If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.
Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.
It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years.
Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.
Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.
Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?
That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.
If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.
You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch". They have more defined plans in the health field.
Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
Anyone can make stuff up. That's the easy part. Now try the harder part... Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know.
I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it.
Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"
If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it?
Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
So you cannot find any evidence that Google allows advertisers to target health conditions as a category. See, wasn't that easy? I could have pointed you directly to the facts but then you wouldn't have performed the valuable exercise of verifying it for yourself.
Sadly you apparently still didn't consider it worth your time to understand how ads are crafted and then appear on Google's ad platform and thus you end up posting from ignorance.
Google isn't choosing the categories that a company selects to target their company's ads to. When a company wants to place an ad, and Apple was an example of an advertiser who would use Google's ad platform, the advertiser is the one creating the ad and ultimately choosing what categories they wish to market products and/or services. But Google won't give them the option of targeting sensitive health-related categories even if the advertiser would like to.
You should verify all that for yourself... Or simply continue posting from ignorance. Your choice.
So, you're conceding that Google scoops up sensitive health-related information on people, but asserting that they keep it for their own uses and just don't allow advertisers to target ads based on it? Otherwise your argument makes no sense, why would they "prohibit" advertisers from using data they don't collect?
If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.
Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.
It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years.
Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.
Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.
Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?
That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.
If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.
You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch". They have more defined plans in the health field.
Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
Anyone can make stuff up. That's the easy part. Now try the harder part... Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know.
I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it.
Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"
If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it?
Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
So you cannot find any evidence that Google allows advertisers to target health conditions as a category. See, wasn't that easy? I could have pointed you directly to the facts but then you wouldn't have performed the valuable exercise of verifying it for yourself.
Sadly you apparently still didn't consider it worth your time to understand how ads are crafted and then appear on Google's ad platform and thus you end up posting from ignorance.
Google isn't choosing the categories that a company selects to target their company's ads to. When a company wants to place an ad, and Apple was an example of an advertiser who would use Google's ad platform, the advertiser is the one creating the ad and ultimately choosing what categories they wish to market products and/or services. But Google won't give them the option of targeting sensitive health-related categories even if the advertiser would like to.
You should verify all that for yourself... Or simply continue posting from ignorance. Your choice.
So, you're conceding that Google scoops up sensitive health-related information on people, but asserting that they keep it for their own uses and just don't allow advertisers to target ads based on it? Otherwise your argument makes no sense, why would they "prohibit" advertisers from using data they don't collect?
I don't believe I said that at all. They prohibit their advertisers from collecting it as part of their ad campaign. They also prohibit collection of religious bent, sexual persuasion and a whole lot of other sensitive user information via ads placed by Google. https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en See all the cool new facts you're discovering? A few more posts and you'll have no more excuse for posting FUD. How great will that be, huh?
But deflection works of course when you're losing an argument so don't stop now! "It's not you it's me" LOL
If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.
Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.
It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years.
Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.
Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.
Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?
That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.
If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.
You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch". They have more defined plans in the health field.
Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
Anyone can make stuff up. That's the easy part. Now try the harder part... Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know.
I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it.
Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"
If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it?
Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
So you cannot find any evidence that Google allows advertisers to target health conditions as a category. See, wasn't that easy? I could have pointed you directly to the facts but then you wouldn't have performed the valuable exercise of verifying it for yourself.
Sadly you apparently still didn't consider it worth your time to understand how ads are crafted and then appear on Google's ad platform and thus you end up posting from ignorance.
Google isn't choosing the categories that a company selects to target their company's ads to. When a company wants to place an ad, and Apple was an example of an advertiser who would use Google's ad platform, the advertiser is the one creating the ad and ultimately choosing what categories they wish to market products and/or services. But Google won't give them the option of targeting sensitive health-related categories even if the advertiser would like to.
You should verify all that for yourself... Or simply continue posting from ignorance. Your choice.
So, you're conceding that Google scoops up sensitive health-related information on people, but asserting that they keep it for their own uses and just don't allow advertisers to target ads based on it? Otherwise your argument makes no sense, why would they "prohibit" advertisers from using data they don't collect?
I don't believe I said that at all. They prohibit their advertisers from collecting it as part of their ad campaign. They also prohibit collection of religious bent, sexual persuasion and a whole lot of other sensitive user information via ads placed by Google. https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
But deflection works of course so keep it up, you're doing great! "It's not you it's me" LOL
The emphasis was yours. First they couldn't target it, then you said the advertisers can't collect it, but you're dancing around the question of Google collecting it. And you're pretending i'm the one deflecting?
It seems odd that you would bold a statement that doesn't say what you meant, so I don't see any reason we should allow you to retract it.
If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.
Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.
It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years.
Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.
Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.
Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?
That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.
If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.
You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch". They have more defined plans in the health field.
The problem is Fitbit makes knockoff Apple Watches now down to band design.
At least Android Wear had unique designs and functionality and original Fitbits were, well, original.
Google may not even tinker with Fitbit and leave it as a separate company running Fitbit OS.
If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.
Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.
It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years.
Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.
Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.
Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?
That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.
If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.
You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch". They have more defined plans in the health field.
Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
Anyone can make stuff up. That's the easy part. Now try the harder part... Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know.
I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it.
Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"
If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it?
Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion.
So you cannot find any evidence that Google allows advertisers to target health conditions as a category. See, wasn't that easy? I could have pointed you directly to the facts but then you wouldn't have performed the valuable exercise of verifying it for yourself.
Sadly you apparently still didn't consider it worth your time to understand how ads are crafted and then appear on Google's ad platform and thus you end up posting from ignorance.
Google isn't choosing the categories that a company selects to target their company's ads to. When a company wants to place an ad, and Apple was an example of an advertiser who would use Google's ad platform, the advertiser is the one creating the ad and ultimately choosing what categories they wish to market products and/or services. But Google won't give them the option of targeting sensitive health-related categories even if the advertiser would like to.
You should verify all that for yourself... Or simply continue posting from ignorance. Your choice.
So, you're conceding that Google scoops up sensitive health-related information on people, but asserting that they keep it for their own uses and just don't allow advertisers to target ads based on it? Otherwise your argument makes no sense, why would they "prohibit" advertisers from using data they don't collect?
I don't believe I said that at all. They prohibit their advertisers from collecting it as part of their ad campaign. They also prohibit collection of religious bent, sexual persuasion and a whole lot of other sensitive user information via ads placed by Google. https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
But deflection works of course so keep it up, you're doing great! "It's not you it's me" LOL
The emphasis was yours. First they couldn't target it, then you said the advertisers can't collect it, but you're dancing around the question of Google collecting it. And you're pretending i'm the one deflecting?
It seems odd that you would bold a statement that doesn't say what you meant, so I don't see any reason we should allow you to retract it.
Well of course they collect and store user health data, same as that "other OS" does. Is that problematic? It's not used for monetizing via ads which is what you continue claiming despite now recognizing that's not true. 1. Advertisers can't target sensitive categories. True just as I wrote. 2. Advertisers are prohibited from collecting it via a Google-provided ad platform. True just as I wrote.
You can no longer use the excuse that you just didn't know any better. Now you do.
As it stands Fitbit user data cannot be monetized for ad income. You claiming they will? Not true just as I wrote. Wouldn't you rather be accurate than post untruths?
Gatorguy, please do not ever again push the Google narrative to me. I have been on this site long enough to know how you will defend Google even when you know the company’s past behaviors prove the company will eventually admit it is using customer data for ad targeting.
Gatorguy, please do not ever again push the Google narrative to me. I have been on this site long enough to know how you will defend Google even when you know the company’s past behaviors prove the company will eventually admit it is using customer data for ad targeting.
And I've been here even longer than you, long enough to understand there's a relatively small contingent who has no intention of admitting to not knowing any better when corrections to "we all know" stuff gets posted. Other than the number of those posters that's not changed in nine years. I believe most readers prefer to understand things better rather than be mislead and the ones here with closed minds and intractable opinions are relatively rare. As a group we have a smart membership.
Google has always stated that customer data might be used for targeted advertising purposes. Their excellent search platform is paid for by companies using them for ad placement and Google will tell you so upfront. It's not hidden.
Gatorguy, please do not ever again push the Google narrative to me. I have been on this site long enough to know how you will defend Google even when you know the company’s past behaviors prove the company will eventually admit it is using customer data for ad targeting.
And I've been here even longer than you, long enough to understand there's a relatively small contingent who has no intention of admitting to not knowing any better when corrections to "we all know" stuff gets posted. Other than the number of those posters that's not changed in nine years. I believe most readers prefer to understand things better rather than be mislead and the ones here with closed minds and intractable opinions are relatively rare. As a group we have a smart membership.
Google has always stated that customer data might be used for targeted advertising purposes. Their excellent search platform is paid for by companies using them for ad placement and Google will tell you so upfront. It's not hidden.
And others (like me) have been here a lot longer than you Gatorguy. We know your techniques - like above where you are trying to 'correct' other users on their understanding of Google's euphemistically named privacy policies. You know as well as anyone that these policies can & often are changed overnight so arguing about the current wording is an exercise in futility. Once the policies have changed, the only available avenue to most people is to delete their account with all of the inconvenience that will cause ... and hope Google will actually delete your personal data like they say they will. I will say that Google is not as bad as Facebook in that regard, but that is a very low bar.
I imagine that leavingthebigg is alluding to Google's takeover of Nest and how that affected all of the existing Nest users. I note in a previous AI thread you didn't try the privacy policy angle or the 'whataboutApple' angle but tried to downplay the impact of ads (when you know as well as anyone here that the privacy implications are not the ads, but the pervasive tracking of the FANG giants). Google is as known for their 'mistakes' (also here) as they for their phenomenal reach & power in the tech sphere.
I have been a Fitbit user for a long time but after hearing the news of the Goog's acquisition I have immediately deleted my Fitbit account. If anyone else is interested, you can find out how to do so here. There is a 7 day stand down period where you can reverse the account deletion. Fitbit say that most of your personal account info is deleted within 30 days of the deletion request, but some data may take up to 90 days to delete.
Gatorguy, while I disagree with almost everything you write here, I do enjoy reading your posts are they always polite, well written and you provide a different viewpoint to the majority of the posters here. The last thing we need is another online echo chamber - so I look forward to more of your posts here on AI. You often write about the Credit Bureaus so I have learned quite a bit after reading your posts.
Gatorguy, please do not ever again push the Google narrative to me. I have been on this site long enough to know how you will defend Google even when you know the company’s past behaviors prove the company will eventually admit it is using customer data for ad targeting.
And I've been here even longer than you, long enough to understand there's a relatively small contingent who has no intention of admitting to not knowing any better when corrections to "we all know" stuff gets posted. Other than the number of those posters that's not changed in nine years. I believe most readers prefer to understand things better rather than be mislead and the ones here with closed minds and intractable opinions are relatively rare. As a group we have a smart membership.
Google has always stated that customer data might be used for targeted advertising purposes. Their excellent search platform is paid for by companies using them for ad placement and Google will tell you so upfront. It's not hidden.
And others (like me) have been here a lot longer than you Gatorguy.
I imagine that leavingthebigg is alluding to Google's takeover of Nest and how that affected all of the existing Nest users. I note in a previous AI thread you didn't try the privacy policy angle or the 'whataboutApple' angle but tried to downplay the impact of ads (when you know as well as anyone here that the privacy implications are not the ads, but the pervasive tracking of the FANG giants). Google is as known for their 'mistakes' (also here) as they for their phenomenal reach & power in the tech sphere.
Gatorguy, while I disagree with almost everything you write here, I do enjoy reading your posts are they always polite, well written and you provide a different viewpoint to the majority of the posters here. The last thing we need is another online echo chamber - so I look forward to more of your posts here on AI. You often write about the Credit Bureaus so I have learned quite a bit after reading your posts.
I totally understand those who are uncomfortable with the FANGS holding as much personal data as they do no matter what the intent is. I'm in that group myself. When 3 big trillion-dollar (or close to it) companies along with a social site become the defacto gate keepers for technology it makes me uneasy. On top of that stuff happens despite the best intentions. Look at Equifax and 150 million exposed personal accounts as an example, and Experion gave up another 15 million accounts with personal data just a few months later. No system can be 100% bulletproof. Heck as many breeches and data leaks as there's been in the last two years i'm not sure even a massive one today would make a big negative impact. There's likely all the information anyone would want about each one of us here already floating around somewhere on the internet. What's a little more? Yes, it is a sad commentary and acceptance.
Understood that we all want what we want as soon as we want it. There has to be ready repositories of the stuff we need to remember or save or know or be reminded of. I don't know what the answer is beyond storing it in the places that have shown themselves to be most secure, hack-resistant, and with economic reasons to do all they can to protect that data.
As for "other uses" to pay for what we're unwilling to open wallets for we need to vociferously insist the individual be separated from the marketing number since no viable replacement for advertising has yet reared its head. The anonymizing technologies that advertising really requires to protect personal privacy don't require a decade to graduate into industry standards and things like Federated Learning don't need to be tested for umpteen years in only a couple of services. We already know they work. Put them to work widely and thoroughly and now.
Look at Equifax and 150 million exposed personal accounts as an example, and Experion gave up another 15 million accounts with personal data just a few months later.
Comments
https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
See all the cool new facts you're discovering? A few more posts and you'll have no more excuse for posting FUD. How great will that be, huh?
But deflection works of course when you're losing an argument so don't stop now! "It's not you it's me" LOL
It seems odd that you would bold a statement that doesn't say what you meant, so I don't see any reason we should allow you to retract it.
The problem is Fitbit makes knockoff Apple Watches now down to band design.
At least Android Wear had unique designs and functionality and original Fitbits were, well, original.
Google may not even tinker with Fitbit and leave it as a separate company running Fitbit OS.
1. Advertisers can't target sensitive categories. True just as I wrote.
2. Advertisers are prohibited from collecting it via a Google-provided ad platform. True just as I wrote.
You can no longer use the excuse that you just didn't know any better. Now you do.
As it stands Fitbit user data cannot be monetized for ad income. You claiming they will? Not true just as I wrote. Wouldn't you rather be accurate than post untruths?
Google has always stated that customer data might be used for targeted advertising purposes. Their excellent search platform is paid for by companies using them for ad placement and Google will tell you so upfront. It's not hidden.
We know your techniques - like above where you are trying to 'correct' other users on their understanding of Google's euphemistically named privacy policies. You know as well as anyone that these policies can & often are changed overnight so arguing about the current wording is an exercise in futility. Once the policies have changed, the only available avenue to most people is to delete their account with all of the inconvenience that will cause ... and hope Google will actually delete your personal data like they say they will. I will say that Google is not as bad as Facebook in that regard, but that is a very low bar.
I have been a Fitbit user for a long time but after hearing the news of the Goog's acquisition I have immediately deleted my Fitbit account. If anyone else is interested, you can find out how to do so here. There is a 7 day stand down period where you can reverse the account deletion. Fitbit say that most of your personal account info is deleted within 30 days of the deletion request, but some data may take up to 90 days to delete.
Gatorguy, while I disagree with almost everything you write here, I do enjoy reading your posts are they always polite, well written and you provide a different viewpoint to the majority of the posters here. The last thing we need is another online echo chamber - so I look forward to more of your posts here on AI. You often write about the Credit Bureaus so I have learned quite a bit after reading your posts.
Understood that we all want what we want as soon as we want it. There has to be ready repositories of the stuff we need to remember or save or know or be reminded of. I don't know what the answer is beyond storing it in the places that have shown themselves to be most secure, hack-resistant, and with economic reasons to do all they can to protect that data.
As for "other uses" to pay for what we're unwilling to open wallets for we need to vociferously insist the individual be separated from the marketing number since no viable replacement for advertising has yet reared its head. The anonymizing technologies that advertising really requires to protect personal privacy don't require a decade to graduate into industry standards and things like Federated Learning don't need to be tested for umpteen years in only a couple of services. We already know they work. Put them to work widely and thoroughly and now.