single person who has held government office, now just too big to fail?

And all this can be asked just of the data that FB collects from you directly by asking you to fill it in. What about the stuff that it "infers" behind the scenes? What about the "connections" it adds to its social graph without your permission in order to provide a "local marketplace" which apparently gets rid of the "private information" challenge? [1] Not that Google is any better in this regards, of course.

I think the time has come for some serious thinking about checks and balances in the privacy arena.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12628808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12628808)

</comment><comment><USER40> This is literally the perfect end-game for an advertising company: total awareness of need under the guise of 'optimization' or 'AI enhancement'. They can see what your'e searching for, where you're going, when you run out of Mayo in your GoogleFridgeAppAssistant. What better way to offer ads than EVERY time you have a want? It's an advertising utopia!

<comment><USER41> If they tag on a "where the heck did I leave x" search engine while building out the technology I'm down for the MayoGoogleFridgeAppAss

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Just a couple of thoughts.

Is the market really so bad that Google needs to invade people's privacy to this extent in order to grow?

I bet Google's CEO will not use the products himself. Google is almost behaving like a pusher, promising people comfort at the expense of their livelihood (the chilling effect).

Perhaps this should simply be illegal. If people want a personalized AI assistant, why not train the AI on the user's device? I seriously doubt that it has to know everything about everybody's behavior in order to know some things about the user's behavior.

</comment><comment><USER43> You really have to wonder who truly needs / wants AI in their lives? It's really just being pushed on. Google should be careful not to make themselves irrelevant.

I've been experimenting spending less time with my devices and it's hard because I'm addicted, but life is more fun when it's being lived and not having to even think about technology, leaving devices of all kinds at home and just sitting in a park is a real luxury.

<comment><USER16> You just answered your own question. A truly awesome AI assistant would be as minimally present as you prefer. If all you do is talk to AI you don't need to interact with a tablet screen, for instance. If you figure out how to make people productive with that then you may have an idea of the next big thing.

<comment><USER43> Yes but the way it seems to have panned out is we need to constantly feed the machine?

Thing is, I just don't need AI for everyday things. AI to help solve big engineering, medical problems, great, but to help me schedule my life, not really.

Even when travelling, things like Google maps and translte just isolate and distract me in someways. Asking a local about something is really helpful and you can get more out of the intraction than just directions. It's rare language truly is a barrier I find.

I'm even questioning how much I really need a smart phone, it is mostly just a distraction. I remember actually being socially pressured into owning one when I was 18. Never actually stopped and asked myself if I need one, it's just some thing has become a "must have".

I know what you're saying about AI being out of the way though, and it would be excellent, if however; it was completely my data, it worked for me and not for a third party. For example, kept my data private for me, while paying my bills, that might be nice. But basically it would work to keep me focused on the real world, which could be achieved without tech ?

I might sound a by anti-progress here , but It would be nice to just see the right progress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I guess, reading through these comments, that I'm the only one who _wants_ this future? Yes, sign me up, google. I'll give you more of my information, if you can take it. Can I wear an implant that measures my heart rate, body fat content, blood pressure, glucose level, and brain activity as well? Because as soon as I can I will be the first in line for it.

What some of you don't seem to realize, (and this happens in EVERY SINGLE ONE of these threads) is that:

1) AI is not magic. Yes, we call it "AI", but you use words like "know" as if there is a conscious entity that "knows" something about you. The AI doesn't "know" anything. It's a computer.

2) Yes, actually you _can_ opt out if you want to. Get a flip phone, don't use google services, use an adblocker, block javascripts that you don't like, don't send emails to gmail addresses, etc. Just don't use their services if you don't want them. Yeah, this might be harder. It might feel like you are living in the 1990s/1980s, but it sounds like that is what some of you want.

I, however, want a future where an AI can tell me things like "Flights to Shenzhen are really cheap right now, and you have the discretionary income to afford a trip there. Here is a possible itinerary for you based on the types of things I know you are interested in. You could leave this Saturday and there is nothing on your calendar that you need to be at for the week."

Or

"I noticed that you have been bicycling a lot lately, and based on the patterns of where you go, I think that the following bike trail would be interesting to you. The route is loaded up on your phone already."

The other thing: google is an advertising company. Yes, because I know this, I am able to take this into account when listening to google's suggestions. But here's the thing: I like being [well] advertised to. I have discretionary income, that is WHY I HAVE A JOB. I am going to spend that money on things. If there is an AI that is helping me find the perfect nexus of things I want and things that I can afford, that is a GOOD thing. That is helping me more efficiently spend the money that I got.

Yes this stuff is subtle. Yes this stuff is pervasive. No we don't need _yet another_ "2edgyforme" "if you aren't the customer you're the PRODUCT" articles about google.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think there are two problems with this suite of crap from Google: the privacy issues and the fact that Google is putting corporate objectives ahead of creating useful things.

It's clear Google wants to "own the home" and all their products were built to further this goal (rather than be useful themselves). This is why Google bought Nest for 12 jillion dollars. And it's why the iWatch failed and Google Glass failed - right now, these are niche products that barely have purpose.

Now this stuff may become integral to our lives, as depicted in so many sci-fi stories, but if they become embedded in our lives and are wholly owned by one huge company, that should be terrifying to everyone.

Here are some real world reasons why: a virus is installed on your Google box through your wifi - now house robbers know everything about your schedule and habits. Your parent goes through your every personal action to make sure you aren't getting in trouble. A spouse uses the system to track your every movement and make sure you aren't cheating. And of course, the gov't has access to all of this data by default. Imagine being a famous celebrity with every action in your house known and accessible to any gov't peon with access and a bit of curiousity. This isn't some conspiracy theory, this is exactly the access Snowden had (and he was a contractor).

It isn't what these products are, it's the direction they represent: complete surveillance of every personal action, stored and owned by one monolithic corporation and the government. And not only is this is sort of where we are heading, it's Google's clearly stated objective.

It reminds me of the 50s when plastics were going to revolutionize everything... which they did, but we melted off the ozone layer before realizing the consequences of slapping new technology across the world. Especially when the benefits are so minimal and the threats are so real - imagine McCarthy with the type of access and control these devices would provide if Google succeeds in pushing this across 80% of homes.

</comment><comment><USER46> When IR remotes hit college campuses, the game was to shut off someone else's TV through an open door. There's even a one button remote from that era that shuts off any TV in sight [0]. Voice control is like IR on steroids.

Guest at house party: "Ok google, show naked pictures of [host's ex- girlfriend]"

[0] [https://www.tvbgone.com](https://www.tvbgone.com)

<comment><USER47> It happens. I've been rickrolled by an acquaintance yelling "Alexa play never gonna give you up by rick astley" thru a screen window. Its gonna be a widespread cultural thing once Hollywood inevitably uses it in a movie or TV show as a joke. I don't watch that stuff, maybe that's where he got the idea it would be "funny" to team up with Alexa to rickroll me.

I find privacy anxiety to be much like electric car range anxiety. Once you have the product its not an issue, it drops to zero, but debate on the internet is extremely hot and heavy right before widespread adoption kicks off. Enormous amounts of toxic anxiety and paranoia bleeding out all over stuff that in practice after deployment just doesn't matter. In other online venues I've been worried about causing heart attacks by suggesting my next car will be electric, and this topic is about the same here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Does anyone else find the tone of this article off-putting? I mean, I _agree_ with the author, but the presentation feels like fear-mongering. Maybe this is what we need to get people to pay attention to the details, but I instinctively mistrust things I perceive as trying to appeal to by fear at a base level, and this triggers that fairly heavily.

I have very conflicted feelings about this article.

<comment><USER49> It reads very heavy on the tinfoil-hattery. Particularly with things like Google Home's mute button. The single _advertised_ feature of the device is that it's always listening and the author is somehow shocked or confused by the fact that you have to push a button to have it not listen? So much so that they thought it was worth cramming in some stupid sounding snide remark about "true intentions"? That tone immediately undermines the entire rest of the piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Many readers are skeptical about the usefulness of personal AI assistants. This reminds me of what Jeff Bezos said about disruptive technologies [1], which I think resonates well among many tech company executives. You (they) need to be willing to be doubted for a very long time.

[1] [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos- innovation/](http://www.geekwire.com/2011/amazons-bezos-innovation/)

 _Any time you do something big, that's disruptive — Kindle, AWS — there will be critics. And there will be at least two kinds of critics. There will be well-meaning critics who genuinely misunderstand what you are doing or genuinely have a different opinion. And there will be the self-interested critics that have a vested interest in not liking what you are doing and they will have reason to misunderstand. And you have to be willing to ignore both types of critics. You listen to them, because you want to see, always testing, is it possible they are right?_

</comment><comment><USER51> The reaction to this seems awkwardly negative when contrasted with the praise that gushed for Amazon's Alexa products. I am having a hard time tracking why folks seem to feel so differently about google and Amazon having similar access to personal information.

<comment><USER52> People have a very different perception of their relationship with Amazon (and, similarly, Apple) and their relationship with Google.

Amazon sells you stuff in exchange for money.* This is a clearly understood type of transaction that people understand.

Google gives you stuff in exchange for being able to "sell your eyeballs" to third parties. And, most people actually believe that Google sells your data to those third parties, even though that's not the case, which gets at the fact that this model is not as well-understood.

As far as hardware design:

Echo provides a clear and prominently-placed button (right on top), with an LED light indicating when it's muting the microphone; when the button is active, the entire indicator ring also lights up. This button has equal prominence with the button that can be used to manually activate Alexa. The existence of this button was highlighted when Amazon introduced Echo.

Google Home places the button on the back side of the device, when there is clearly a "front," as defined by the tilt of the top surface. The existence of this button was not highlighted in the introduction at I/O.

* Yes, Amazon also runs an advertising network. Most people don't really know this. And it's a very, very small part of their business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm not worried what the engineers who built this will know about me. I'm not worried that Google will centralize this data so if someone hacked it and could drill through the data they could find me.

I'm worried about who Google wants to sell this information to and what they want to do with it. I'm worried about Google working with intelligence agencies to try and target me politically, feed me propaganda, or put me on some list of undesirables.

We can have an ultra-smart AI that does everything for me without worrying about these things. I don't want to pay with my personal information, I want to pay with money. I want Google to stay out of my life.

<comment><USER54> I am more worried about subpoena on steroids than individual hackers. Big budget crackers are a different thing.

> I'm worried about Google working with intelligence agencies to try and > target me politically, feed me propaganda, or put me on some list of > undesirables.

This.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> If 100 people do A after doing B and you are the 101st who does not want to do A, is it your fault or that of the algorithm? This is no "artificial intelligence" it is a fitness, a mutation and an evolution function, without any true randomness or "chaos" prediction (predicting the future...), but with added Advertising hidden between your reccomendations. Like they can not build flying cars so they reinvent the hovercraft. Aimed at the Internet of things, which will be the biggest tech bubble known to mankind. Sorry i have to vent that somewhere, but all my communication platforms have already been shut down.

</comment><comment><USER55> I am not trying to inject my opinion. I am looking for genuine discussion. The idea of privacy has always been kind of vague to me. Where do we draw the line of acceptable information sharing and not? If a company is collecting data on our behavior and changing their practices accordingly to maximize their profits, is that immoral? Isn't that essentially A/B testing? The practice of using that data in a potentially manipulative way might be immoral, but is the best way to prevent that really to completely not share anything?

<comment><USER56> There is no line saying how much is ok. "Privacy" as a concept is the embodiment of personal choice. And everyone may choose differently, in different situations. The only "line" there is, is about whether that choice is voluntary and informed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's ok Google.

Television was ok, too. I used to watch. All the time. TV was the glue that kept us together. Now it's the acid that tears us apart. I no longer use a television.

Google. I love your maps. Your directions. Your free storage. And my earning a living never requires to use you, Google. Just like my TV.

I do expect Google to become something that I no longer desire. Just like the TV. And I think Google won't be able to control or predict it either. Just like tv.

</comment><comment><USER58> Prerequisite to personal AI worth a damn is data about you worth a damn.

It'd seem windows 10 is setting Microsoft up for this. Google is following suite with its own hardware.

Central task is to infer what you want and help you achieve it, but further, your AI can ask you questions too to work out all sorts of things subtely.

i think eventually, we'll think of I personal information as a commodity or "raw material" and regulate its extraction and trade as such.

<comment><USER59> My problem isn't with the AI having my data; it's with the company that created the AI having my data. That might be necessary to make an AI assistant practical using current technology, but it's not an inherent requirement.

<comment><USER60> Arguably, at a scale, it is cheaper for every separate device to process it's own voice-to-text and automate things.

But, doing it offline, has no incentive for advertising companies.

Universities / home automation companies / etc would be probably be more incentivized to develop that.

So, any advances in AI, if they come in the 'always online' will come with strings attached. It is not _your_ AI optimization software, it's somebody's else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> It's not just a matter of personal preference. It's well known that mass surveillance is a powerful tool of oppression.

Oppression is not a theoretical idea and not only an historical problem: Government mass-murder in the Philippines, the oppression of Muslims in Europe, of a large religious group in Turkey, of Tartars by Russia (in Ukraine's Crimean province), of so many people in Syria, of populations in all the oppressive countries in the world. The U.S. election could result in oppression of Muslims, Latinos, blacks and others; some U.S. cities already use 'predictive policing' to identify and harass private citizens - what will happen if Muslims becomes an open target? And don't forget anyone who has any interaction with Muslims. Such things have been going on since the dawn of humanity and unfortunately will continue.

The idea that Google and other commercial mass surveillance will not be used for these purposes is a dangerous, irresponsible fantasy; it's lazy, head-in- the-sand thinking, akin to climate change denial: We haven't died yet is the only argument. These systems are not and will not be kept out of government hands: Government already has broad access, as is well known (National Security Letters, NSA spying, Yahoo's recent revelation, etc.). Laws can be made at any time giving government more access, and they will in climate of oppression. Many obtain illicit access, as we know, from the NSA to foreign criminals to antagonistic nation-states. And it assumes that the companies want to deny access; inevitably, some CEO of AllYourDataCorp will support government surveillance and be prejudiced against Muslims or immigrants or blacks. Likely, at least one already is doing it.

IMHO, while it disrupts our plans for IT and wealth, it's absurd to think otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER62> We are in the mainframe/terminal era of AI right now. Just like with early computing we don't yet have the local resources to do AI locally, so we're using terminals accessing the cloud. The consequence is our data also lives there. It will inevitably change and a personal AI and relevant data will live in your pocket instead (for those that would prefer a limited but more private version).

</comment><comment><USER60> Well, they came a long way for an advertising company. Most usually die from ad-blockers, but they dodged most of these bullets it seem.

Moving to voice-to-text everything android, just seems as a logical extension to advertise/sell data even more.

Whether is ethical or legal, it doesn't seem to concern them at all when profits are in question.

</comment><comment><USER63> And that's why I turned Google Now off (but still use some other Google services)

</comment><comment><USER64> Anyone with a passing acquintance of history and the insideousness of surveillance and will not be blase about privacy or casually trade it in for trivial conveniences that hardly merit the word ai.

You many not 'personally' need privacy or freedom at this point in your life but to casually dismiss it out of hand and fail to consider its import for a functioning democractic society is beyond reckless. Its just one of those things you don't need until till you do.

And thankfully individuals aren't in a position to trade that away unless they can write a new constitution and convince everyone to get on board.

All surveillance does is compromise your society in a fundamental way, and in this case just to add to Google bottom line and ramp up Google's creepiness factor even more. That's a bad deal.

</comment><comment><USER65> Here's the thing - we're starting to get into territory where we can actually add real value for people again in terms of helping them plan their day, and actually have real AI assistants, computers from Star Trek, what have you. The value here is pretty easy to understand. The problem is that they're all being pushed by advertising companies who make all their money by learning and selling every single bit of information about you.

I want a startup that provides services like this but treats your personal location, correspondence, and behaviors like tax returns and credit card numbers. If we can achieve a good measure of safety and privacy in our messaging apps, we can do it for this sort of data.

</comment><comment><USER38> If it constantly needs data in order to calculate predictions, then it is no artificial intelligence. It is plain Software, like a calculator. The only reason it is called artificial intelligence is because that would be the only reason to adopt this technology.

Again, it might be neat, having a computer like on star trek, but what if you oppose your government? What if you oppose anything, and suddenly your toaster burns down your house, locks you out, locks you in, reports your every move?

Look at Manning, look at Snowden, look at Assange. They opposed and now they get terrorized by the govrnment and the software they once happily used to use. Look at how i will be treated right here by others.

Stop this Masspsychosis.

</comment><comment><USER66> Are there any open source/self-hosted projects that do some of what Alexa, Google Assistant, Google Now, Siri do?

Even without the manpower/big data/processing power of a big co I'm sure we could create something that's somewhat useful.

</comment><comment><USER67> I seem to remember having a lot of the same feelings during the Apple event last month. The Nike+ Apple Watch will "helpfully suggest gear" for your workouts.

Ads have become utterly pervasive, and avoiding using Google's AI isn't going to protect you from them. My Samsung "Smart" TV has ads for Hulu built right into the operating system (despite my being a Hulu subscriber at the time). Windows 10 is basically one big advertisement (at least the consumer edition).

If I have to have ads blasted in my face all the time, I'll take Google's AI- driven ones that at least stand a chance of being less annoying.

</comment><comment><USER68> Nobody is seeing the obvious benefits here. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to really think anymore? Google can just tell me what to eat, what to wear, when to pee, etc. I for one welcome our AI overlords.

</comment><comment><USER14> People will come to value their privacy more if/when they or their loved ones become victims of harassment, stalking, blackmail, or identity theft as a result of their data being abused, leaked, or stolen.

</comment><comment><USER69> What I think is really interesting about this conversation is the _total lack of conversation_. Any and all data collection is either completely harmless (from the corporate narrative) or the end of all liberty and privacy (from the EFF narrative and their leech-like tech rag clickbait headlines, sup techcrunch, you're still the problem!).

There is no concept of even discussing that this might be a tradeoff or a shift in what is perceived as private. There is no consideration given to how we might still do these things that people want while protecting their data. There's no consideration for how people's lives are changed in different ways by this tech.

Nope. It's either a total gain or a total loss.

And that is the real problem here. People are applying their political bad habits to what _should_ be a reasonable and sensitive discussion about the varying levels of tradeoffs we should be willing to give and what the net good we can extract from this technology.

A great example is street view. Street view ultimately has enabled extremely detailed and powerful navigation, complete with a ton of ways to do real time traffic detection. Most people using apps that benefit from this data would say that's a net good, and in general as the tech evolves and traffic distributes more efficiently then urban environments see a similar positive effect.

Of course, the tradeoff is that I can scan a snapshot of your street and if you were there playing football with your kid, walking your dog, or publicly exposing yourself then minus your face I'm going to be able to see all that.

What makes these kind of issues even less clear is that street view enables self-driving car technology (we need the detailed and constantly updated nav systems for them). Self-driving car technology has the potential to totally transform some neighborhoods, has _massive_ potential for assisting disabled people, can completely change the way we ship goods and thusly preserve oil and energy resources for generations to come. But it also has the potential to be a new way for the upper and rich classes of the world to completely cut out service industries and further alienate the economic middle and lower classes.

Why is this meaningful? Because _if we don 't talk about them then we can't help shape them_. If we understand the implications as a society and demand commensurate good from these private industries then it can be an incredible boon to our societies. If we don't, then one of these extremist sides will win and all options for a middle ground where we get benefits and have tradeoffs will be excluded.

That's a terrible outcome.

</comment><comment><USER70> > ... your daily business is Google's business.

I can see the day coming where this is their primary marketing slogan.

</comment><comment><USER71> _The scope of Alphabet's ambition for the Google brand is clear: it wants Google's information organizing brain to be embedded right at the domestic center — i.e. where it's all but impossible for consumers not to feed it with a steady stream of highly personal data._

Unless, that is, you never buy any of that junk in the first place -- because like, who needs most, if any of it, anyway? -- and keep going on with your life. Which was humming along just fine before the IoT came along, after all.

<comment><USER72> God I am loving the justified hatred in this thread :D

I agree that in many respects the current corporate push for the Internet-Of- Things is mainly a wild-west style landgrab for self-serving integration into our daily lives.

However I don't think the IoT has to be this way.

I want all my IoT devices to _only_ communicate to my home gateway, which would run open-source drivers for each device to provide the networking functionality. Problem solved. I don't know why this approach isn't getting more focus!

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> It is wrong even to ask us permission to let Google and also Apple monitor microphone all the time. If that becomes norm, there has to be hardware switch to disable microphone.

</comment><comment><USER74> This is the future.

To remain competitive people will adopt new technologies. Google assistant/cloud, self driving cars, CRISPR. Consider what people gain and lose with each new technology, such as the ability to drive, a bio-engineered kill switch, or control their own hardware (windows 10).

All new technologies can be compromised. The ability to process the extreme amounts of data we are generating is already at previously unimaginable levels. Political dissidents or those who interfere with corporate interests can be identified and silenced with false evidence (pedophilia!); media control; and personally targeted DoS of finances, cloud services, etc.

This is the ability to control the world. The corporate world is disincentivized from doing anything about it, and governments don't really get it as evidenced by their hoarding of zero-days [0].

There's a war going on right now. It's terrifying, and awesome. Throw in some global climate change and our next 50 years are going to get interesting.

When the end comes I'll be that crotchety old guy who knows how to DRIVE A CAR and use a general purpose computer.

Hack the planet!

Here is what was possible in 2011: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528544) [0][https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/the_nsa_is_ho...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/the_nsa_is_hoar.html)

</comment><comment><USER75> I was pissed when Google suggested I take pictures of the restaurant I was in and submit them.

</comment><comment><USER76> Something to think about -- making the assumption that in the future, a bunch chunk of things currently done with search engines and forms are done by voice command:

Ok Google, order new toilet paper -- order is routed to any ecommerce provider which outbids everyone else to fulfill the order.

Alexa, order new toilet paper -- order copies previous toilet paper order and goes to merchant with lowest advertised price that reports to have that specific product.

Hey Siri, order new toilet paper -- ?

<comment><USER77> Siri supports a limited version of this today. "Siri, get me a ride" will show which ride apps are available (say, Uber, Lyft and Curb, if you have those installed)

It's interesting you assume that Google will route you to the lowest bidder. When I search for "New toilet paper" on Google right now, the top 6 results are advertisements. Why would they want to anger their customers and allow you ignore them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Imagine the storage implications - i mean they have a hard time to store every click we make with the mouse, now they will have to store every noise and breath we make as well. I see a data store with the size of Canada.

Also how do they plan to make money besides the initial cost of the gadget? Can they push adds while driving? would be too intrusive, or is this supposed to be based on monthly payment, or a tax? Google for government! Wall-E might be needed to clean up the mess after them.

i didn't know that Sting said in 1983 that his song is really a nasty song about surveillance; at least they have an anthem for promotion purposes. [http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=548](http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=548)

Now i really don't think that personal assistants are going to be a success. They do descriptive modelling based on what you do, there is no way to evaluate if the suggestions are any good. Without such an evaluation they can't do reinforcement learning. Also they might suck in too much data - <USER2> would make it harder to make meaningful suggestions.

</comment><comment><USER79> I'm always confused by articles bemoaning the AI and tech revolutions, written in magazines that expound new tech revolutions.

I understand Apple and the EFF are staunchly against merging products databases involving the same user's data, but for me this is an essential feature of the google ecosystem. I can ask for traffic and have directions appear on my phone while driving, play movies on the tv that i am looking at instead of my phone, audibly alert me to meetings while at home or work, and turn the lights on and off in the place that I am.

I don't think they are misleading people, the mute button pretty strongly implies the duality that you can't hear and un-hear things post-hoc. In addition they dont hide the fact that you are talking to a computer at a company by obfuscating it with some quasi-futuristically named caricature. As is often with these article "always listening" is far more misleading, an embedded keyword processor is listening for keywords, and only if they match the phrase "ok google" are they sent to google servers. otherwise it just sits there sharing nothing.

<comment><USER80> I'll note that my iPhone can do all those things but without my data leaving my own hardware (or at least not unencrypted). You don't _have_ to ship all your data offsite for the functions you enjoy. It's just that Google would rather examine all your data in-house, presumably for their own benefit and not for ours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> With faster multi-core CPUs, much more RAM and SSD, smartphones are probably powerful enough to run a privacy respecting AI assistant locally: watch your web access, phone access, location, and do all processing locally with no data leakage. Ideally it would be open source, or at least from a trusted company that made money only from selling the app, and not off of our personal data.

</comment><comment><USER82> So I see both sides of this privacy/AI debate going on and am wondering, what is the solution? Is it technically feasible to create a useful future AI without compromising privacy? Because if not, I fear for our future. While I agree with what everyone on the privacy side is saying, I believe in the long run the consumer value AI will win, leading us down this path.

</comment><comment><USER83> The new assistant in Allo which automatically suggests message replies to images by detecting what's in the image... it scares me.

</comment><comment><USER84> Ok, so no personal assistants and high-tech homes for anyone. Done. There, you happy now? Because if Google isn't being fed all that data, it can't provide those things. You either have it or you don't.

Edit: I've made this point before, but your data is a currency. Spend it wisely (or even not at all). It's up to you.

</comment><comment><USER85> It's fascinating to think about how exciting this technology is -- passive monitoring by helpful AI that can drastically increase convenience and efficiency.

But we've seen that Google is happy to turn over massive amounts of customer data to government without a warrant and without alerting customers to the practice, which makes the technology seem ominous.

First the GPS, then the microphone, then the camera, accelerometers, 3D touch sensors, etc. Gait, affect, and all sorts of factors will be able to predict criminal behavior before it happens.

Let's hope the next generation of tech giants will take customer privacy and freedom seriously and avoid the dark patterns and privacy violations of the current era.

Only now, when it's likely too late, can we actually get a glimpse of the sort of Orwellian dystopia that so many have warned about in decades past.

</comment><comment><USER86> The idea behind ZeroDB might be applicable here.

All data generated by a user is encrypted and stored in the cloud with the decryption keys on the user's device. This way, the service provider (eg Google) can't read your data. The major advantage of this approach is that the user is in complete control of the data. The drawback is that service providers and AI systems will be starved of data that enable targeted ads/recommendations.

A good middle ground might be to offer users an option : 1) Give us your data 2) Pay up and we will not collect _any_ data.

Thinking deeply about the state of the internet, I think we have to move towards a model where users pay for services they use if privacy is a concern. As it stands, a lot of services offer free services in exchange for our data which is monetized through ads.

</comment><comment><USER87> What I'd like to see is some good open source software that can compete with Google Assistant, Siri, and Alexa. It looks like there are some promising projects, but nothing turn-key yet. I'd like to be able to simply apt-get a package, and have voice recognition on my box.

<comment><USER52> Voice (technically speech) recognition is relatively close to being doable at acceptable quality with open source tools.

The hard parts of the Assistant, Alexa, etc., are basically everything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I think it's right for people in the know to be concerned. The direction has all kinds of possible disastrous consequences. But it also has lots of amazing dual-use possibilities for making our lives more fluid, and technology more magical. You can't deny both.

Trying to take some big stand against it I don't believe will work. Look at all those who took a stand against the 2nd Iraq war -- they were drowned out. And now everyone thinks the opposite. Culture/society always pushes a particular direction until there's a very big disastrous reason to think otherwise. Until something clearly really really bad happens this is the track we're on, like it or not.

</comment><comment><USER89> Reading this brings the thoughts to Kahlil Gibrans book the Profet. The section "On Houses" reads:

...

Or have you only comfort, and the lust for comfort, that stealthy thing that enters the house a guest, and becomes a host, and then a master? Ay, and it becomes a tamer, and with hook and scourge makes puppets of your larger desires. Though its hands are silken, its heart is of iron. It lulls you to sleep only to stand by your bed and jeer at the dignity of the flesh. It makes mock of your sound senses, and lays them in thistledown like fragile vessels. Verily the lust for comfort murders the passion of the soul, and then walks grinning in the funeral.

...

</comment><comment><USER90> I was really against getting updates about where I usually travel or other notifications that are constantly tracking me. But after a while I really like some of the tracking and notifications. Now I love when google reminds me to leave for a appointment and gives me directions, it really saves.

I do hate being tracked, but I have slowly started to like the connivence of it. Having all my information on Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram, and everything else privacy has really gone down. If my Nexus 5x can save me time, I will sacrifice some privacy.

</comment><comment><USER91> > We are excited about building a personal Google for everyone, everywhere

Not a problem if it run on an appliance at my home, disconnected from all the other appliances in other people homes. That would be a truly personal Google.

</comment><comment><USER92> The trade off here is technological advancements in AI for lose of Privacy. Everyone can have their own opinion on this but in reality, consumers are the best for collecting data. The great thing about the grand scheme of it all is that if you don't like the privacy you're giving up, don't use it. There's always going to be the lesser known alternative that doesn't track any of your data. I don't see why articles like this arise as it's clear as day that without tracking and getting analytics, AI won't improve.

</comment><comment><USER93> From the article: _So the actual price for building a "personal Google for everyone, everywhere" would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere._

That has no basis. It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's privacy policy, that's exactly what they are doing. And I think it's in their best interest to keep it that way, because the day it comes out in public that our privacy is not safe with them, everyone will stop feeding them more data.

<comment><USER94> > It is completely possible to do what they are doing by keeping everyone's > individual privacy intact. And if I go by Google's ToS, that's exactly what > they are doing.

Could you give examples of how that can be achieved and how the ToS goes about stating that they are doing this?

<comment><USER95> Also, how do we know they haven't?

<comment><USER93> We don't know for sure if they are violating their privacy policies. But as I said, if they are doing it, and it comes out by any means, it will be the dead end of their business. So it's in their best interest to not to do that and only improve upon users' trust. So yes, there's certain level of trust I put into them, just like the trust I put into big food product companies that they'd respect the ingredients list, and have a certain level of quality and hygiene. All of them can break my trust, but it will be detrimental for them if it comes out.

<comment><USER96> > if they are doing it ... it will be the dead end of their business.

I wish I could share your confidence about that. It seems to me we've seen corporate data leaks, deceptive practices, huge hack attacks, etc and all that happens is the corporations get a temporary PR black eye -- and then spring back into action as powerfully as before.

In the case of Google, if it came out that, say, Russian hackers had breached a bunch of gmail accounts, how many customers would just up and walk away from Google? And what company could even come close to filling the void to replace google for all of us consumers?

Like I say, I wanna believe what you believe. But it just doesn't seem like that's what happens in the real marketplace.

<comment><USER95> Im with HillaryBriss here. There aren't enough repercussions for leaking pii data.

<comment><USER97> UK regulators recently fined TalkTalk £400,000 for a large data breach.

[https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and- bl...](https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and- blogs/2016/10/talktalk-gets-record-400-000-fine-for-failing-to-prevent- october-2015-attack/)

That's not company ending, but it should get the attention of directors.

<comment><USER95> 400k is nothing for a lot of companies in USA

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How much hardware would it take to keep 80% or 99% of the data local?

<comment><USER60> Internal SSD?

<comment><USER16> I'm talking as much local computation and storage as possible to minimize uploads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Thus article is rightful in raising concerns for privacy. But it's just repeating and rehashing same things. Google had been devouring data for long time.

</comment><comment><USER99> I've long since given up hope that I can achieve any sort of privacy. Even were I to do my utmost I will still be on the periphery of others using tech, visible through their actions. The only thing I really want is for the content of my messages to be private. This can be achieved through end-to-end encryption. I push everyone around me to install and use Signal instead of Messenger or Google Talk.

</comment><comment><USER100> I would love to have personal devices that collect my private data and apply AI for my personal benefit, but only then if all data stays inside the device under my exclusive supervision. As soon as this data is sent to some cloud service beloning to a company in the business of generating wealth and power, I totally lose my appetite.

</comment><comment><USER101> I'm considering purchasing a Home. I already have an Alexa, which I really like, but based on what I know of Google's data and AI (and their service APIs, which I assume/hope will be extended to Home), I can't imagine it not being significantly better than Alexa.

That said, I agree with the OP's takeaway: people should be asking questions. I mean, people should have been asking these questions long ago, even as just search users questioning how Google manages to return such geospatially relevant results. But most people don't even stop to think about it, as that kind of thing is just taken for granted as the thing computers just do.

Maybe with Google's data and AI in the form of a physical, listening bot (I don't know many people who use OK-Google on their phones) will be the thing that clues people in. I'm mostly comfortable with Google's role in my life (though not comfortable enough to switch to Android just yet), but I'm aware of what it knows about me. If AI is to have a trusted role in our lives and society, people in general need to at least reach the awareness that the OP evinces, if not her skepticism.

</comment><comment><USER102> One thing that I think is lost in a lot of the comments here is that, to a large extent, privacy is experienced, not factual. That is, in many cases, the breach of privacy is the act of mentioning something that should be private, not whether or not the system (or the person) knows that thing. This is something we tend to intuitively understand in our human relationships, but one that somehow seems to be forgotten in the design of these systems (or, at least, the conversations about them). We need good ways to tell the Google Assistant that something is private (or for it to figure it out for itself) -- even if it still possesses the underlying data.

(There are, of course, situations in which the actual existence or not of specific data is what matters, but I think those are less relevant to the success of something like Google Assistant than the perception of privacy -- and that perception is important, regardless of the underlying data.)

</comment><comment><USER103> _Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left._ \- Marshall McLuhan

</comment><comment><USER104> I seriously wonder if this article would have a different tone if all the same products and vision were presented at an Apple Keynote with Apple branded devices.

Would it be different? My gut says this article would have had a different title.

</comment><comment><USER105> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_\(Eggers_novel\))

</comment><comment><USER106> How's this different from Apple or any other company that wants to stay relevant? AI is the future, like it out not.

</comment><comment><USER107> Many software companies have been trending toward on-device AI though that largely avoids these privacy issues.

<comment><USER22> Would you elaborate for me, maybe toss out an example?

<comment><USER108> [https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy- co...](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/apples-differential-privacy-collecting- data/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Why is everyone so incredibly paranoid?

<comment><USER110> You can't seriously be asking this question in a post-Snowden world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> in WAZE they went ahead and dropped the "while using the app" option for gps privacy. it has become rude actually, so now i turn off location services instead of micro-managing the unmanageable.

</comment><comment><USER34> I will never put an always on Internet connected microphone run by an advertising company in my house. I don't care if it literally spits out cash and cures cancer.

<comment><USER112> What about an Android phone?

<comment><USER113> This is the predominant reason I use an iPhone. I don't like a lot of Apple's policies (mostly closed source, although that's where stock android has been gradually headed too) or their silly politics (Getting rid of the gun emoji? Really?), and I would rather go with Google on those grounds, but Apple's incentives with regard to privacy actually align with mine. In particular, they are a product company, not an advertising company. I appreciate their use of high-quality security technology in their phones.

<comment><USER114> What makes Google an advertising company and Apple a product company? Since both make products and sell advertising.

Obviously advertising is more important to Google than it is to Apple but at what point does Apple become an advertising company and Google a product company? Is there a revenue threshold? A branding threshold?

Edit: I'm not saying Google isn't an advertising company. I'm asking what makes Google (but not Apple) an advertising company.

<comment><USER60> More money coming from advertising than products?

90.4% revenue from advertising for Google

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising- reven...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of- google/)

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+total+revenue&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=0CD1V_HpCsO3jwT- nL_ABA)

vs Apple: [http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app- stor...](http://marketingland.com/app-purchases-dominate-ads-app-store- lifetime-revenue-hits-71-billion-183953)

<comment><USER114> Of course, I'm not saying that Google isn't an advertising company.

If Apple made 50% of its revenue from adverting would it still be a product company?

Is this distinction about the size of the business unit?

<comment><USER60> It's probably more on the lines of could a company survive without the advertising revenue?

For some companies ads are supplemental, for some lifeblood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> cat <that article> | sed -e s/data/your data/g

</comment><comment><USER17> Star Trek or North Korea? In the limit that's the choice.

</comment><comment><USER116> well my iPhone and my navigation systems both will tell me how far I am from home/work/parents depending on my location all without my asking.

</comment><comment><USER117> I'm waiting for the barbarians.

</comment><comment><USER118> That's the big difference between Apple and Google, Apple just want $$, Google want to know everything at a more deeper level.

</comment><comment><USER119> tl;dr: Google wants your data on its servers.

As opposed to all the other companies out there I guess?

</comment><comment><USER120> I'm willing to sacrifice an amount of privacy now for future potential improvements to my life.

<comment><USER60> How about for potential risks? What if thieves/criminals get a hold of that data? 'Oh he goes to the pool every day 2-3 and lives alone with no home alarms'.

<comment><USER121> I'd be amused at the concept of a hacker who also likes to perform break and enters. Once I arrived home and discovered all of my privacy invading electronics stolen, I'd probably pull out my phone and say "Ok Google, call the cops."

<comment><USER60> Eh, probably it will be like the credit card and identity theft scams. One group steals it, another one uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> So because Google makes phones and hardware (like it has been already for quite some time), there's somehow an even greater threat now on our privacy? I don't buy it.

N.B.: I don't work for Google.

</comment><comment><USER123> I've come to believe that there is nothing that humans can do to resist the privacy encroachments of our machine overlords. Don't blame Google - it's a universal inevitability.

<comment><USER124> On the contrary, humans have done plenty to resist it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> I'd be completely fine with sharing most of my data with Google, really. Personal and Private interlock a lot with each other, and if Google wants to give me a personal experience they're going to have to use some of my private experience.</comment>


Oxford Scholar: Facebook Won't Widen Your Social Circle - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2012/07/18/oxford-scholar-facebook-wont-widen-your-social-circle/

<comment><USER2> Facebook is about mapping your social connections for advertising purposes. It's not about helping you have a more successful social life.</comment>


Show HN: Free Bootstrap templates I built for your projects. - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/787labs/bootstrap-templates

<comment><AUTHOR> After yesterdays kind-of letdown post to de-bootstrap bootstrap [1], I went ahead and decided to build some de-bootstrap templates for you. Took me less than a day, and I used the same tools the post previously mentioned listed.

Hope they help you get your MVP off the ground. :)

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4427864></comment>


App2Card.com business cards for your App.  Now supports Google Play - <AUTHOR> http://app2card.com

<comment><USER2> Seems expensive to me (I'm not an app developer or marketer, though!) and it's not very clear where the link on the back of the card goes. I didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure that out, on the other hand.

The prices work out as:

        1000 for $180 = $0.18 per card
         500 for $100 = $0.20 per card
         250 for $55  = $0.22 per card
         100 for $30  = $0.30 per card

Paying $0.30 (or even $0.18) for 1.5625 square inches of laser-printed paper, albeit glossy, seems like a lot. Area-wise, that's the equivalent of 1/60th of a sheet of standard "letter" format paper, by the way.

Also, I'm not sure why the 1000-pack is labelled "saves 120$" [sic], I mean ... Compared to what? $180 + $120 = $300, which means it saves as compared to buying ten 100-packs, I guess. But since the fact that you get volume discounts is very clear from the other packs, I don't think that particular claim is very accurate.

<comment><AUTHOR> The QR code leads directly to the app store for iOS and Google Play app. The fact that we use bitly url give you the possibility to measure the traffic driven by your cards by appending a + sign at the end of the URL.

As for the prices they aren't really expensive if you look at the competition, specially for the quality we offer.

Thanks for the feedback

<comment><USER3> I don't know what competition you have, but you've priced at several times higher per card than I would expect to pay - and regularly do pay - for (nice quality) business cards..

edit: And in terms of use case, I don't quite get the whole "business card for your app" idea. Business cards are about sharing contact details, sure the aim is often to make a sale, but it's not to directly drive a sale. I just can't personally (I'm not an apps guy, but I am in marketing) think of a time when these would be more useful than a business card, or on the other side more useful than a small flyer/leaflet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can see the value in having a pointer to get people to your app, I can see that a URL distribution method like a QR code is an appropriate method, but doing it in a card shaped like an app icon is a gimmick, and will create small annoying pieces of paper for people.

If they are handed out surely you can use something more effective, like a QR code on your device snapped by their's and if they are to be left somewhere they will be too small to be an effective call to action.

As ever I find myself thinking that promoting apps with pieces of paper seems like a compromise solution ...

</comment><comment><USER5> A great way to be original and distinctive when networking. App2Card is made by a small shop from Quebec city. So my props for being creative and independent!

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't know what "12pts paper" feels like, but from the image it looks almost like cardstock. Are these printed on fairly heavy paper?

<comment><AUTHOR> Always kinda hard to describe the thickness of the cards but with the glossy finish they feel like thin rigid plastic tokens. On the website we say 0.025" thick. Send us an email at email@example.com if you have any questions or concerns about the product itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone believe that QR codes work?

<comment><USER8> As a quick, cheap, handy way of sharing URLs and other information to mobile devices? Completely.

<comment><USER9> I can't agree -- among a younger demographic in coastal regions (speaking in terms of the US here), sure, maybe. You need to know what a QR code is, you need to know what app can read them, you have to download that app, and if you're not the type of person that these things come naturally too, you have to learn how to use that app.

That process just isn't biddable for wider demographics. Outside of my tech- savvy group of friends and co-workers, I'm not sure I know anyone with either the understanding or the patience to use them. Until it's far more common for this to be a built-in and automatic feature in mobile devices, I'd be blown away if it ever caught on.

<http://picturesofpeoplescanningqrcodes.tumblr.com/>

<comment><USER7> I'm tech savvy and I still don't want to download an app, open it up, steady my camera, take a picture, wait for it to think about it, and take me to the website. Just give me a damn URL.

<comment><USER10> Google's Search App will scan QR codes, the thinking is near-instant (camera focusing will take longer), and it pops up directly to the App store. I think the burden is pretty low. Typing in a URL is certainly more effort.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Picking Python over Ruby for a workflow mapping application? - <AUTHOR>

I want to build in a shortest time possible, a robust prototype of a new kind of work management web application. My invention aims to humanize nonsensical data driven getting-things-done processes like Email, Task Management, Work Management, Projects, Processes, and the like. My invention deals with organizational maps and non-hierarchical networks.
I have not coded for many years (like over 15 years) and happy to consider myself ignorant and a willing learner. I a Bachelors in CS and Math, and was a novice hacker of C++ and C# when I did code.
Personality: played with Mechano and Lego when I was young. I love writing poetry and creating art. I like German cars over Japanese cars.
Important ideas for my software:
-Incremental computing -Stream processing -Functional Reactive Programming -Dataflow Programming -Real Time Updates on viewscreen without hitting refresh
I do not need huge data analysis (for now) but lots of just in time coordination updates to multiple parties.
I am considering Ruby/Rails and Python/Django and leaning towards Python. I will code for the first year and hopefully at that time hire chief tech to take over and focus on other things which are my strength. Why don't I hire a programmer from the get go? I just don't want to be handicapped at this time in materializing my idea.
How should I think about this problem?
Thank you for your voices! <comment><AUTHOR> My good friend Bruno has graciously offered help with the development of Harvester OS! I am delighted.

I have considered various factors and decided on the following dev stack:

Dev Platform: OSX / Unix Deploy: Web Application / iPhone App for v1 beta Language: Java Script Framework [http://Meteor.js](http://Meteor.js) Database: MongoDB Servers: [https://modulus.io/](https://modulus.io/) Code repository: [http://github.com](http://github.com) Project Management: [http://www.pivotaltracker.com/](http://www.pivotaltracker.com/)

Will make changes as we run into issues. I will publish a detailed blog on why this stack makes for Harvester OS along with our first private beta.

I am studying following tutorials. Built a simple to-do app tonight. I will be ready in 30 days to start working with senior designers to code

From code academy: 1\. Learn: Make a Website 2\. Learn: Make an Interactive Website 3\. Learn: HTML & CSS 4\. Learn: Javascript

5\. Learn: Meteor: [https://www.meteor.com/install](https://www.meteor.com/install) 6\. Learn: A Command Line Primer for Beginners - <USER2>

Please advise for or against and suggest new. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER3> For your use case, I'd drop both Rails/Django and instead go for something like Meteor.js.

You'll get the benefit of a full stack framework with one language for both frontend and backend. And most of the batteries are included so you can become productive very quickly.

If you choose Rails or Django, you're taking on the complexities of these frameworks + Javascript on the frontend. That's a tall order for a 3 month project when you have zero experience with all the technologies. It could take you 6 months to a year before you finish your project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you hkarthik. Very interesting. I am considering your advice.

<comment><AUTHOR> very cool. i am going to build with meteor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My normal advice is the advantage of one over the other is dwarfed by the advantage of whichever you're skilled in. In your case that's not so helpful. :-) So I think Rails is (moderately) better for web development and Python is (much) better for stats/machine learning. But your choice will not make or break your project. It almost doesn't matter, so go with whatever language fits your taste. It's much more important to design a valuable product and figure out how you're going to sell it.

</comment><comment><USER5> go to codecademy.com

go back and forth between the ruby and python courses. pick which one you like best.

In the scope of languages, both are pretty similar.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd lean towards python just because it sounds like you may need a lot of data analysis, and that's where python's ecosystem shines. If you just want to create an application quickly then use rails. Rails tends to have better learning resources over django.

</comment><comment><USER7> Good for you for starting the project.

The only problem I have is that I have no idea what you're trying to do (meaning I don't know what you're building)

Besides, displacing people from the communications applications they've grown accustomed to is a tall order.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER8> My advice would be to try both before you decide. Spend a day going through a RoR tutorial and another on a Py/Django tutorial. Pick the one that will accomplish your goals in the shortest time possible (your words).</comment>